# Off-Topic Discussion > Extended Discussion >  >  How do you imagine the future?

## Original Poster

Several possible ways to answer this question:

1. Where are we headed? From a realistic perspective, what will the future of humanity look like?

2. How could we improve? In what practical ways would it be possible for us to create a better future?

3. What would your ideal future humanity be like? Ignoring the difficulties in transforming civilization, if you could change it to be however you wanted it to be? What would you do?

There's also multiple subjects to consider: Technological, political, cultural, city-planning, etc..

----------


## MadMonkey

One technology I think will play a big roll in the future will be the ability to interface with computers directly with our thoughts and send signals directly to our brains. There are so many ways it would change our daily lives that I think it would cause a major jump in technology. I have no idea how long it will take for us to implement something like that practically. We still have a ton to learn about how the brain actualy works for us to model it or distinguish what one is actually thinking. I think we will stream most of our computer technology so the main computer is located elsewhere sort of like this OnLive Desktop - Simple PC App Access from Anywhere 

Think of how we use smart phones today but waaaay more powerful. Plus you never have to take them out of your pocket or may be they are built right into your body. Visuals could be displayed on a contact or even directly in your minds eye. Technologies can be applied in so many ways that as we learn knew things there are an exponential amount of knew applications.

----------


## Original Poster

I would like to see areas outside of cities return to a more natural environment. It'd be cool to see the cities transform into masterpieces of technology, but I think we need fewer cities and especially fewer small cities. It'd be nice to see the population drop to about 1-2 billion and have people live both in the cities as well as in the wilderness or at least in environments closer to the wilderness with less paved roads and to put it generally, less rectangles. People could migrate back and forth at their own whim and eventually settle in a location they feel most at home in.

Or this:

"Imagine," Tyler said, "stalking elk past department store windows and stinking racks of beautiful rotting dresses and tuxedos on hangers; you'll wear leather clothes that will last you the rest of your life, and you'll climb the wrist-thick kudzu vines that wrap the Sears Tower. Jack and the beanstalk, you'll climb up through the dripping forest canopy and the air will be so clean you'll see tiny figures pounding corn and laying strips of venison to dry in the empty car pool lane of an abandoned superhighway stretching eight-lanes-wide and August-hot for a thousand miles."

----------


## Wolfwood

1. An inevitably augmented one. Though the type of augmentations will be largely dictated by military and health/medicinal goals.  

Also, is it fair to assert that the 'working class' tend to have more offspring than the middle class? Even if similar, given also that there are more working class than middle class, there will be more working class offspring. Now, even if we assume erroneously that potential intelligence is not largely genetic, then it still follows that those who have ready access to private tutors, great nutrition, and countless books etc will come closer to their intellectual potential. That is to say, working class families do not generally have such privileges, whilst middle class do. Ergo, middle class families end up with those reaching their intellectual potential, and the working class generally don't (not to say they won't be successful - different matter entirely). Ultimately then, the general intelligence of humans should decrease. I posit that the only reason there has been a clear increase in intelligence is because of the technological revolution and reliance on electronic gadgets for intellectual assistance. I can't help, then, but see a future where the general population have decreased organic brain intelligence, but an apparent overall increase in intelligence due to inorganic augmentation. 

I'm not making a judgement on this view, for arguably, it is the next stage in human evolution: from man using a basic club as a tool, to man making tools capable of providing somewhat independent assistance, to ultimately man merging with his tools. Thus becoming one and the same.

----------


## Original Poster

I think the hope is that society itself will gradually increase in intelligence, not because the intelligent people have any hope of outbreeding the unintelligent, but because educational standards will generally rise. A working class person will ideally be much more intelligent in 10 years than they are now. Perhaps it will level out, but the fact is people are more literate now than ever before in human history, and more people are reading than ever before as well. You could argue that more young people are opting for movies and TV instead of books, but that's only in our culture. Around the developing world, education levels are increasing rapidly. It may level off as they develop to the point where they also choose the screen over the page but I think over all the Idiocracy dystopia is unlikely.

