What do you think the 24th Century will REALLY be like?

[Forbin]

Most of the major scientific discoveries throughout history were made by people of faith.

A fact that makes me all the more confused and angry by the current animosity between science and religion on things like evolution.

 

[apenpaap]

Most of the major scientific discoveries throughout history were made by people of faith.

So? As long as they didn't let themselves be blinded by that faith, it doesn't matter a pair of dingo's kidneys.

 

[barnaclelapse]

Crowded, but the porn will be off the freaking hook.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Stuff Trek gets wrong: neither religion nor capitalism will wither away, and there will be a whole lot more genetic engineering. Habitable planets will be exceedingly rare and hard to or impossible get to even if discovered. There will be no other humanoid life forms besides humans.

 

[Traveller]

Well, the consensus seems to be that we won't discover warp technology, so the Vulcans won't be making first contact when they should...no Federation...

We'll be discovered and subjugated by either Klingons or Romulans

Seriously, I see major climatic changes due to pollution. Likely we won't survive them. Perhaps we should *hope* for some alien intervention, even if it means we'll all end up as slaves.

 

[C.E. Evans]

Aliens may not even see us worth having as slaves. They may look at Humans as being just a bunch of chattering, uncivilized, constantly fighting each other monkeys on a planet with nothing special to offer them except our pizza and chicken wings...

 

[Traveller]

^I sense... self-loathing, Captain.

Really, just for pizza and chicken wings? Well, you'll need plenty of slaves preparing them for the hungry masses back on the alien homeworlds. Because only we know how to make them.

Or they'd use us as mamluks, since we're constantly on the warpath anyway.

 

[C.E. Evans]

^I sense... self-loathing, Captain.

Not at all. We ain't perfect, but I think we Humans are da bomb. What more advanced civilizations may think of us...well...can't help that.

Really, just for pizza and chicken wings? Well, you'll need plenty of slaves preparing them for the hungry masses back on the alien homeworlds. Because only we know how to make them.

We'd open up a chain of pizza & chicken wing restaurants across the entire Quadrant...

 

[Myasishchev]

I suspect the technocratic, atheistic, economically unfree, politically free entitlement society Star Trek envisages is a likely outcome. A good one, too.

Now, I don't think we'll ever terraform Mars or Venus. By the point we'd be technologically capable of it, I don't think we'd need 'em...

 

[apenpaap]

Now, I don't think we'll ever terraform Mars or Venus. By the point we'd be technologically capable of it, I don't think we'd need 'em...

You may be right there. I think a Dyson Sphere (A sphere going all the way around the Sun) would be much more economically viable, considering terraforming Mars would take at least a millenium, and when it succeeds, we will have won something like the surface area of Europe.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

Now, I don't think we'll ever terraform Mars or Venus. By the point we'd be technologically capable of it, I don't think we'd need 'em...

You may be right there. I think a Dyson Sphere (A sphere going all the way around the Sun) would be much more economically viable, considering terraforming Mars would take at least a millenium, and when it succeeds, we will have won something like the surface area of Europe.

Dyson spheres are also of doubtfull viability/practicality - at least when it comes to using them for habitation.

The best option I'm aware of for making habitable space is Iain Banks' ORBITAL - a lot more habitable area than a planet for a lot less (potentially) time spent in creating it.

 

[Piper]

What will the 24th Century REALLY be like?

Almost certainly nothing like it is on Star Trek. Which is a real shame.

 

[apenpaap]

Now, I don't think we'll ever terraform Mars or Venus. By the point we'd be technologically capable of it, I don't think we'd need 'em...

You may be right there. I think a Dyson Sphere (A sphere going all the way around the Sun) would be much more economically viable, considering terraforming Mars would take at least a millenium, and when it succeeds, we will have won something like the surface area of Europe.

Dyson spheres are also of doubtfull viability/practicality - at least when it comes to using them for habitation.

True. The other side's gravity always cancelling out your side's gravity and the problem with letting heat get out would be very tricky, but consider the immense amount of usable energy and land it would yield, I think it could be viable. Not by the 24th century, though.

 

[Ensign_Redshirt]

No interstellar travel and no contact with aliens for one thing. Some moderate interplanetary colonization (the moon in particular) seems possible though.

Computer/information technology, biotechnology, and nanotechnology could have been evolved beyond our dreams.

And as for the world's "political" structure... go read Neal Stephenson's Snow Crash and Diamond Age.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

You may be right there. I think a Dyson Sphere (A sphere going all the way around the Sun) would be much more economically viable, considering terraforming Mars would take at least a millenium, and when it succeeds, we will have won something like the surface area of Europe.

Dyson spheres are also of doubtfull viability/practicality - at least when it comes to using them for habitation.

True. The other side's gravity always cancelling out your side's gravity and the problem with letting heat get out would be very tricky, but consider the immense amount of usable energy and land it would yield, I think it could be viable. Not by the 24th century, though.

Whoever has enough energy to build a dyson sphere doesn't need any more energy - a Dyson Sphere is MASSIVE, it encompasses an ENTIRE SUN, it uses all materials present in a star system (and, most likely, not only).
The energy cost of building one must be beyond astronomical!

