Envisioning the world of 2100

[Admiral Buzzkill]

A lot like the world of 1900, and that's if we're lucky.

Some people will have gadgets they're attached to and that occupy their time, though.

 

[RoJoHen]

I find it impossible to pretend to have any idea what the world will be like 100 years from now.

All I have to do is pretend that I lived 100 years ago and ask myself the same question. What will the world be like in the year 2000? The world has changed so much in the last 100 years. Advents in technology alone have been absolutely incredible. I can't even begin to imagine what will come in the 100 years to follow.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

For 2100, I am making three predictions
1) Rich people will get richer
2) Poor people will get poorer
3) The United States of America will collapse into a puff of irony.

By the year 2100 (last year of the 21st century), the entire world will be what we current call "developed," as in the developed world.

1) The rich will be richer still.
2) The middle class will be rich.
3) The (majority of the) poor will be middle class. But for political reasons will continue to call themselves the poor.
4) A small number of the poor still won't have figured out the system, and will be actually "poor."

If the United States still exists in 2050, it will remain in existence is 2100. If it has effectively disappeared by 2050 then what will be present in 2100 will be a balkanized land mass of pocket welfare states barely hanging on, situated right next to multiple small, wealthy, well armed super powers.

Are you really not aware that your first set of predictions is utterly inconsistent with the second?

 

[Ryan8bit]

The only thing that makes you favour the exponential is Occam's razor – it's simpler. Well, in this case, it's just too simple to fit even what we know.

I don't think that's really Occam's razor. It's not just about picking what's simplest, but on what makes the least amount of wild assumptions. I'd say a logarithmic curve makes less assumptions, and an exponential curve makes too many.

Regardless, even if the predictions of when it happens are on a slightly different curve, that doesn't rule that level of technology out. There are many more problems with the concept of a singularity, mostly with the correlation that processing power equals intelligence.

 

[Cutter John]

I have to side with Newtype. I suspect the US will go the way of 18th century France, or Blade Runners future. The rich and powerful living behind walls or atop tall buildings in luxury, while the rest of us struggle just to survive while supporting them.

I miss the days when I was young and still optimistic about the future.

 

[YellowSubmarine]

I don't think that's really Occam's razor. It's not just about picking what's simplest, but on what makes the least amount of wild assumptions. I'd say a logarithmic curve makes less assumptions, and an exponential curve makes too many.

I guess you mean logistic, since a logarithmic curve is identical to an exponential curve with switched axes. A logistic dependency is more complex, making more assumptions, by all counts:
- A logistic dependency is just like an exponential dependency with saturation accounted for. The former assumes there's saturation, the latter doesn't.
- The formula is more complex to write, the curve is more complex to draw.
- When generalised, it has more parameters.
- The exponent is the mathematical function. It's pretty much the simplest and it is pretty much everywhere.
- And most of all: A logistic function has an exponential function in its definition.

A logistic curve is simpler than an exponential curve in the same way that crashing on Mercury unaided is simpler than landing on Mercury with retrorockets – not at all. It's the latter that assumes the rockets will actually fire.

 

[T'Girl]

By the year 2100 (last year of the 21st century), the entire world will be what we current call "developed," as in the developed world.

1) The rich will be richer still.
2) The middle class will be rich.
3) The (majority of the) poor will be middle class. But for political reasons will continue to call themselves the poor.
4) A small number of the poor still won't have figured out the system, and will be actually "poor."

If the United States still exists in 2050, it will remain in existence is 2100. If it has effectively disappeared by 2050 then what will be present in 2100 will be a balkanized land mass of pocket welfare states barely hanging on, situated right next to multiple small, wealthy, well armed super powers.

Are you really not aware that your first set of predictions is utterly inconsistent with the second?

How so? The first prediction is world wide, the second involves only the US. If we continue to exist as a nation things will be good, consistent with the world wide prediction.

If the nation dissolves, then portions will succeed, while others will be worse off, but will still be "developed" by the current meaning, but at the same time struggling in comparison to their neighbors. Think UK and Germany, verses Greece and Spain.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

By the year 2100 (last year of the 21st century), the entire world will be what we current call "developed," as in the developed world.

1) The rich will be richer still.
2) The middle class will be rich.
3) The (majority of the) poor will be middle class. But for political reasons will continue to call themselves the poor.
4) A small number of the poor still won't have figured out the system, and will be actually "poor."

If the United States still exists in 2050, it will remain in existence is 2100. If it has effectively disappeared by 2050 then what will be present in 2100 will be a balkanized land mass of pocket welfare states barely hanging on, situated right next to multiple small, wealthy, well armed super powers.

Are you really not aware that your first set of predictions is utterly inconsistent with the second?

How so? The first prediction is world wide, the second involves only the US. If we continue to exist as a nation things will be good, consistent with the world wide prediction.

