How do you think the world will look like in 2070

[Steel Accord 6,660]

You shouldn't say things like that -- because you're not all knowing.

 

I never said the world would come to an end; I believe that this earth is without end. Nor am I a sadist that has preferred view on what humanity deserves. I'm afraid you're the one that is making wild assumptions here. As I said earlier, I hope I am wrong. I'm simply looking at the trends and where those trends lead. Could it change directions? Of course. Do I see any signs in a change of course? Unfortunately, no.

 

You're right, I did make some assumptions to your intent. My apologies. I don't see trends that lead to the end, nor even something bad. I see just the world carrying on as it always has.

[Malinter 3,064]

no western country wants a nuclear war... hell, the nukes don't even need to hit the ground to cause catastrophe as a global EMP surge would be economically devastating all by itself and take years to fix.

[Gestum 2,493]

The common man saved the world because he didn't assume others, the country he was at war with even, would willfully destroy the world. We are not at the height of the Cold War, there is no incentive for countries to use nuclear weapons on each other.

Well that common man wasn't that common. Petrov himself said that everyone of his colleagues would have reported it and thus start ww3.

 

And while we ain't on the hight of the Cold War right now, there's more things to start ww3. Peak oil for example.

Edited January 10, 2016 by Gestum

[Steel Accord 6,660]

Well that common man wasn't that common. Petrov himself said that everyone of his colleagues would have reported it and thus start ww3. And while we ain't on the hight of the Cold War right now, there's more things to start ww3. Peak oil for example.

 

The fact that we are still here despite those odds is exactly why I don't think nuclear war will happen. By all rights we shouldn't be here right now, yet we are. My point still stands, humanity doesn't want to go extinct, so the odds of anyone willfully initiating M.A.D. are astronomically improbable.

 

So peak oil will cause the downfall of civilization in it's totality rather than, say, massive but recoverable economic shift, maybe some technological regression, and a push for alternative energy?

no western country wants a nuclear war... hell, the nukes don't even need to hit the ground to cause catastrophe as a global EMP surge would be economically devastating all by itself and take years to fix.

 

Oh FINALLY somepony besides me actually pulling for the human race. You know sometimes I think people actually want the downfall of civilization for how much they defend it's likelihood. (Speaking in general not ((or at least not just)) this thread.)

Edited January 10, 2016 by Steel Accord

[MasterSpark95 430]

Woah, 2070 is a long way from now, so I wouldn't really think about it that much.

My guess would be: More advanced and better technology, maybe some human-like robots, people depending way too much on technology and being too lazy to discover stuff for themselves (Oh right, we already have that. :okiedokielokie:), more cellphones, maybe some hoverboards? I don't know, really.

Edited January 10, 2016 by iNachos10

[Gestum 2,493]

The fact that we are still here despite those odds is exactly why I don't think nuclear war will happen. By all rights we shouldn't be here right now, yet we are. My point still stands, humanity doesn't want to go extinct, so the odds of anyone willfully initiating M.A.D. are astronomically improbable.

 

 

So because someone didn't want to start ww3 and everyone else on his workforce would, humanity wants to live? I don't follow the logic here.

So peak oil will cause the downfall of civilization in it's totality rather than, say, massive but recoverable economic shift, maybe some technological regression, and a push for alternative energy?

Well that's what I believe. I believe that some country (usa) will invade another country in order to get the last drop of oil. And then another country will attack the invading country and then ww3 starts.

 

But even if ww3 don't start the climate change will finish us of.

Edited January 10, 2016 by Gestum

[Steel Accord 6,660]

 

 

So because someone didn't want to start ww3 and everyone else on his workforce would, humanity wants to live? I don't follow the logic here.

 

I'm sorry, I really don't know how else to break it down anymore. We never will be at that point where one finger on the button would launch the nukes because we already got that close once before, so obviously people don't want even the circumstances of that to happen again.

