We live in very interesting times

[Mathnomalous]

This just hit me: there is a high probability my family and I will be alive to witness several key events in human history. Just think about it: there are at least 10,000 years of recorded human history but only in the last 150 of those people have experienced the most amazing things any human has ever seen.

If I get to the age of 100, I have decent chances of witnessing a 3rd world war, witnessing a 2nd American Revolution, the 1st female US President, seeing the first people to walk on Mars, seeing irrefutable evidence of a habitable planet, and/or even reading about the possible discovery of some form of life outside of Earth.

I might get to experience what people experienced in 1969! My life might not be great right now, but damn, these are wonderful times to be alive!
On the not so bright side, there is a good chance I might live through a world epidemic... or worse... witness S. P. become President... dammit!

 

[Pythagorean]

So sorry about S P

-Alaska

 

[lisab]

So sorry about S P

-Alaska

 

[Averagesupernova]

How do you know that some people weren't saying the same things 125 to 150 years ago about cars, telephones, wireless communications, flying, or anything 'horseless' for that matter, and a whole list of other things we take for granted? The way I see it in 100 years or so if things keep going the way they have the things you talk of will seem as boring as Alexander Graham Bell saying: "I heard every word you said, distinctly!"

 

[CRGreathouse]

Let's give this thread some teeth.

If I get to the age of 100, I have decent chances of witnessing a 3rd world war, witnessing a 2nd American Revolution, the 1st female US President, seeing the first people to walk on Mars, seeing irrefutable evidence of a habitable planet, and/or even reading about the possible discovery of some form of life outside of Earth.

[...]

On the not so bright side, there is a good chance I might live through a world epidemic... or worse... witness S. P. become President... dammit!

Suppose you were in a betting mood. What odds would you place on each of these events?
1. Third World War
2. Second American Revolution
3. First female President of the US
4. First person walks on Mars
5. "Irrefutable evidence" of a habitable planet
6. ET life discovered
7. Palin elected President of the US
8. World epidemic
by, let's say, 2070 (since I don't know your age).

The events seem to have wildly different chances to me. I would place #3 at 90% to 98% (there should be 8 to 16 US presidents elected in that time) and #5 at 75%+, depending on the particular meaning of 'habitable' and 'irrefutable'. On the other hand, #1, #2, and #7 seem to be less than 1% likely in my estimation.

I'm not sure exactly how to interpret #8; it could be very likely or fairly unlikely depending on the definition.

 

[G037H3]

Let's give this thread some teeth.



Suppose you were in a betting mood. What odds would you place on each of these events?
1. Third World War
2. Second American Revolution
3. First female President of the US
4. First person walks on Mars
5. "Irrefutable evidence" of a habitable planet
6. ET life discovered
7. Palin elected President of the US
8. World epidemic
by, let's say, 2070 (since I don't know your age).

The events seem to have wildly different chances to me. I would place #3 at 90% to 98% (there should be 8 to 16 US presidents elected in that time) and #5 at 75%+, depending on the particular meaning of 'habitable' and 'irrefutable'. On the other hand, #1, #2, and #7 seem to be less than 1% likely in my estimation.

I'm not sure exactly how to interpret #8; it could be very likely or fairly unlikely depending on the definition.

1. 88%
2. 96% (if a civil war counts)
3. 31%
4. 92%
5. 60%
6. 3%
7. 2%
8. 58%

 

[Mathnomalous]

Let's give this thread some teeth.
Suppose you were in a betting mood. What odds would you place on each of these events?
1. Third World War
2. Second American Revolution
3. First female President of the US
4. First person walks on Mars
5. "Irrefutable evidence" of a habitable planet
6. ET life discovered
7. Palin elected President of the US
8. World epidemic
by, let's say, 2070 (since I don't know your age).

The events seem to have wildly different chances to me. I would place #3 at 90% to 98% (there should be 8 to 16 US presidents elected in that time) and #5 at 75%+, depending on the particular meaning of 'habitable' and 'irrefutable'. On the other hand, #1, #2, and #7 seem to be less than 1% likely in my estimation.

I'm not sure exactly how to interpret #8; it could be very likely or fairly unlikely depending on the definition.

By 2070:

1. 25%
2. 30% ***
3. 90%
4. 50% ***
5. 70% ***
6. 5%
7. 25%
8. 60%

*** the ones I am looking forward the most.

My point was that today we are slightly more aware of the things we may accomplish unlike a person in 1870 whom did not have access to the Internet and other mass communication tools.

