Jump to content
Banner by ~ SFyr

How do you think the world will look like in 2070


Lithophila

Recommended Posts

See? Reform is not an impossible goal, and raising education would obviously help in more areas than just reducing the likelihood of crime. A part of getting that started though is belief though, after all, if you don't believe society can change, how are you going to change it any other way besides (ironically) force?

 

On my side, gun owners and supporters like myself could stand to be a might less paranoid and take some responsibility. (Yes, this mass shooting is not your individual fault, but don't you think there's elements of the community that could stand to maybe be discussed about in regards to said tragedy?!)

Agreed. as a firearm owner myself, I can see a kind of culture that surrounds the NRA and others who seem to see any form of reform as an attack on guns, and by extension anybody who uses them. 

  • Brohoof 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed. as a firearm owner myself, I can see a kind of culture that surrounds the NRA and others who seem to see any form of reform as an attack on guns, and by extension anybody who uses them. 

 

When they really shouldn't, yeah. Huh . . . this actually turned out better than I thought it would. Thank you Dino. I don't know about you, but I'm going to write a letter to my representative and local NRA chapter. It's not much, but it's a start.

  • Brohoof 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd invest in better tech. For all those numerical models, the physical evidence points the other way. Keep in mind, for the most part, models only present the theoretical, while the physical represents the actual.

 

Those aren't my models, those are the models used by the IPCC.  You should be able to find similar traces in chapter 9 of the IPCC 4th assessment report.  The black line is an average of those models.  The dotted green and blue lines are surface/sea and satellite temperature measurements respectively.  As you can see, the IPCC models were predicting an acceleration in the warming trend observed for the period 1980 - 2000 at the beginning of the 21st century.  What happened instead is that the warming has mostly halted.  There is all sorts of debate on why this is or if the warming really has halted for the past decade, but when you predict increases in the rate of warming and you instead get decreases, it looks kind of bad.

 

It is apparent that these models don't work.  The physics needs to be re-evaluated, new climate projections need to be made and the whole thing tested again.  Until this sort of test takes, the models have not been validated and the hypothesis they are attempting to prove remains dubious.  Until these projections can  reproduce data, it would be unwise to base our actions on anthropogenic global warming, because our underlying understanding of the issue at hand is incorrect.

 

 

 

Well, less mass shootings would be a bit idealistic, I know, but I can dream, right?

 

 

Perhaps these shootings are a result of excess gun control, as they tend to occur in places where the population has been systemically been stripped of all weapons and will provide no resistance against a would be mass murderer.  More to the point though, it seems largely irrelevant to much of the rest of your post, which was about global warming related doom.

 

 

 

84%?   They pay less now than they did under President Eisenhower! Under Eisenhower (a conservative, mind you), they paid 90% income tax!

 

A tad excessive, isn't it?  I think paying 40% of everything you earned is more than fair.  Its not there fault the government is unable to properly manage the money they give it. 

 

 

 

And China is actually doing more to move towards green energy than we are. That's odd, ain't it?   

 

Just because China erects a few solar panels does not mean they treat their environment well:

 

hongkongskyline12__880.jpg

 

china-bad-pollution-climate-change-11__8

 

china-bad-pollution-climate-change-28__8

 

Good stewards of the environment China is not. 

 

 

 

Also, it's not an ideology, it's science. The difference is you can prove it. 

 

Increased gun control, aggressive tax codes, restrictions on capitalism and emulating European countries are not science, they are public policy positions typically consistent with a left/liberal ideology.  The only policies you mentioned that would have a direct impact of global warming if it were true would be green energy and population control.  Perhaps this was just your version of an ideal society, but they way it presented makes it appear that it is necessary to adopt all these positions to avert our climate apocalypse.

Edited by Twilight Dirac
  • Brohoof 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those aren't my models, those are the models used by the IPCC.  You should be able to find similar traces in chapter 9 of the IPCC 4th assessment report.  The black line is an average of those models.  The dotted green and blue lines are surface/sea and satellite temperature measurements respectively.  As you can see, the IPCC models were predicting an acceleration in the warming trend observed for the period 1980 - 2000 at the beginning of the 21st century.  What happened instead is that the warming has mostly halted.  There is all sorts of debate on why this is or if the warming really has halted for the past decade, but when you predict increases in the rate of warming and you instead get decreases, it looks kind of bad.