----------


## Wolfwood

And if I could change something for the better, then--I think this came from _The Glass Bead Game_, H. Hess--university would be an undetermined duration. You would be allowed to stay there, by default, so long as you conduct research in the field of your choice and further the subject knowledge. Graduation would thus be a voluntary act - thereby allowing people a choice between traditional work, and that of furthering a subject knowledge.

It could be said this would be impractical or seemingly impossible to implement, or maybe not. But if it could be this way, somehow, then I think it'd be awesome.

----------


## Original Poster

Yeah that'd be cool.

I'd like to see college as less necessary in general and see a more anarcho-syndicalist society where businesses are run by the employees and for most businesses, something closer to an apprenticeship takes place so universities are only used for practitioners that need extensive schooling such as researchers, lawyers and doctors.

----------


## Wolfwood

> I think the hope is that society itself will gradually increase in intelligence, not because the intelligent people have any hope of outbreeding the unintelligent, but because educational standards will generally rise. A working class person will ideally be much more intelligent in 10 years than they are now. Perhaps it will level out, but the fact is people are more literate now than ever before in human history, and more people are reading than ever before as well. You could argue that more young people are opting for movies and TV instead of books, but that's only in our culture. Around the developing world, education levels are increasing rapidly. It may level off as they develop to the point where they also choose the screen over the page but I think over all the Idiocracy dystopia is unlikely.



Indeed - though it is debatable whether we're observing a genetic change in potential intelligence, or merely that 'apparent effect' due to technology granting greater availability of knowledge, e.g., the internet, wiki etc. Such that intellectual potential (genetic) may not have increased, but due to accessibility of knowledge, humans can move closer to their intellectual potential dictated by their genetics.  That is to say, if each individual has X genetic potential, and, say, hypothetically reached 1/8X, and then with more books and computers available, increased that to 1/4X....until eventually, with better education, lots of internet articles etc it was 1/1X, it would imply a fundamental increase in intelligence, but that would not be the case. And intellectual potential is mostly genetic, so if the 'lesser' genes were mostly perpetuated (whoever has them), then this increasing effect should likely level off....until augmentation is literally altering one's genetic intellectual potential.

lol, fuck knows where I'm trying to go with this. I haven't slept in 35 odd hours, so... forgive me and excuse any mindlessness.

----------


## Original Poster

I think the genetic effect is rather minute in regard to intelligence. One's genes does very little to determine their position in society, and therefore their access to a good education.

I think the desire the intelligent have to raise everyone to their level of education will make the biggest difference. If people continue to assume others must pull themselves up by their boot-straps then society will decay. If they utilize their intelligence, skill and capital to build a ladder between the classes, such as Carnegie advocated, we'll find the general intelligence level increases.

----------


## Wolfwood

> Yeah that'd be cool.
> 
> I'd like to see college as less necessary in general and see a more anarcho-syndicalist society where businesses are run by the employees and for most businesses, something closer to an apprenticeship takes place so universities are only used for practitioners that need extensive schooling such as researchers, lawyers and doctors.



Yes, apprenticeship makes most sense for most jobs - because, at the moment, making it necessary that one must first go to university/college is essentially separating one's education from work (despite the education supposedly being for the work; supposedly intricately linked). Furthermore, it would allow education in the relevant areas to be far more digestible: Applying for an apprenticeship involving cognitive psychology means you'd learn just that; whereas of now, one studies psychology in all its forms, from social, to biological, to clinical etc etc. Effectively bloat-ware if you're wishing to work in a specific area.

----------


## Wolfwood

> I think the genetic effect is rather minute in regard to intelligence. One's genes does very little to determine their position in society, and therefore their access to a good education.
> 
> I think the desire the intelligent have to raise everyone to their level of education will make the biggest difference. If people continue to assume others must pull themselves up by their boot-straps then society will decay. If they utilize their intelligence, skill and capital to build a ladder between the classes, such as Carnegie advocated, we'll find the general intelligence level increases.