 

 

 

Well that's what I believe. I believe that some country (usa) will invade another country in order to get the last drop of oil. And then another country will attack the invading country and then ww3 starts. But even if ww3 don't start the climate change will finish us of.

 

And of course, we are the Great Satan of the world that will doom humanity as always in these prophecies. (Sarcasm.) Again, war is the first thing that any major country would do in the face of a crisis rather than trying to find a solution that doesn't require the loss of life or resources? If anything, peak oil is more likely to bring major powers together to try and solve the problem.

 

And how will climate change kill us? We survived the ice age and that was before we had heating and air conditioning.

[Gestum 2,493]

I'm sorry, I really don't know how else to break it down anymore. We never will be at that point where one finger on the button would launch the nukes because we already got that close once before, so obviously people don't want even the circumstances of that to happen again.

So because one man didn't want to report something we will never have a nuclear war? Also his colleagues would have reported it so it isn't that obvious that people don't want it.

Again, war is the first thing that any major country would do in the face of a crisis rather than trying to find a solution that doesn't require the loss of life or resources? If anything, peak oil is more likely to bring major powers together to try and solve the problem

Well, I'm not saying that war is the first thing that's going to happen. But I believe that it's the last thing that's going to happen.

 

And how will climate change kill us? We survived the ice age and that was before we had heating and air conditioning.

Well there's a couple of differences between the ice age and the climate change that we face. You see the ice age didn't make the whole world hard to live in. And there wasn't exactly 7 billion people during the ice age.

[Steel Accord 6,660]

 

 

So because one man didn't want to report something we will never have a nuclear war? Also his colleagues would have reported it so it isn't that obvious that people don't want it.

 

No because the political/military situation that by which Petrov saved the world won't happen again. Warfare is no longer about superpowers, it's decentralized, costly and bloody, but smaller. Nukes are an instrument of destruction the likes of which is completely obsolete in today's world.

 

 

Well, I'm not saying that war is the first thing that's going to happen. But I believe that it's the last thing that's going to happen.

 

Why? Why is it so certain that war will happen at all post peak oil? And even if it did, why does that constitute human extinction rather than a particularly bad regression, at the absolute worst? 

 

 

 

Well there's a couple of differences between the ice age and the climate change that we face. You see the ice age didn't make the whole world hard to live in. And there wasn't exactly 7 billion people during the ice age.

 

So people might die. It's terrible but again, how does decrease in the population come out to human extinction? Hell some that I have decidedly negative views on would say that's a good thing!

[Gestum 2,493]

No because the political/military situation that by which Petrov saved the world won't happen again.

Well there's Nato and Russia. It isn't that unlikely to happen again.

 

people might die. It's terrible but again, how does decrease in the population come out to human extinction? Hell some that I have decidedly negative views on would say that's a good thing!

Well it's not just a decrease in the human population, the whole ecosystem will fuck up. And I don't think that we can survive that.

 

Why? Why is it so certain that war will happen at all post peak oil? And even if it did, why does that constitute human extinction rather than a particularly bad regression, at the absolute worst? !

Because most wars are about recourses. And this time nukes will be flying.

 

This isn't going anywhere, maybe we should just agree to disagree.

Edited January 10, 2016 by Gestum

[Steel Accord 6,660]

Well there's Nato and Russia. It isn't that unlikely to happen again.

 

This isn't going anywhere, maybe we should just agree to disagree.

 

Disagree? Certainly. Humanity will NOT destroy itself or be laid low by the environment by 2070. I hold this in the most sincere and unshaken conviction.

Edited January 10, 2016 by Steel Accord

[Malinter 3,064]

You know, when people are like "oh noes, the oil is gone!" So what? We can still use wood to power shit hell even coal for another century or two. Plus renewable fuels for a few things.

 

Maybe people will actually start walking to places more. In the future, their will be no fat people because getting anywhere takes effort XD

[Sapphire Lightning 784]

By 2070?