 

It is apparent that these models don't work.  The physics needs to be re-evaluated, new climate projections need to be made and the whole thing tested again.  Until this sort of test takes, the models have not been validated and the hypothesis they are attempting to prove remains dubious.  Until these projections can  reproduce data, it would be unwise to base our actions on anthropogenic global warming, because our underlying understanding of the issue at hand is incorrect.

Warming hasn't slowed down, not at all. Just because it still gets cold now and then doesn't mean the warming trend hasn't stopped. In fact, the thermometer has read that it's getting warmer every year. 2014 was the warmest year on record, 2015 is projected to have been even warmer.  

 

 

Perhaps these shootings are a result of excess gun control, as they tend to occur in places where the population has been systemically been stripped of all weapons and will provide no resistance against a would be mass murderer.  More to the point though, it seems largely irrelevant to much of the rest of your post, which was about global warming related doom.

Decidedly the opposite. The UK and Australia have next to no mass shootings, yet also have super strict gun control laws.

 

 

 

A tad excessive, isn't it?  I think paying 40% of everything you earned is more than fair.  Its not there fault the government is unable to properly manage the money they give it.

 Republic President Dwight D. Eisenhower didn't seem to think so. Interestingly, we also had one of the nations greatest economic times while he was president.

 

 

Just because China erects a few solar panels does not mean they treat their environment well:

-series of pics- 

Good stewards of the environment China is not.

 Well, at least they're putting up solar panels in stead of banning them.

 

 

 

Increased gun control, aggressive tax codes, restrictions on capitalism and emulating European countries are not science, they are public policy positions typically consistent with a left/liberal ideology.  The only policies you mentioned that would have a direct impact of global warming if it were true would be green energy and population control.  Perhaps this was just your version of an ideal society, but they way it presented makes it appear that it is necessary to adopt all these positions to avert our climate apocalypse.

Actually, they're political science. 

 

Also, because I don't think you quite understood my original post, I was considering many different parts of the future, including economic, societal, and geographic possibilities. Things like economic collapse, worsening in radicalism, China's growing economy, the way Europe tends to operate in general. 

  • Brohoof 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, at least they're putting up solar panels in stead of banning them.

 

Actually speaking from someone who has a friend in China. Dirac's right. She says the place she lives in works is one of the few places near where people don't need to wear protective masks and can still see the sky. 

 

Also, because I don't think you quite understood my original post, I was considering many different parts of the future, including economic, societal, and geographic possibilities. Things like economic collapse, worsening in radicalism, China's growing economy, the way Europe tends to operate in general. 

 

True, it wasn't all just one thing, but there were parts that seemed rather anti-American, suggesting our way of life is corrupt and can't be saved while Europe will be "utopian" and "what the United States should have been." 

 

Rather than, as I've been saying, laying out the problem but then providing a theoretical solution. (And I admit I'm with Dirac on this one too. Not that we can't learn from other nations, but to just do as they do like a mirror seems a massive betrayal.) 

 

@@Twilight Dirac,

 

While I am with you Dirac. As I've demonstrated with Dinos, he's not beyond reason. By all means let's keep championing that we are all not screwed, but let's also maybe show some good ol' brony improbable internet diplomacy.

Edited by Steel Accord
  • Brohoof 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually speaking from someone who has a friend in China. Dirac's right. She says the place she lives in works is one of the few places near where people don't need to wear protective masks and can still see the sky. 

Well, I don't deny the place is an environmental hellhole, but the point I was making was that they're trying to turn things around rather than simply ignoring the problem, hoping it will go away. We've come a long way from rivers of fire in Ohio, but, potentially, we Americans could be leading the world in green energy instead of playing catch up to it. Frankly, I feel like we've settled for "eh, good 'nuf". The America I love never settled for "Good enough". 

  • Brohoof 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I don't deny the place is an environmental hellhole, but the point I was making was that they're trying to turn things around rather than simply ignoring the problem, hoping it will go away. We've come a long way from rivers of fire in Ohio, but, potentially, we Americans could be leading the world in green energy instead of playing catch up to it. Frankly, I feel like we've settled for "eh, good 'nuf". The America I love never settled for "Good enough". 

 

Agreed again, banning solar panels is ridiculous. If anything it should be admired as it makes an individual home completely self-sufficient, free, and independent. And while we may not be leading the world, watch any episode of Mad Men that involves walking outside and you'll see just how much even the act of recycling has become second nature by now even to people who don't particularly care.