Ah, that is contingent on whether you attribute success or position in society to intelligence, and say whether you classify intelligence as one's ability to be successful in society. That'd make a lot of hermits living in poverty inevitably stupid, which obviously can't out-rightly be said.

'Raw' intellectual potential is largely genetic, as far as I remember. I'll have to find the articles, otherwise I may continue to sound silly. As it is anyway, we humans don't like to attribute much to genetics despite truth because it causes separation of people, and in some cases can be akin to saying: 'Give up, you're fucked from the beginning'. Obviously intelligent people may not be rational people (which is where success or position in society, may come more into it).

----------


## Original Poster

Intelligence is such an arbitrary concept I don't even see how it's possible to attribute it to genetics. You may be around 50% likely to inherit a certain sort of intelligence but there is no linear scale of intelligence.

----------


## Wolfwood

Yeah, I somewhat agree. If intelligence is not functional, then it's not something many would readily subscribe to, nor would it have any real utility. To release it from such arbitrary applications, it seems necessary to link it to a functional frame.

----------


## Original Poster

In which case a better terminology would be aptitude or ease toward mastery. The best argument one can make is that some people are genetically predestined to have an easier time obtaining mastery of certain functions and a more difficult time with other functions.

However neuroscience is also showing how much environment plays a role. Generally as a rule I assume genes are about 50% of the game because of research done on adopted kids. It's strange though, for instance if a child's biological father is schizophrenic and their adopted father is not, they are twice as likely to be schizophrenic as someone who's biological father is not. Reverse that, and the chances remain about the same. So if a child's biological father is not schizophrenic but their adopted father is, they're also twice as likely to be schizophrenic as the control group. However, if someone's biological father AND adopted father were both schizophrenic, the child is something like 6 times more likely to be schizophrenic than the control group. So once again the game is too complex to deal with any basic parameters, but there are trends and the trend shows a child born with proficient aptitude but raised in a less viable environment has about the same chances as a child without that aptitude but placed into an environment that enables them to thrive.

----------


## Wolfwood

And so following such a trend, those with the genetic aptitude and thriving environment are at a large advantage compared to the either/or of genetic aptitude and thriving environment. It just makes me wonder if, typically, a child with that genetic aptitude will end up in a thriving environment, based mostly on the fact that said genetic aptitude comes from the parents - who are, due to their genetic aptitude, more likely to have decent paid career (assumption). On the reverse, that is why it is indeed important to provide, not only decent schooling for all walks of life, but also all of the accessory courses, extra tutoring and text books...for free. I mean, 20-50 quid/$ text books aren't helping for instance. Nonetheless, we should all be glad the internet exists to circumvent a lot of text book purchases, and with some online forums, even mitigate the use of private tutors.

----------


## Original Poster

You have a point. If we want the intelligence of the entire society to increase, people need to invest in the education of the greater community to higher degree rather than just utilizing them for personal profit.

----------


## DrunkenArse

I'm working on solving the biggest problem facing humanity today: "Why isn't everybody buying and selling stuff over _my_ website." Just think of all the money I'm losing every second. This is a major problem but I think I have the solution in hand.

After I solve that (I'll be pitching in the fall I hope) I'm going to surplant public education with my own system from the ground up. I'll be doing similar things for the health-care, food and housing industries.

So in twenty years tops, we're gonna be living in a utopia.

----------


## Wolfwood

The fact that the population is continuously increasing means either: denser industrial areas, or the destruction of some wilderness for a radial increase of an industrial area. It feels good when you can find that area where no man nor machine is - just you, your thoughts, and the blissful company of nature. Therefore, at least in this regard, the future will be worse (for me).

----------


## DrunkenArse

> The fact that the population is continuously increasing means either: denser industrial areas, or the destruction of some wilderness for a radial increase of an industrial area. It feels good when you can find that area where no man nor machine is - just you, your thoughts, and the blissful company of nature. Therefore, at least in this regard, the future will be worse (for me).



