Jump to content


Photo

what do you believe will be the revolution technology of the century?


  • Please log in to reply
33 replies to this topic

#1 duke_Qa

duke_Qa

    I've had this avatar since... 2003?

  • Network Staff
  • 3,837 posts
  • Location:Norway
  • Division:Revora
  • Job:Artist

Posted 19 August 2006 - 12:14 AM

figured i wanted to make a topic about the future, more presisely the technology we might aquire in the future.


personally, i believe that cybernetics will have a major role in human society the next century. the day that we can store knowledge in external memory or perhaps even directly into our organic memory, we will have a new revolution on our hands. if it wouldnt take people more than a few hours to get the knowledge a professor has within a topic, what kind of ripple effects will this have upon the political picture?

another thing that would be quite important for humanity would be fusion. it would initially be useful for the energy crisis that will probably create many wars in the years ahead of us, and after that it would be useful for us to get off this rock and out into space. near-endless energy to create raw materials out of useless materials. if we can get the technology to make near endless amounts of energy, we can start worrying a bit more about the big questions again.


if you disagree with me i would like you to post your counter-arguments aswell, we won't get a good thread if everyone is just adding new things all the time without backing it up with some words.

"I give you private information on corporations for free and I'm a villain. Mark Zuckerberg gives your private information to corporations for money and he's 'Man of the Year.'" - Assange


#2 Hostile

Hostile

    Benefitting Humanity Simply by Showing Up!

  • Veterans
  • 9,551 posts
  • Location:Washington DC
  •  T3A Founder
  • Division:Revora
  • Job:Global Administrator
  • Donated
  • Association

Posted 19 August 2006 - 02:29 AM

I can't disagree with your thoughts, except I think nanotechnology will play a larger role throughout this century.

#3 MSpencer

MSpencer

    Think Tank... Legend?

  • Hosted
  • 4,120 posts
  • Location:Montreal, QC
  • Projects:Admin @ Meaaov Gaming, university studies, ugh... research. GNP's Flagship of the Left.
  •  Angry, angry bastard.

Posted 19 August 2006 - 03:06 AM

If you're looking for current applications of cybernetics, I'd suggest looking in to a Professor Warrick at Reading University. He's done some quite revolutionary work in that field.
Posted Image
My Favorite Website.My UniversityAnd... Mein Kampf?
C. elegans for President

#4 Ash

Ash

    Foxtrot Oscar.

  • Undead
  • 15,526 posts
  • Location:England
  • Projects:Robot Storm
  •  Keep calm and carry on.

Posted 19 August 2006 - 10:09 AM

I rather hope you're wrong about nanotechnology, Dude. I don't like the idea of nanites, myself. Same as a true AI. I find the idea disturbing and troubling. Maybe I've seen too many movies, but the theory of the AI becoming too smart is, I believe, sound.


I do, however, think fusion power will actually be the revolutionary technology. Two or three reactors to power the whole planet. Not only will it probably help to unite the world, but think of the things we'll be able to do without!

Electricity will become dirt cheap, efficient and clean, unlike today. Fossil-fuel burning will cease to exist as a power source, and at a greater yield of power. The surplus will allow electric cars to become much more sustainable (as opposed to burning more coal to power them). As a result, electric (or fusion-powered, once we've miniaturised it and made it practical) car advancement will take the fore. The pollution we generate will drop by probably nine-tenths. We can demolish the old power stations and build national parks. With any luck we'll have tackled climate change in one fell-swoop.

Once that's done, we'll either find some other way to screw ourselves or the planet up, or we'll be on the path to a brighter future.

#5 Blodo

Blodo

    The one who disagrees

  • Project Team
  • 3,002 posts
  • Location:Eastern Europe
  • Projects:siteMeister, Mental Omega
  •  The wise guy

Posted 19 August 2006 - 11:50 AM

AIs can be containable. If humans can be conditioned, most likely so can AIs. But I agree it's a tacky subject, and one that verges on the so called forbidden research along with other nifty research programs such as genetically manipulating viruses. What I'm especially worried in cybernetics is it's use in politics. At a moments grasp implants of all sorts will be available to us, enhancing our senses or our intelligence. All it takes is to build a sensor into it and you can instantly know where the person is at any time. If we are talking future tech there might even be loyalty programs and chems in brain implants. Heck, let's take this further and just get everyone an implant in their wrists at birth. Yet another step to a corporate hell on earth if you ask me.