  • Brohoof 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed again, banning solar panels is ridiculous. If anything it should be admired as it makes an individual home completely self-sufficient, free, and independent. And while we may not be leading the world, watch any episode of Mad Men that involves walking outside and you'll see just how much even the act of recycling has become second nature by now even to people who don't particularly care.

 

It's funny how little general media and the public at large bother to take note of the changes people have undertaken in the last decade alone in regards to recycling and reusable energy. I remember growing up how most of this was practically non-existent. Leaded petrol was still freely available at service stations, Bins were just "general waste" only, no sign of the recyclable materials or plastic/paper disposal etc. Honestly it wasn't very long ago at all where the world was acting with far more ignorance than what we have now, yet the general attitude of most media and such continues to be one of "We're stuck on this one railroad to environmental destruction and there are no diverting tracks in sight."

 

Uhh, actually, I think there have been many changes to how we've handled environmentalism in the the last couple decades, is there any particular reason why you feel that's worth glossing over? When the general attitude appears to be one of "Hey! Here's how well you're not handling the problem!" well can you really blame people for becoming so cynical about it?

  • Brohoof 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's funny how little general media and the public at large bother to take note of the changes people have undertaken in the last decade alone in regards to recycling and reusable energy. I remember growing up how most of this was practically non-existent. Leaded petrol was still freely available at service stations, Bins were just "general waste" only, no sign of the recyclable materials or plastic/paper disposal etc. Honestly it wasn't very long ago at all where the world was acting with far more ignorance than what we have now, yet the general attitude of most media and such continues to be one of "We're stuck on this one railroad to environmental destruction and there are no diverting tracks in sight."

 

Uhh, actually, I think there have been many changes to how we've handled environmentalism in the the last couple decades, is there any particular reason why you feel that's worth glossing over? When the general attitude appears to be one of "Hey! Here's how well you're not handling the problem!" well can you really blame people for becoming so cynical about it?

 

I'm not sure if that question was rhetorical or directed at me, but I agree in that when you really take stock of it, how much has actually improved globally in such a short comparative time. Not to say things can't get better, good Lord the problems nowadays, but part of the reason I'm not in abject apathy about humanity's fate is my ability to look back and say, "you know, things were actually messed up a lot worse only a century ago."

  • Brohoof 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/12/2016 at 9:24 PM, Dinos4Ever said:
Warming hasn't slowed down, not at all. Just because it still gets cold now and then doesn't mean the warming trend hasn't stopped. In fact, the thermometer has read that it's getting warmer every year. 2014 was the warmest year on record, 2015 is projected to have been even warmer.  

 

I think you misunderstand.  It's not so much that the warming has stopped, it's that the rate of change in temperature has decreased when its supposed to be increasing.  If you look at the graph on the previous page you will notice warming increases at a rate of 0.1 Celsius / Decade (let us abbreviate this as C/D) between the 1980 - 2000 period.  The models predicted an increase of in the rate of change of temperature to 0.25 C/D, but if you look at the temperature measurements for the last decade you might be getting a rate of 0.02 C/D at the most, its actually kind of hard to read from the graph.  So while climate models predict an acceleration in warmth of a factor of 2.5X, observations are yielding a reduction in 80%.  And I have actually seen models where the temperature accelerates by a factor of 4 in the present day / near future (not this graph though).  You will still break temperature records because the temperature is still going up, but it is going up very slowly now as compared to both the past few decades and the models.

 

It's kind of like a comparing a car that is slowing from 50 mph to 5 mph to a car that is accelerating from 50 mph to 125 mph.  In both cases the total distance being covered by the cars increases in time, but there is obviously a huge difference in terms of physical ramifications between the two.  You really ought to be able to distinguish between the two cases if you are constructing that kind of detailed description of their motion.  The global warming models have predicted the later case while we have wound up with the former.

 

 

 

On 1/12/2016 at 9:24 PM, Dinos4Ever said:
Decidedly the opposite. The UK and Australia have next to no mass shootings, yet also have super strict gun control laws.

 

They also have a distinctly different culture along with different sets of problems (immigration / drug trade / etc).  You really want to compare like with like, hence UK to the much more similar Switzerland or Texas to California, etc.  In the U.S., cities with heavy gun control such as Detroit and Chicago are notorious hotbeds for violent crime, while mass shootings have an annoying habit of manifesting in gun free zones such as schools and universities, or places were people may simply be expected not to have guns, such as churches.