 

Many resources will be so scarce that only the wealthy will be able to afford anything resembling a comfortable life. Water scarcity will lead to water wars. Oil scarcity will cause (more) oil wars. Much of the croplands will have been raped by then and will no longer be able to grow crops of any appreciable yield. There will be large scale starvation on much of Earth. Commodity crops like wheat and corn will most likely quadruple (adjusted for inflation) by then, and there will be no more government spending to make animal feed crops cheaper than cost of production. Meat and dairy costs will be more than 10x (adjusted for inflation) what they are now (partly due to governments not being able to subsidize animal feed like they do now and part because of the massive amounts of energy and cropland must be used to make a small amount of animal product). Nuclear power will go on the rise as coal and oil become prohibitively expensive to use for the grid. rolling blackouts will be common in much of the world (USA and developing world. Europe and Asia will not have to worry about this as much as there is a kinder view of nuclear power in those places). By this time, unless you are very very wealthy, it wont be which iPhone you will be buying next week, but whether or not you will be able to afford enough food, or even if there WILL be food available for sale.

 

Happy future!

[Twiggy 2,966]

@, @@chirox the pony, @@Gestum, @, @@Side Bird, @@Twiggy,    

 

Jesus Christ, lighten up the lot of you! We're bronies, we're supposed to be the optimistic side of the internet!

 

Me, I'm not qualified or educated enough to make even a solid prediction, but I can tell you with admantium clad certainty what 2070 won't be, extinction nor dystopia! People have predicted the end of the world, since the beginning of the world. And you know what? I'm sick of it, I truly am. Every generation thinks there's is somehow the last, yet every generation has proven wrong and the world's kept spinning. 

 

At least a portion of you are Star Trek fans as well, do you think Leonard Nimoy would look back on his own life and how things changed just in his own lifetime and think that we were on our way to something terrible or just annihilation? Where is that hope and optimism that our children will inherent something better than we have that my parents felt for me?

 

If I were to hazard a shot in the dark, I would say 2070 won't be that much different than right now. Maybe some watershed technology like the iphone or something at most. Not Star Trek or Mass Effect but nor Bladerunner or Mad Max, just another year in the saga of human history with it's own peaks and troughs for society and the individual. 

 

 

Yeah, exactly! I second the motion.

I agree. The future could go any way at this point. My post was simply meant to be humorous. Just a jab at the SJWs. That's also an unlikely future considering how fed up people are becoming with their crap.

[aoEAF2FBvC0MIo2Q 3,673]

Having been following a few trends, something interesting has been in my face for a while now. Consider this a partial explanation for my subdued optimism.

 

Energy Storage. More specifically, bulk energy storage. The technology is enhancing and probably in the next decade, today's Lithium-Ion batteries will look like today's Nickel-Metal Hydride batteries by comparison. I'm going to skip the technobabble and just talk about how and why affordable and scalable energy storage will shake everything up.

 

Energy storage technology is advancing and year by year, energy storage is becoming more affordable on a per-unit basis (often denoted in $/kWh). Energy storage is also pretty diverse. Aside from batteries, there are also Supercapacitors (a.k.a. Ultracapacitors), Flywheels, Compressed Air, Thermal energy storage and even Pumped Hydro energy storage. I'm just giving an idea of how diverse this field is and that development can come from multiple sides. Google them if you want to know more about each technology. There's also Hydrogen but that one still has a long way to go.

 

OK, so the costs are going to go down and the technology is advancing on multiple fronts. So what? For one thing, potent and affordable energy storage will make battery electric vehicles not just more affordable but also more useful as newer electric vehicles can cover longer distances before needing to recharge, as well as being able to recharge faster.

 

Then of course you can couple energy storage with renewable energy. Doing this, you can supply solar energy at night and provide wind energy even after the air has gone still before it picks up again. Even then, we are only scratching the surface of what energy storage that's affordable and scalable is capable of... The full economic potential of energy storage is still being worked out by industry but in a nutshell, see the following picture:

 

 

 

 

Keep a close eye on Renewable Energy + Storage because once that duo gets competitive with fossil fuels, the picture starts to look quite bleak for fossil fuels. If you worked out that using solar and/or wind energy and batteries will save you more money than staying hooked up to the utility, would you make the transition? Think about it.

