Posted on 05/26/2006 8:08:09 AM PDT by Neville72
A complete waste.
Right. Substantial advancements in *one* of biotech, nanotech, or AI would profoundly change the world. If we get all three, "wild ride" is probably an understatement.
Sorry not fearful, not a Luddite. And you've got your dates wrong, 15 years ago a lot of that stuff was in place (Battle Chess anyone? still the best computer chess game ever IMHO... probably because it's the only one I can beat). Many of those problems were very close to being solved 15 years ago and the CW of everybody working on those problems (some of whom I knew) was that the barrier was computing power, they needed more RAM being accessed by faster CPUs.
CompuServe predicted the growth of networked computers in 1969, the difference is they put their money where their mouth was. By the late 70s (H&R Block bought CompuServe and moved them to the big time in 1977) it was obvious to anybody that recreationally networked computers was going to happen, the only question was who would own the protocol and the access points.
You really should learn to make posts without insults, nothing proves you should be ignored like the need to insult people.
I never understood the desire to live so long. Most of our atoms are replaced every 20 years or so, so we're not the same that we were anyway, and nobody we know is either. The nice thing though about living to 1000 is the power of compound interest. If you put $1 into a bank account paying 5% interest, you'll have $1,546,318,920,731,950,000,000 to spend in the year 1000.
especially when the correct term is "neo-Stalinist"
Why be rude?
golly, you're really smart...
LOL. Cool, but should't you account for a little time to spend it before you turn 1,000?
I suspect that if radical life extension becomes common, interest rates will fall substantially because it would be less valuable to have money now instead of 10 years from now.
I agree with you that virtual reality is very near. Not too long ago, in fact, I was going to post an article about current advances toward VR, but when I hit post I was told that the source couldn't be posted on FR.
On another note, the biggest factor that holds back progress is just inertia - most people can only handle so much change all at once. Then also, you have compatibility issues when everything is geared one way and it's more expensive to transition to the better product/process than to just keep the inferior but entrenched product/process.
Take something as simple as light bulbs. We now have far more efficient and aesthetic LED lighting technology than the ordinary incandescent bulb that we're all accustomed to. If it were based on just the best product, incandescent bulbs would have already gone the way of kerosene lamps, but because they're entrenched, of course, it'll be a long time before that happens.
This concept is why IBM beat Eniac. :)
You're right.
I know that. But it's important that YOU understand it as well.
Another good example is operating systems, or other types of software. The prime directive of Microsoft, for instance, is backward compatibility, where each new Windows would be backward compatible with past versions of Windows. If I'm not mistaken, Windows Vista will be the first that disregards backward compatibility to a considerable extent (iirc, XP did to a slighter extent, but Vista will much more so). In any case, the requirement for backward compatibility has inevitably held back the advance of computer tech, but if you totally threw backward compatibility out then it would not be economically viable, because not enough people would buy it.
"Thrun predicts we'll have reliable urban robot driving by 2010, and that a majority of miles will be driven autonomously by 2030. You'll have more time to answer your e-mail, and arguments over who's going to be the designated driver would be a thing of the past."
Why even bother answering your e-mail? Just give your PC--- which by this time will be smarter than you and have a better personality---a general idea of the sort of the answers you like to give and let it answer the e-mails itself.
In 20 years I'd be 1/2 a foot tall, be blurting out pop-up adds uncontrollably and, would be a survivor of a horrific bio-comp rooting.
On the upside, I could boot Linux ;)
I see now, your concern is over having this future society labelled precisely with the term that you find most appropriate. Having rejected menshevik, bolshevik, leninist, maoist, gramscite, trotskyite, progressive, glasnostic, fascist, hitlerian, nazi, and the term "neo" in front of any of these and other terms, you have decided that it is best described as "neo-Stalinist" and that anyone who uses a more generic, less precise term than that which you have decided applies, shall be heaped with ridicule and scorn.
Be glad you have so much time and brainpower on your hands.
Call it the Tower of Babel, Part II.
Is that the same Dr Robert Prehoda that was in the crowd in the late 60s predicting life expectancy would be over 100 today?
Exactly.
The economic impact of increasing age limits is mostly ignored, since human lifespan is increasing at a relatively slow rate. But the 21st century is likely to see some big breakthroughs in longevity - I have no idea what it'll mean for concepts like compounded interest, retirement, medical insurance, etc.
Ultimately, the concept of permanent retirement would go away completely, and with it old-age programs like Social Security. That's one of several reasons I expect anti-aging research would pay for itself many times over.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.