 

 

 

On 1/12/2016 at 9:24 PM, Dinos4Ever said:
Republic President Dwight D. Eisenhower didn't seem to think so. Interestingly, we also had one of the nations greatest economic times while he was president.

 

I tend not to overestimate the influence of individual presidents on the economy.  He was riding the tail end of the post WW2 boom,  I credit that rather than his opinions on tax code.

 

 

 

On 1/12/2016 at 9:24 PM, Dinos4Ever said:
 Well, at least they're putting up solar panels in stead of banning them.

 

I think if nothing else everybody in this thread can agree that the people banning the solar panels for "sucking up the sun" are idiots.  Fortunately this is limited to a single municipality. 

 

 

 

On 1/12/2016 at 9:24 PM, Dinos4Ever said:
Also, because I don't think you quite understood my original post, I was considering many different parts of the future, including economic, societal, and geographic possibilities. Things like economic collapse, worsening in radicalism, China's growing economy, the way Europe tends to operate in general. 

 

I was starting to suspect this.  I apologize if my comments on this point got out of hand.

 

 

 

On 1/12/2016 at 9:41 PM, SunBurn said:
What about sea water temperatures and the loss of ice mass? Just looking at atmospheric temperatures isn't going to cut it.

 

It is true that the oceans have a considerably greater heat capacity than the atmosphere and that should be investigated.  But you need both a good model of heat transfer into the ocean, and a good set of temperature data to compare it against.  Modeling can be done easily enough, but I don't know if there is a data set comprehensive enough to evaluate the oceans in this way.  The oceans depths are a difficult place to take experimental measurements.  Ocean surface measurements are already incorporated into the atmospheric measurements everybody uses to evaluate global warming, but it may be difficult to get enough instrumentation into deep water in enough places to get the kind of data needed for these comparisons.  And without the ability to gather this kind of data I wouldn't trust a model because their is nothing good for the modeler to compare the model against (and I don't trust the surface models in any event).  Still I assume somebody would be attempting this in some form, so maybe there is data out there that can be found.

Edited by Twilight Dirac
  • Brohoof 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure if that question was rhetorical or directed at me, but I agree in that when you really take stock of it, how much has actually improved globally in such a short comparative time. Not to say things can't get better, good Lord the problems nowadays, but part of the reason I'm not in abject apathy about humanity's fate is my ability to look back and say, "you know, things were actually messed up a lot worse only a century ago."

 

Was speaking rhetorically, yes. But it's a good example of showing how things can be changed and Humanity is capable of making changes for the better. True, new problems often arise to take precedence in place of what we've overcome, but that doesn't mean we haven't learned from past experiences. Perhaps we may even apply what we have learned to helping with future issues, whatever they may be. They're all little steps forward in my eyes, and so long as we don't take any significant stumbles backwards (referring to things like the Fukushima incident) it's all progress in the right direction.

  • Brohoof 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is true that the oceans have a considerably greater heat capacity than the atmosphere and should be investigated.  But you need both a good model of heat transfer into the ocean, and a good set of temperature data to compare it against.  Modeling can be done easily enough, but I don't know if there is a data set comprehensive enough to evaluate the oceans in this way.  The oceans depths are a difficult place to take experimental measurements.  Ocean surface measurements are already incorporated into the atmospheric measurements everybody uses to evaluate global warming, but it may be difficult to get enough instrumentation into deep water in enough places to get the kind of data needed for these comparisons.  And without the ability to gather this kind of data I wouldn't trust a model because their is nothing good for the modeler to compare the model against (and I don't trust the surface models in any event).  Still I assume somebody would be attempting this in some form, so maybe there is data out there that can be found.

And nothing on the melting ice mass either? Let's not forget about water's enthalpy of fusion. That's the amount of heat that is absorbed or released when a substance goes from solid to liquid or vise-versa. The source states water's enthalpy of fusion to be 334.774 J/g, equivalent to 334.774 kJ/kg. So if you're going to melt 1 kg of ice at 0ºC, it's going to take 334.774 kJ of heat to turn ice to liquid water at 0ºC. Only afterwards can heat start to raise the water's temperature. If we round the specific heat of water to 4.2 kJ/(kg*K) (Source), the same heat needed to melt 1 kg of ice without raising the temperature could raise the temperature of the same mass of water by 79.7ºC (143.5ºF). So yeah, that's a lot of heat being absorbed when ice melts and in a relatively compact and lightweight package.