 

Something else that's interesting. Remember "Peak Oil"? Turns out that the notion is backwards as it's not a peak in oil supply that's getting investors worried but a peak in oil demand.

Source (Bloomberg): http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2013-05-01/peak-oil-is-back-but-this-time-its-a-peak-in-demand

This was way back in 2013. The recent price crash in oil could in part be due to a lack of demand, as demand also negatively impacts oil prices.

 

I don't think fossil fuels will have much, if any place whatsoever in the future. It's really only a matter of time. 2020 could well be the decade where the inflection point is struck where this change hits critical mass. Once renewable energy coupled with storage outcompetes fossil fuels, it's game set and match. With oil becoming an archaic commodity few people will want, we're going to have to find a different resource to fight wars over.

Edited January 11, 2016 by SunBurn

[vampireponyprince 184]

I believe that there would definitely be an increase in Artificial Intelligence but not dramatically

more high tech probably pricier cars that run on electricity ( i hope for the environment sake)

architectural leaps and new concepts being developed

always a possibility of new genres of music too!

food probably wouldn't change all too much

[chirox the pony 1,336]

@, @@chirox the pony, @@Gestum, @, @@Side Bird, @@Twiggy,    

 

Jesus Christ, lighten up the lot of you! We're bronies, we're supposed to be the optimistic side of the internet!

 

Me, I'm not qualified or educated enough to make even a solid prediction, but I can tell you with admantium clad certainty what 2070 won't be, extinction nor dystopia! People have predicted the end of the world, since the beginning of the world. And you know what? I'm sick of it, I truly am. Every generation thinks there's is somehow the last, yet every generation has proven wrong and the world's kept spinning. 

 

At least a portion of you are Star Trek fans as well, do you think Leonard Nimoy would look back on his own life and how things changed just in his own lifetime and think that we were on our way to something terrible or just annihilation? Where is that hope and optimism that our children will inherent something better than we have that my parents felt for me?

 

If I were to hazard a shot in the dark, I would say 2070 won't be that much different than right now. Maybe some watershed technology like the iphone or something at most. Not Star Trek or Mass Effect but nor Bladerunner or Mad Max, just another year in the saga of human history with it's own peaks and troughs for society and the individual. 

 

 

Yeah, exactly! I second the motion.

So because I like a TV show I should therefor throw out all science and basically basic logic? Tell me when was the last time you saw an end of the world prediction that was actually based in science and not in religion of some kind? And yeah ignoring problems and hoping for the best always gets people through problems....always.

[NOX33 184]

Either a clean and green world where little to none countries are using fossil fuel and the rest of the world using renewable source of energy but with the current political problems that are happening still unresolved.

 

 

Or a fallout or metro 2033 kind of world where people would be fighting because of fossil fuel and the world would be fighting against one another just to survive.

[Steel Accord 6,660]

So because I like a TV show I should therefor throw out all science and basically basic logic? Tell me when was the last time you saw an end of the world prediction that was actually based in science and not in religion of some kind? And yeah ignoring problems and hoping for the best always gets people through problems....always.

 

What does religion have to do with this? I'm not talking about hoping for the best, I'm saying people are following Chicken Little logic, so sure that the sky is falling because of comparatively small things.

 

That basic logic is not hyperbolic. Being certain "the world will end within my lifetime" doesn't seem at least a little silly?

[SilyGeny 369]

Hopefully I'll be dead by then, but earth would probably be in a huge global war because of natural resources such as trees water and plants...

[Twilight Dirac 721]

So this is it then? I'm the one on this thread that thinks humanity is not rotten to the core, stupid, in anyway deserves mass extinction, and will not suffer that fate?