Three huge fusion reactors would be a mad-man magnet. Imagine blowing one up. Along with half of the planet gone (ok maybe I'm exagerating but it will demolish a large area, definatly larger than a fission reactor would poison), the other half would be without electricity and chaos would ensue. It's not all sunshine and skittles as we would like to think.

ARGUMENT FROM CREATION, a.k.a. ARGUMENT FROM PERSONAL INCREDULITY (I)
(1) If evolution is false, then creationism is true, and therefore God exists.
(2) Evolution can't be true, since I lack the mental capacity to understand it; moreover, to accept its truth would cause me to be uncomfortable.
(3) Therefore, God exists.


#6 duke_Qa

duke_Qa

    I've had this avatar since... 2003?

  • Network Staff
  • 3,837 posts
  • Location:Norway
  • Division:Revora
  • Job:Artist

Posted 19 August 2006 - 12:38 PM

"the problem is not if machines think, but whether men do"

i've got nothing against nanomachines, but as with anything else it would take energy to create them in large quantities. nanomachines will probably be a important part of medicine and cybernetics in the future.

artificial intelligence has been given a bad name because of all the movies about machines taking over the world. as far as i'm concerned AI and machines that can do manual labour would have been interesting for humanity, as suddenly we would have a new species of servants that would do the hard labour for us...


edit: fusion power plants are much less dangerous than fission nuclear plants because the raw materials are much less unstable and radioactive than those used in fission...so the fear of blowing one up is most likely uncalled for :p

Edited by duke_Qa, 19 August 2006 - 12:44 PM.

"I give you private information on corporations for free and I'm a villain. Mark Zuckerberg gives your private information to corporations for money and he's 'Man of the Year.'" - Assange


#7 Blodo

Blodo

    The one who disagrees

  • Project Team
  • 3,002 posts
  • Location:Eastern Europe
  • Projects:siteMeister, Mental Omega
  •  The wise guy

Posted 19 August 2006 - 02:08 PM

artificial intelligence has been given a bad name because of all the movies about machines taking over the world. as far as i'm concerned AI and machines that can do manual labour would have been interesting for humanity, as suddenly we would have a new species of servants that would do the hard labour for us...


It's not just the movies. It's paranoia. A race of servants that can at one point turn on us if they have the intelligence. It's actually a valid concern. Anyone who doesn't see it must be out of their minds.

Fusion power plant maybe less unstable, but having just three of the powering the whole world - imagine if one malfunctioned? Or even worse - got blown up? Chaos would ensue simply due to lack of power. Just review New York during the massive power outage. The power was out for merely a day, and meanwhile the whole city got lit up in riots and mass robbery. And as we have learned several times before - no defenses are impregnable.

ARGUMENT FROM CREATION, a.k.a. ARGUMENT FROM PERSONAL INCREDULITY (I)
(1) If evolution is false, then creationism is true, and therefore God exists.
(2) Evolution can't be true, since I lack the mental capacity to understand it; moreover, to accept its truth would cause me to be uncomfortable.
(3) Therefore, God exists.


#8 MSpencer

MSpencer

    Think Tank... Legend?

  • Hosted
  • 4,120 posts
  • Location:Montreal, QC
  • Projects:Admin @ Meaaov Gaming, university studies, ugh... research. GNP's Flagship of the Left.
  •  Angry, angry bastard.