This piece of physics is the working principle behind this neat little money-saving, energy-storing trinket:

 

 

 

This is why it's important to consider how much mass of ice has been lost as it tells us how much heat has been taken out of the biosphere to alter water's state of matter from solid to liquid. It could be that all the ice has been acting as thermal inertia on the climate system, which is why changes in climate hasn't been quite as dramatic as it could be. I'm afraid what climate changes we've been seeing is merely the tip of the iceberg (pun intended). Once all the ice has melted, only then will we experience the full fury of climate change as all the heat that would have gone to melting ice would instead be doing something else. Such as heating the ocean and atmosphere or evaporating water. It's all about the flow of heat, where it goes and what it does.

Edited by SunBurn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I come to someone and say, "there is X happening, so Y is going to happen." That's not helping, "there is X happening, so Y is going to happen, unless we do Z." THAT is helping.

But all of the things you have suggested are impossible, so it's not like you're helping either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your focusing on the negative, rather then the positive, while I admit that is easy to do, but things can always change, both for the better and for the worse.  Much of the problem here is due to a lack of love, mainly for each other and for the future generations, people are more concerned for their own situation then that of others.  But here's something I can say to this, you may not think so, but even one person can make a difference.

 

Consider Gandhi, who changed the direction of a country, or Martin Luther King Jr who turned the direction of civil rights in the USA, or Martin Luther whose work began the protestant reformation in the 1500's.  I can also name such folks as Winston Churchill, Albert Einstein, George Washington, Louis Pasteur, Sigmund Freud, William Wilberforce, Aristotle, and the one I consider greatest, Jesus Christ.

 

Regardless of what you think about these men, they changed the way the world viewed things, in scientific, religious, political, or social ways, and they did it because they believed it was an important matter, something that they cared about, in some ways, were willing to extreme lengths for.  Embrace the same commitment, be willing to go to the same lengths, and you can change things too, even if you don't think so right now.

  • Brohoof 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly, while I really, REALLY don't want this to be the case, I fear that by 2070, the world will be in a deep state of war in one way or another. Humankind is very finicky with politics and fighting, sometimes I feel like an all out war is inevitable eventually.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a chance a great cataclysm may happen in the future, in which a massive amount of humanity will die to the point we have to rebuild ourselves from ashes.  Be it from nuclear war or a big whooping asteroid hits Earth or whatever.

 

It's going to be really hard for us to go extinct, we're stubborn, really stubborn. We could be hanging on the cliff  to extinction and then suddenly bounce right back up again. For example: http://www.npr.org/sections/krulwich/2012/10/22/163397584/how-human-beings-almost-vanished-from-earth-in-70-000-b-c

 

But yeah, something like this would be a issue to survive:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian%E2%80%93Triassic_extinction_event  

 

In the end, we are all ultimately doomed no matter what. Even if we were all peaceful hippies and sing songs about sunshine and rainbows. There still be would be a big asteroid that will eventually hit us, failing that the sun one day expand into a red giant and eats the Earth whole or send it flying out into space.

 

Only sapient machines could survive the end of everything. Because all organic life from the moment of it's creation is doomed to wither and die eventually.  The universe will become a cold, dark place in which nothing but machines could live in one day. 

 

There will become a point when even extremophiles can't survive. When there's nothing but ice and cold, dark space outside the vast bunkers and tunnel networks machines would live in.

 

So live life to the best you can. Live it up before the game of life ends.

Edited by Bendy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I look at this I can really tell who's been watching excessive amounts of news compared to who hasn't. Anyways my view of the future is that humanity will continually better itself over the course of time, only the methods seem to change. No matter how many challenges come by, eventually we overcome them. That is a trend that has happened and will continue to happen. With that in mind, it isn't a question of whether or not we will be here, it's rather a question of how well we will have used our time here. People are thinking too much about extremes as those are things that stand out the most to us when we refer back to history in order to find clues, not to mention the fact that modern news programs are inclined to think about extremely bad things as they stand out more than the collective good that happens every day in huge amounts.