As I said - Orbitals are a much better option.

 

[Mysterion]

Taller buildings, more expensive coffee, good bed-sheets hard to get. The less said about the mutant badgers, the better...

 

[apenpaap]

Dyson spheres are also of doubtfull viability/practicality - at least when it comes to using them for habitation.

True. The other side's gravity always cancelling out your side's gravity and the problem with letting heat get out would be very tricky, but consider the immense amount of usable energy and land it would yield, I think it could be viable. Not by the 24th century, though.

Whoever has enough energy to build a dyson sphere doesn't need any more energy - a Dyson Sphere is MASSIVE, it encompasses an ENTIRE SUN, it uses all materials present in a star system (and, most likely, not only).
The energy cost of building one must be beyond astronomical!

As I said - Orbitals are a much better option.

You have a point there. Still, I think even if humanity had the energy and materials to build a dyson sphere, I think even then we could use more energy. For one, to supply the enormous population that could live in a dyson sphere (I know, that's a bit of a circular argument). Another thing such huge amounts of energy could be used on would be for faster then light travel. Relativity allows for it, if it is done by curving spacetime, which would take incredible amounts of energy. Another reason to increase the amount of energy we can use at that point would be to colonize the rest of the galaxy. One of the reasons we haven't yet colonized the rest of the solar system is that Earth, in the state it is now, doesn't yield enough for it. A similar situation might develop in the far future.

I doubt, though, that a dyson sphere would simply be built from scratch. I think humanity would use orbitals for the reasons you provided, and that over the course of time the number of orbitals and the size of induvidual ones will increase, so that when the dyson sphere starts being constructed, a part of it will already be present.

 

[T'Girl]

Dyson spheres are also of doubtfull viability/practicality - at least when it comes to using them for habitation.

The best option I'm aware of for making habitable space is Iain Banks' ORBITAL - a lot more habitable area than a planet for a lot less (potentially) time spent in creating it.

Before we get to the industrial state where we can build something like a orbital, we will most likely be building Gerard O'Neill style habitats - island one's, island three's - build them by the many thousands. Their construction isn't too many decades past our current technological abilities. Alas, much past our current political will.

 

[Biggshow]

Taller buildings, more expensive coffee, good bed-sheets hard to get. The less said about the mutant badgers, the better...

And the monkey-weasals; fugedaboutit.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

Whoever has enough energy to build a dyson sphere doesn't need any more energy - a Dyson Sphere is MASSIVE, it encompasses an ENTIRE SUN, it uses all materials present in a star system (and, most likely, not only).
The energy cost of building one must be beyond astronomical!

As I said - Orbitals are a much better option.

You have a point there. Still, I think even if humanity had the energy and materials to build a dyson sphere, I think even then we could use more energy. For one, to supply the enormous population that could live in a dyson sphere (I know, that's a bit of a circular argument). Another thing such huge amounts of energy could be used on would be for faster then light travel. Relativity allows for it, if it is done by curving spacetime, which would take incredible amounts of energy. Another reason to increase the amount of energy we can use at that point would be to colonize the rest of the galaxy. One of the reasons we haven't yet colonized the rest of the solar system is that Earth, in the state it is now, doesn't yield enough for it. A similar situation might develop in the far future.

I doubt, though, that a dyson sphere would simply be built from scratch. I think humanity would use orbitals for the reasons you provided, and that over the course of time the number of orbitals and the size of induvidual ones will increase, so that when the dyson sphere starts being constructed, a part of it will already be present.

A Dyson sphere can capture all energy radiated by the star it encompasses.
For a civilization that has at its disposal enough energy to BUILD a dyson sphere, the energy radiated by a sun could very well be a substandard power source, weaker than the energy source used to bult the sphere (we're talking about a practically unending energy supply).
Capturing the energy of a sun would NOT increase their capabilities in any meaningful way - not when it comes to supporting their population or to FTL flight.

Also, I think you're confusing Orbitals with Ringworlds.

Like Ringworlds, Orbitals are circular and create gravity via centrifugal force.
UNLIKE Ringworlds (which are massive), Orbitals are FAR smaller - their diameters are comparable to planetary diameters. Obviously, they don't encompass a sun, but orbit one much like a planet.
Orbitals have all the advantages of Ringworlds (habitable surfaces almost arbitrarily large) and none of the dissadvantages (the gigantic size, the orbit's instability).

Dyson spheres are also of doubtfull viability/practicality - at least when it comes to using them for habitation.

The best option I'm aware of for making habitable space is Iain Banks' ORBITAL - a lot more habitable area than a planet for a lot less (potentially) time spent in creating it.

Before we get to the industrial state where we can build something like a orbital, we will most likely be building Gerard O'Neill style habitats - island one's, island three's - build them by the many thousands. Their construction isn't too many decades past our current technological abilities. Alas, much past our current political will.

Definitely.
But Orbitals remain the aspiration - that's how the major league players do it.