I think that building up and ultimately out (as in to space) will solve the poplation problem. I would expect to be able to decrease the average population areas for urban areas while at the same time moving more people into urban environments using these tools.

----------


## MadMonkey

> 1. An inevitably augmented one. Though the type of augmentations will be largely dictated by military and health/medicinal goals.  
> 
> Also, is it fair to assert that the 'working class' tend to have more offspring than the middle class? Even if similar, given also that there are more working class than middle class, there will be more working class offspring. Now, even if we assume erroneously that potential intelligence is not largely genetic, then it still follows that those who have ready access to private tutors, great nutrition, and countless books etc will come closer to their intellectual potential. That is to say, working class families do not generally have such privileges, whilst middle class do. Ergo, middle class families end up with those reaching their intellectual potential, and the working class generally don't (not to say they won't be successful - different matter entirely). Ultimately then, the general intelligence of humans should decrease. I posit that the only reason there has been a clear increase in intelligence is because of the technological revolution and reliance on electronic gadgets for intellectual assistance. I can't help, then, but see a future where the general population have decreased organic brain intelligence, but an apparent overall increase in intelligence due to inorganic augmentation. 
> 
> I'm not making a judgement on this view, for arguably, it is the next stage in human evolution: from man using a basic club as a tool, to man making tools capable of providing somewhat independent assistance, to ultimately man merging with his tools. Thus becoming one and the same.



You can't really say that working class citizens are inherently less smart than middle and upper class citizens. Some people may be very smart but be born into a family with less money. Also some people may very well choose to not go to college or have a working class job because that is what they want to do with their life, not because they are stupid. Also, as far as I know, intelligence isn't effected all that much by genetics. Even if it was and all working class people were genetically less intelligent it would take thousands of years for it to have a any kind of noticeable effect on the general intelligence of mankind.

----------


## Xei

If trends continue there won't be a population problem. Most countries are rapidly reaching the level of development of the West, and at that point countries tend to develop sustainable or even shrinking populations. In fact the population story of the last few years has been a surprising fall in the growth rates of undeveloped countries.

----------


## Wolfwood

> You can't really say that working class citizens are inherently less smart than middle and upper class citizens. Some people may be very smart but be born into a family with less money. Also some people may very well choose to not go to college or have a working class job because that is what they want to do with their life, not because they are stupid. Also, as far as I know, intelligence isn't effected all that much by genetics. Even if it was and all working class people were genetically less intelligent it would take thousands of years for it to have a any kind of noticeable effect on the general intelligence of mankind.



I didn't say they were inherently stupid.

"Some people may be very smart but be born into a family with less money" - Indeed, so less privileges (i.e., less environmental advantage), so how are these people smart? Genetics or lucky exposure. Fair enough, intelligence is a dodgy thing to define; however, if we accept, as Omnis Dei noted, that it is genetic aptitude, you'll find a genetic basis does play a large part as does environment; there is interplay.

Yes, it would take many many years, but that is the point of this discussion, no? To discuss humanity's future, which I wouldn't classify as 10 years from now lol.

Fyi, I am from a typical working class family, and believe me, I see how many babies others have. I live amongst these people - unemployed single mums or duos have babies, in some part, to gain income. A woman four doors down is pregnant with her 9th now, different man. More income for more babies, yet this should dissolve across the amount of babies due to more needs from more babies. However, instead, you see a decreasing consideration for the children, and an increase in her weight and smoking habits. That's 9 humans instantly disadvantaged because of some fat idiot. None of the children go to school.....ah it's a sad case. And that's only speaking of one where I live. 

I think the point is that even if you refuse to attribute any intelligence/aptitude to genetics, one can easily argue that if children are not exposed to intellectually demanding topics during their 'developmental stage' (where the brain is highly plastic), they will then be quite stupid further on, e.g., like the kids above not going to school. Therefore, that is 9 children from one idiot, who will most likely become/remain idiots because their brain wasn't exposed to the right material at the right age. 