 

We're here, we just weren't around last weekend.  It looks like Malinter and Sunburn have you covered in any event.   As Sunburn has already pointed out, peak oil appears to be a fallacy.  Google yourself global proven oil reserves and you should find a plot something like this

 

 

As you can see, the oil available to the global economy is actually going up. And oil isn't the be all end all of energy production in any event.  Properly matured nuclear fission technology would make the internal combustion engine look positively archaic, and when we crack nuclear fusion we will be sitting pretty energy wise for a very long time.  In the interim there are plenty advances in green energy and more efficient fossil fuel technology to see us to a nice gradual transition of oil until we make the big leap to nuclear energy.

 

As far as other natural resources, ever hear of the Simon-Ehrlich wager?  Ehrlich predicted humanity would soon run out of resources because of over population and overuse. A man named Simon challenged Ehrlich to a bet based on his predictions.  They picked the commodities copper, tungsten, nickel, chromium and tin.  If the commodity prices rose between 1980 and 1990, Simon would pay Ehrlich the difference based the initial and final commodity prices, and if the prices fell Ehrlich would pay Simon.  As it turned out, Simon was right as the prices fell for all five commodities and he won the bet.  Its a neat little demonstration that the cost of most commodities are being pushed downward.  Human resourcefulness always seems to overcome the inherent scarcity of natural resources.

 

As for global politics, well that never looks pretty.  But consider that during the 20th century we had overcome two world wars, the nuclear scare with the Cold War, the horrors of both Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, this century is looking positively tame in comparison.  I mean what are we dealing with now, ISIS?  That's it?  Don't get me wrong, they're evil jerks and all, but I will take them over having to deal with the Nazis any day of the week.  We are not going to need to break out the nukes to deal with ISIS.  It doesn't even appear that the locals like them.  They may very well be put down by the regional Middle Eastern powers without any intervention on our part.

 

And that brings us to the last Horseman of the Apocalypse, Global Warming.  So here is my 2070 prediction:  In 2070 Anthropogenic Global Warming will share the same fate as the much maligned Luminiferous Aether, an ill conceived hypothesis enjoying considerable support that stubbornly refused to be reconciled with measurement no matter how hard we tried.  I will not miss its passing.

Edited January 11, 2016 by Twilight Dirac

[chirox the pony 1,336]

What does religion have to do with this? I'm not talking about hoping for the best, I'm saying people are following Chicken Little logic, so sure that the sky is falling because of comparatively small things.

 

That basic logic is not hyperbolic. Being certain "the world will end within my lifetime" doesn't seem at least a little silly?

Nuclear weapons, pollution, resource issues, overpopulation, these are "comparatively small" things to you?

[Steel Accord 6,660]

Nuclear weapons, pollution, resource issues, overpopulation, these are "comparatively small" things to you?

 

Certainly not, but they aren't issues that are completely insurmountable by human civilization.

[chirox the pony 1,336]

Certainly not, but they aren't issues that are completely insurmountable by human civilization.

Global warming? The governments are doing very little to stop that and once the damage is done, it's done. Plus there hasn't been enough investment in alternative energies and the resources are continuing to decrease. And who knows what will happen to the planet when all the oil is gone. 

[Steel Accord 6,660]

Global warming? The governments are doing very little to stop that and once the damage is done, it's done. Plus there hasn't been enough investment in alternative energies and the resources are continuing to decrease. And who knows what will happen to the planet when all the oil is gone. 

 

The planet will recover, it's us that are in jeopardy and even then, if we could build bunkers that can survive nukes and recover from natural disasters that have already claimed thousands of lives and destroyed homes, we can survive climate change through the correct use of engineering. (Sea walls, buoyed buildings, what have you.) See above for the oil business, but even if it did start to run dry, I imagine that would only make people invest more in alternative energies. Even if we don't have new sustainable power, humanity got along fine without it for thousands of years. So we may experience some regression but I hardly equate a return to coal trains and no wifi the end of humanity as a species and civilization.