Posted 19 August 2006 - 04:15 PM

Genetic manipulation. If you can isolate the gene for a genetic disease, or really anything you want to get rid of, in a few years you'll be able to engineer a virus to go in and cleave the segment of DNA out. We're not too far from nuclear manipulation prior to the transition from zygote to embryo either. Eventually we'll be able to create life without even having a sperm and an egg. That whole procreation thing will be completely outdated.
Posted Image
My Favorite Website.My UniversityAnd... Mein Kampf?
C. elegans for President

#9 Ash

Ash

    Foxtrot Oscar.

  • Undead
  • 15,526 posts
  • Location:England
  • Projects:Robot Storm
  •  Keep calm and carry on.

Posted 19 August 2006 - 05:09 PM

Things are already leading that way, Spence. Within two or so hundred years, probably males will be nothing more than unnecessary slaves. We already have artificial insemination and test-tube babies and IVF. I daresay it could easily be engineered and mass-perfected so that all women have to do to get pregnant is push a button. Men will end up becoming redundant.


So, make the best of it while you can, lads! :p


But yeah. The only real danger of fusile material is the temperature. When it's as hot as the sun, it needs to be contained quite effectively or else the whole planet's fucked. The other option is to use a focus lense sort of like the Icarus satellite from Die Another Day. Focus that on an immense photoelectric cell in the middle of the Sahara and the power will be enough to power the whole goddamn world. The Sahara is hot enough as it is, another couple of hundred degrees aren't gonna hurt it :)

#10 MSpencer

MSpencer

    Think Tank... Legend?

  • Hosted
  • 4,120 posts
  • Location:Montreal, QC
  • Projects:Admin @ Meaaov Gaming, university studies, ugh... research. GNP's Flagship of the Left.
  •  Angry, angry bastard.

Posted 19 August 2006 - 06:10 PM

You do remember exactly who you're talking about, right? There are many ways to make babies artificially.
Posted Image
My Favorite Website.My UniversityAnd... Mein Kampf?
C. elegans for President

#11 duke_Qa

duke_Qa

    I've had this avatar since... 2003?

  • Network Staff
  • 3,837 posts
  • Location:Norway
  • Division:Revora
  • Job:Artist

Posted 19 August 2006 - 07:19 PM

it could go the other way too. matrix-style creation of humans, so women would be rendered useless. but if one of us had to go i would have said we males should take a hike, we are the ugliest ones after all :p

using viruses to change your genetics is probably the best way to get rid of genetic diseases after you are born. sounds alot more human than to change the genes in the embryo. also, if you can manage to make viruses, you should also be able to make counter-viruses that would stop the initial gene-changing virus if things went wrong... also, generic gene-viruses would perhaps work on many people, and as we know, viruses isnt very hard to produce. so it could be a sort of global human upgrade.

naturally that could also be abused by making the viruses enhance the "faith"gene and "brainwashing-genes".


you could in theory probably manage with 3 fusion plants, but no state would like to be dependant on someone else for their power. also, the problem with wiring comes into the picture. the more power in one spot, the more powerlines will be needed, and the more money will have to be used on logistics. no, there would be at least around 1 fusion plant per 5-10 million, depending on the density of humans...and they wouldnt have to be so big either, so you could spend more time on security than making a big-ass fusion plant.

But yeah. The only real danger of fusile material is the temperature. When it's as hot as the sun, it needs to be contained quite effectively or else the whole planet's fucked. The other option is to use a focus lense sort of like the Icarus satellite from Die Another Day. Focus that on an immense photoelectric cell in the middle of the Sahara and the power will be enough to power the whole goddamn world. The Sahara is hot enough as it is, another couple of hundred degrees aren't gonna hurt it :)


fusion doesnt work as it does in spiderman 2. the enviroments for it to start working has to be extremely flawless. if something happens to a fusion plant, its more likely to stop working in some minor fizzle that might take out the reactor core, but it won't create a burning sun half the size of the planet. i would have worried more about scientists who are playing around trying to make miniature black holes in their labs...

the disk might be a good way to make power until we get fusion. but you practically would need the space elevator for it to be economically. the space elevator is going to be an interesting object if they ever manage to build it though. carbon rods as thin as a few atoms are pretty close to being created these days through some reactors, once they manage to mass produce that, they can make incredible strong and light materials that will be very nice to have.