 

This is an example of our current fear-based society in which events are singled out and judged by the collective audience. A fear-based society only progresses by learning from mistakes, and in order to learn from them you have to focus on them. So life starts to seem worse as time goes by, whether or not it actually is.

 

A curiosity-based society, on the other hand, is harmonious in nature. The best example of this is the ancient city state of Athens. Their religion was in complete support of the pursuit of knowledge, unifying the people in cause as much as belief. It could be considered the median between socialism and capitalism ideals in that the local community as a whole, strove to be better than the competition. When Rome adopted part of this, they went straight to a Golden age, and when Italy copied it, they entered a Renaissance. 

 

The point I'm trying to make here is that we are going to advance no matter what, it's just how we advance that matters most. 

  • Brohoof 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is just ridiculous. Why would either France or Russia or anyone use nuclear weapons to kill a decentralized threat? That's what the Special Forces were created for, search and destroy. What you suggest is like running over the neighbor's dog because they peed in your yard.

 

I would equate it more like burning down the neighbourhood because that racist dude at the end of the street smashed a couple of your lawn gnomes.

 

I believe that humanity is going nowhere in a hurry; we're here to stay, for better or for worse. I am of the opinion that nations will lose interest in their petty superiority complexes, and start focusing on bigger and better things, like "Just how quickly can you get a vehicle to move?"

 

Personally, I think that ISIS is doing a splendid job of unifying the world with a common goal. They've personally ticked off the US, Canada, Russia, France, the UK and Germany. I believe the saying is "Divide and conquer", not "Shoot spitballs at every member of the football team and conquer".

 

And let's not forget about the Paris Agreement. Knowing America and Russia's propensity for competition, I wouldn't be suprised to see them getting into a "who can reduce the most carbon emissions" race. Applejack and Rainbow Dash, those two.

 

And as for my predictions for 2070, let's just say, I'll be dissapointed if we don't have the following:

 

1. A working model for faster-than-light travel. We've got a start, now we just need some of those delicious research grants.

2. A carbon-neutral society

3. An off-world colony, featuring at least one Tim Horton's ( <--- Very important; can't do without)

  • Brohoof 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. A working model for faster-than-light travel. We've got a start, now we just need some of those delicious research grants.

2. A carbon-neutral society

3. An off-world colony, featuring at least one Tim Horton's ( <--- Very important; can't do without)

4. A way to see the afterlife. (check)

5. A cheap source of power that harnesses the earth's magnetic field and generates free electricity. (check)

6. Having at least tested a "humanitopia". (dang that means I'll have to stop procrastinating)

7. Made contact with an alien species publicly. (NASA your attempts at concealment are pathetic)

8. Lack of suppression from government. (that stands for everyone, not just communism)

9. Less crappy presidents in the USA or at least a new type of government. 

10. Better education methods adopted world wide. (more support for dedicated student led classes)

 

Feel free to add on to the wishlist.

  • Brohoof 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Things that I think might happen by then.
 (some or all of them will be untrue though)

 

- World War 3

- The fall of the USA (there was a theory that if America continues going down the road they are under right now some States down the path would be desperate for independence, but I am not sure how that would effect EVERY state.)

- North Korea attempting war (Come on, there is one day those guys are going to write a suicide note and try to invade America)

- Extreme Technical Advancements

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we'll definitely have a problem with climate change and meat. So a lot of people will be eating bugs or something like that instead of beef, pork, etc. Additionally, fracking/oil will have caused more problems, even though the Republicans keep pushing it to be the main energy source. Some people will probably still believe climate change doesn't exist, although some islands will already be underwater and water-side cities will have had to build houses on stilts, etc. Also, a lot of people will have probably started to stop preventing climate change and instead, adapt to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

And let's not forget about the Paris Agreement. Knowing America and Russia's propensity for competition, I wouldn't be suprised to see them getting into a "who can reduce the most carbon emissions" race. Applejack and Rainbow Dash, those two.

 

Well such a competition was the space race and that pushed humanity to a new epoch once before. So you never know . . .

 

 

 

1. A working model for faster-than-light travel. We've got a start, now we just need some of those delicious research grants. 2. A carbon-neutral society 3. An off-world colony, featuring at least one Tim Horton's ( <--- Very important; can't do without)

 

Might want to temper your expectations there. I mean FTL travel is still a pretty damn far way off. Me, I'd be happy for just sustained habitats in orbit by 2070. 

  • Brohoof 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Join the herd!

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...