Ultimately, then, even if all children were born with equal brain potential (not true), there is a quick divergence when some are exposed to demanding material during high brain plasticity, whilst others are exposed to such material beyond the critical stage. And the amount and intensity of exposure is largely down to the parents' choice (thus, their intelligence or rationality), and the parents' financial position - compare my parents sending me to an absolute pikey school (simple because it was closest) to my parents either having the rationality or money to send me to a boarding school/private school/grammar school. lol my school was called a fking sports college because that was all we were good at (well, I was shite at sports).

----------


## DrunkenArse

> So in twenty years tops, we're gonna be living in a utopia.



This came off as overly exuberant. What I meant to say is that in twenty years, people that are willing to value the well being of others as being of equal value to their own and use rational thought to do it will be living in a utopia and probably well on their way to space.

People that are only willing to value the well being of others as being of equal value to their own but who can't or don't want to use rational thought to do it will get moderately subsidized so that they can go about their flighty, effervescent lives in peace and without causing too much harm. 

Everybody else can pretty fuck off and starve to death in Siberia for all I care. I always forget about these people anyways so I't no surprise that I originally mis-stated my intent.

----------


## Linkzelda

> 1. Where are we headed? From a realistic perspective, what will the future of humanity look like?



We'll be more concerned with sustainability  for future generations when we realize we're going to run out of resources eventually.





> 2. How could we improve? In what practical ways would it be possible for us to create a better future?



When we realize that there is no such thing as an indefinite and timeless enemy, and the only reason we may have conflicts with each other is because human beings as enemies are only relative, not endless.

It's just hatred and how the times are at a certain point that constantly changes how we perceive what the future will be.

So if we realize that how we respond to the given time changes how the future will turn out to be, then we can start making improvements.





> 3. What would your ideal future humanity be like? Ignoring the difficulties in transforming civilization, if you could change it to be however you wanted it to be? What would you do?



Everyone would feel whole again, no one will be left behind, because it's the same feeling of not having enough power that can be controlled in moderation that creates more hatred towards others.

If people with power are given the luxury to be kind or hateful towards others, why not present it to everyone else? It's not as if one person is going to live for thousands of years, once they're dead, someone is going to replace them inevitably.

But I don't mean power as in controlling others or ruling the world, just having competence in defending what you believe in, but also acknowledging what others think, and realizing that sometimes, our own views may not always be right in all cases.

Edit: And seeing other people's perspectives to sharpen your own.

----------


## saltyseedog

1. I think we as humans are very quickly destroying earth and polluting the environment and breeding like rabbits growing and growing. And if there isn't some kind of shift in thinking on a large scale in the next 100 to 200 years we are very likely to be fucked. There are so many ways it all could collapse. Nothing really makes sense about how the world works now anyways. People don't dig deep enough into the meaning of their existence or question things. Rather we sort of take on the burdens of past thoughts which are taught to us. And we keep the cycle going.

2. I think one way humanity could improve is by willfully destroying morality of our cultures. And doing whatever pleases us without concern for the law and a higher authority's judgement. In recent times it already seems there is a sort of atheistic belief system that's growing. And people prefer logical answers and objective views more than the opinion of a higher authority. Individuality in thought is more valued. Having the equal right to a different perspective. 
But, people need to wake up. We are fed so much lies. It's like modern societies are a swarm of bullshit and distractions. Materialism and stupid things that are really unfulfilling. We live a toxic unnatural environment. Are fed toxic food that causes illness. And live out repetitive boring lives, that are not spiritually satisfying.

3. An ideal future would be one in which human's could share with one another out of love. There is a huge imbalance of wealth. And misplaced desire. The planet spends over a trillion dollars in war each year. Something that causes suffering and destruction. When all of that money and power could be used to help out poorer people. Just use the money for good things. If we stopped hording and started sharing there would be more than enough for everyone. And we wouldn't be so inclined to do careless things out of the motivation to get what we desire. 
The whole system based on competition is shit. We need to work together and love one another. Not compete. We don't need to fight one another to survive.

----------


## Sornaensis

Exactly as it is portrayed in Wing Commander: Privateer.

To the letter.

----------