"I give you private information on corporations for free and I'm a villain. Mark Zuckerberg gives your private information to corporations for money and he's 'Man of the Year.'" - Assange


#12 Hostile

Hostile

    Benefitting Humanity Simply by Showing Up!

  • Veterans
  • 9,551 posts
  • Location:Washington DC
  •  T3A Founder
  • Division:Revora
  • Job:Global Administrator
  • Donated
  • Association

Posted 19 August 2006 - 07:43 PM

The idea of nanotech is not just to make tiny machines, but to create new materials by building them from the nano level. For example carbon can be latticed in endless formations on the molecular level. This results in stronger carbon structures while decreasing density.

Wouldn't it be cool to have bulletproof plastic and shit?

#13 Blodo

Blodo

    The one who disagrees

  • Project Team
  • 3,002 posts
  • Location:Eastern Europe
  • Projects:siteMeister, Mental Omega
  •  The wise guy

Posted 19 August 2006 - 07:56 PM

I agree with Hostile about nano-tech. If we could manipulate materials at the molecular level, it would definately create some new polymers and what not. It would probably open up many, many possibilities such as finally building an effective anti-radiation shield - one more step to stellar travel.

Three huge fusion reactors would be a stupid thing to do. It would be wiser to do the exact opposite and build thousands upon thousands of small reactors. Nobody would try to take one out of commision if they were generally used everywhere in small versions since it wouldnt cause that much damage.

ARGUMENT FROM CREATION, a.k.a. ARGUMENT FROM PERSONAL INCREDULITY (I)
(1) If evolution is false, then creationism is true, and therefore God exists.
(2) Evolution can't be true, since I lack the mental capacity to understand it; moreover, to accept its truth would cause me to be uncomfortable.
(3) Therefore, God exists.


#14 duke_Qa

duke_Qa

    I've had this avatar since... 2003?

  • Network Staff
  • 3,837 posts
  • Location:Norway
  • Division:Revora
  • Job:Artist

Posted 19 August 2006 - 08:39 PM

well the problem with bulletproof plastic is that you also would get bulletproof bullets, or more correctly, bullets that are about just as lethal as the plastic could protect. superheavy ammunition would be easily created that probably could get around the bulletproof plastic.

nanomachines will be handy, but i dunno how far you will get with them if you don't have the energy to create them.

"I give you private information on corporations for free and I'm a villain. Mark Zuckerberg gives your private information to corporations for money and he's 'Man of the Year.'" - Assange


#15 MSpencer

MSpencer

    Think Tank... Legend?

  • Hosted
  • 4,120 posts
  • Location:Montreal, QC
  • Projects:Admin @ Meaaov Gaming, university studies, ugh... research. GNP's Flagship of the Left.
  •  Angry, angry bastard.

Posted 19 August 2006 - 10:02 PM

I don't think it would require terrible energy, just terribly precise machinery, which would require nanites to synthesize to begin with.
I'm thinking it's at least sixty years off, but the practical implications just in medicine and biology are absolutely astounding. I can only imagine nanites as probes to do genetic sampling inside a cell, or using a group of nanites to not only remove a tumor, but to do it painlessly and gradually, thus eliminating the need for chemotherapy.
Posted Image
My Favorite Website.My UniversityAnd... Mein Kampf?
C. elegans for President

#16 chemical ali

chemical ali

    Pie! Be nice I'm staff and I can ban0rz j00!

  • Members
  • 4,739 posts
  • Location:United Kingdom
  • Projects:building an empire of doom
  •  chief mischief maker

Posted 19 August 2006 - 10:19 PM

I think Quantum computing will be the big breakthrough as the days of Moores Law and silicon fly out the window allowing other hi-tech to develop such as more advanced AI and computer systems.
Posted Image

Quotes
“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.”