Which is just a complicated way of saying "Everything will get better... unless it doesn't."

 

[Ryan8bit]

A logistic curve is simpler than an exponential curve in the same way that crashing on Mercury unaided is simpler than landing on Mercury with retrorockets – not at all. It's the latter that assumes the rockets will actually fire.

It's not about simplicity. That's not what Occam's Razor says. It's about making the least amount of assumptions.

One thing that we see in many different aspects of the world is growth eventually plateauing. We don't see a whole lot that just keeps on exponentially growing. With that knowledge, a logistic curve (not logarithmic, my bad) is the one that most commonly occurs. That doesn't make it right, but it is more probable than exponential, which makes too many assumptions, and most of all invokes something similar to the gambler's fallacy.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

An exponential curve assumes endless advancement of technology and infinite resources. That alone makes it highly suspect. Technology can only advance to the extent that resources allow, and we are approaching a crunch in numerous resources over the next several generations: oil, fresh water, phosphates, rare earth metals, the list goes on. A logistic curve therefore makes plenty of sense. It is foolish to think our technological growth will never top out.

 

[Australis]

If a child born today will be 88 in 2100, that child will have had an entire life to make the world a better place in 2100. It's his responsibility, not ours. The generation in power has to make sure things don't get FUBAR between now and 2020. The generation after that has to keep things intact until ~2050 and even the generation mentioned in the OP will really only be in control until ~2080. The succeeding generations will have a far better understanding of the needs of their time than we will. Our best thinking could create massive problems down the road. Choking, sooty pollution used to be viewed as a good thing, a symbol of productivity and advanced technology less than a century ago.

It's fine to think about the future, but thinking there is a lot we can do, aside from climate change mitigation, is false. Also, futurists need to really get off the idea of "exponentially faster" development. There will be no singularity.

Bolding for emphasis. No, it's our job to make the world the best it can be to hand on to them. They mess it up, that's their problem, but we shouldn't expect them to fix our mess up.

I still think the Singularity is going to happen, if - and it is a crucial if - we can overcome the energy problems, which we are capable of doing of the will is there.

One reason I think the Singularity is coming is things like the following article, which is much closer in time frame. Some of the comments at the end are interesting too.

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/mobile/t...=2045&_s=ffffffff-ffff-ffff-ffff-ffffffffffff

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

One reason I think the Singularity is coming is things like the following article, which is much closer in time frame. Some of the comments at the end are interesting too.

The only persuasive prediction in that article is the disappearance of credit cards.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Why is it that almost everyone I have ever met who believes in the approaching singularity seems to be an extremely avid reader of pop-sci magazines?

 

[sojourner]

One reason I think the Singularity is coming is things like the following article, which is much closer in time frame. Some of the comments at the end are interesting too.

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/mobile/t...=2045&_s=ffffffff-ffff-ffff-ffff-ffffffffffff

Seriously? That's not an article. It's a list of bad assumptions. Almost every thing in it was wrong.

ETA: Was that webpage designed by a kindergartener from 1993?

 

[YellowSubmarine]

Who cares about autonomous cars and reality shows on Mars, when in 2063 we're breaking the warp barrier?

 

[Australis]

ETA: Was that webpage designed by a kindergartener from 1993?

Yeah, something weird happened to the formatting after I read it.

 

[RoJoHen]

Who cares about autonomous cars and reality shows on Mars, when in 2063 we're breaking the warp barrier?

I'm worried about the disappearance of credit cards. How am I supposed to start you a tab at my bar? I need something to hold on to just in case you get wasted and walk out!

 

[publiusr]

I think technology for transportation will come at a slower pace. Folks then will look back on our love of fabulous sci-fi tech like FTL in ST and SW as being quaint--while building Foundation's Future. Now winged craft for space, but larger capsules with greater capability, like this uber capsule: http://www.frassanito.com/work/images/planning02.jpg

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Who cares about autonomous cars and reality shows on Mars, when in 2063 we're breaking the warp barrier?

I'm worried about the disappearance of credit cards. How am I supposed to start you a tab at my bar? I need something to hold on to just in case you get wasted and walk out!

You scan their credit chip or whatever before you serve them anything.

 

[RoJoHen]

Who cares about autonomous cars and reality shows on Mars, when in 2063 we're breaking the warp barrier?

I'm worried about the disappearance of credit cards. How am I supposed to start you a tab at my bar? I need something to hold on to just in case you get wasted and walk out!

You scan their credit chip or whatever before you serve them anything.

I can do that with the credit cards, too, but there are occasions when it is not the preferred thing to do.

Plus, it's always fun listening to the hungover phone calls the next day:

"I was out last night, and, uh, I think I left my credit card at your bar."

"Hold on, drunky, let me check for you."