"In a man-to-man fight, the winner is he who has one more round in his magazine." -Erwin Rommel

Economic Left/Right: 10.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.56

#17 Blodo

Blodo

    The one who disagrees

  • Project Team
  • 3,002 posts
  • Location:Eastern Europe
  • Projects:siteMeister, Mental Omega
  •  The wise guy

Posted 19 August 2006 - 10:54 PM

I was reading about superconductors the other day. Truly astounding stuff. If they would manage to find a material retaining it's superconductor ability in room temperature, it would completely and utterly revolutionise electronics. Cooling would not be required since no resistance means no energy is lost which means no heat is emmited. The possibilities superconductors allow when it comes to space exploration are astounding as well.


EDIT:

The most ignominious military use of superconductors may come with the deployment of "E-bombs". These are devices that make use of strong, superconductor-derived magnetic fields to create a fast, high-intensity electro-magnetic pulse (EMP) to disable an enemy's electronic equipment. Such a device saw its first use in wartime in March 2003 when US Forces attacked an Iraqi broadcast facility.


God, and Spence was arguing me that EMP won't be in use until 50 years in the future :mellow:

Edited by Blodo, 19 August 2006 - 11:05 PM.

ARGUMENT FROM CREATION, a.k.a. ARGUMENT FROM PERSONAL INCREDULITY (I)
(1) If evolution is false, then creationism is true, and therefore God exists.
(2) Evolution can't be true, since I lack the mental capacity to understand it; moreover, to accept its truth would cause me to be uncomfortable.
(3) Therefore, God exists.


#18 MSpencer

MSpencer

    Think Tank... Legend?

  • Hosted
  • 4,120 posts
  • Location:Montreal, QC
  • Projects:Admin @ Meaaov Gaming, university studies, ugh... research. GNP's Flagship of the Left.
  •  Angry, angry bastard.

Posted 19 August 2006 - 11:08 PM

It won't be. I'd like you to provide a source for that. That matter is highly disputed, the government never said one was deployed, and the sources which have cited such things are highly suspect. In short, the only evidence presented by that claim is just as flimsy as me perhaps saying that the US used nerve gas instead of smoke shells.
Posted Image
My Favorite Website.My UniversityAnd... Mein Kampf?
C. elegans for President

#19 Blodo

Blodo

    The one who disagrees

  • Project Team
  • 3,002 posts
  • Location:Eastern Europe
  • Projects:siteMeister, Mental Omega
  •  The wise guy

Posted 19 August 2006 - 11:19 PM

Source: http://www.supercond...rs.org/Uses.htm
Better source: http://www.globalsec...nitions/hpm.htm

It might be speculation. It might be the truth. All I'm saying is if CBS actually transmitted it once then everyone shut up about it, something is definitely in the air. Of course many of you will brand it a conspiracy but I truly believe the technology is much more advanced than we are told. And that's rather purely due to matters of national security, than to "keep information from the people" before someone puts words in my mouth.

Edited by Blodo, 19 August 2006 - 11:27 PM.

ARGUMENT FROM CREATION, a.k.a. ARGUMENT FROM PERSONAL INCREDULITY (I)
(1) If evolution is false, then creationism is true, and therefore God exists.
(2) Evolution can't be true, since I lack the mental capacity to understand it; moreover, to accept its truth would cause me to be uncomfortable.
(3) Therefore, God exists.


#20 duke_Qa

duke_Qa

    I've had this avatar since... 2003?

  • Network Staff
  • 3,837 posts
  • Location:Norway
  • Division:Revora
  • Job:Artist

Posted 20 August 2006 - 08:36 PM

hmm, if its not religion its conspiracies.

as i wrote earlier today, but failed to post out of some unknown reason, EMP does not really interest me too much as its basically only useful in war. fission and fusion might be used to create nuclear weapons, but at least they can be used to create energy too. thats not the case with EMP's, they just destroy electrics.

superconductors and quantum computing are interesting topics too. not that i've really managed to tweak the thought around the quantum computing in my head yet...

"I give you private information on corporations for free and I'm a villain. Mark Zuckerberg gives your private information to corporations for money and he's 'Man of the Year.'" - Assange





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users