 

[CRGreathouse]

1. Third World War
2. Second American Revolution

1. 88%
2. 96% (if a civil war counts)

Wow, you're pessimistic. (And yes, I would say a civil war counts, but of course not a secessionist movement like Talossa.)

 

[G037H3]

Wow, you're pessimistic. (And yes, I would say a civil war counts, but of course not a secessionist movement like Talossa.)

Things are way less stable than you think they are. The US is not going to be able to force everyone to be capitalist and democratic forever. This picture illustrates my point:

 

[jobyts]

Watch between 50:23 to 53:00

From the title of this thread, I first thought we were going to discuss the more exciting stuff mentioned in the video :(

 

[CRGreathouse]

The US is not going to be able to force everyone to be capitalist and democratic forever.

Of course not. This isn't a surprise in any way -- the US only ever had that power for a few years. See Krauthammer's "The unipolar moment". The US was privileged in being able to shape world affairs for a number of years. It was known from the beginning that this power would last only a short time: that's mentioned on the first page!

But there's a serious difference between being the hegemon (which the US was for only a short while, or perhaps never -- see Wilkinson 1999) and being in civil war/revolution.

 

[G037H3]

Of course not. This isn't a surprise in any way -- the US only ever had that power for a few years. See Krauthammer's "The unipolar moment". The US was privileged in being able to shape world affairs for a number of years. It was known from the beginning that this power would last only a short time: that's mentioned on the first page!

But there's a serious difference between being the hegemon (which the US was for only a short while, or perhaps never -- see Wilkinson 1999) and being in civil war/revolution.

I've stated at least a dozen times that a nation with such divided demographics will only be stable as long as people are contented by $. And even then there is much daily friction. My views are unpopular; I don't care.

 

[Char. Limit]

On the not so bright side, there is a good chance I might live through a world epidemic... or worse... witness S. P. become President... dammit!

I would find living through a world epidemic pretty damn lucky.

 

[G037H3]

I would find living through a world epidemic pretty damn lucky.

Why? If you live in an area full of people who are good at cooperating, you have a pretty high chance of survival.

 

[Char. Limit]

Why? If you live in an area full of people who are good at cooperating, you have a pretty high chance of survival.

I don't think I do. Well, the Eastern Washington people will probably get along well, but those Westerners will ruin everything.

{humor intended}

 

[G037H3]

I don't think I do. Well, the Eastern Washington people will probably get along well, but those Westerners will ruin everything.

{humor intended}

No, your statement is likely correct.

 

[CRGreathouse]

I've stated at least a dozen times that a nation with such divided demographics will only be stable as long as people are contented by $. And even then there is much daily friction.

Pity you have no money to put where your mouth is, then.

 

[G037H3]

Pity you have no money to put where your mouth is, then.

It's a historical perspective. People learn again and again that the apparent patterns of their age are not the patterns of history. =)

 

[CRGreathouse]

It's a historical perspective. People learn again and again that the apparent patterns of their age are not the patterns of history. =)

I just wish I could pit my understanding of historical perspective against yours with more than just my reputation on the line.

 

[mheslep]

2070?

1. Third World War 5%
2. Second American Revolution 10%
3. First female President of the US 70%
4. First person walks on Mars 40%
5. "Irrefutable evidence" of a habitable planet 0.01%
6. ET life discovered 0.0000 (and so on ) 1%
7. Palin elected President of the US 1%
8. World epidemic 30%

#1 (and #2 if violent): No full fledged democracy has attacked another since Athens attacked Syracuse. Now there are some 160 democracies. So 3rd world war? No way. A 2nd Amer Revolution is slightly possible if a (mostly) non-violent one qualifies as a revolution.

 

[lisab]

Every time I read Third World War in this thread, I think of a war in the Third World...100%, I'm afraid.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Every time I read Third World War in this thread, I think of a war in the Third World...100%, I'm afraid.

Based on data from the COW project I count 321 wars starting 1992-2001 (since 2001 is the most recent year with data). Modeling this as a Poisson process, I estimate the probability of having no wars over a given 60-year span at exp(-32.1 * 60) or about one in 3 x 10⁸³⁶.

 

[CRGreathouse]

#1 (and #2 if violent): No full fledged democracy has attacked another since Athens attacked Syracuse. Now there are some 160 democracies. So 3rd world war? No way. A 2nd Amer Revolution is slightly possible if a (mostly) non-violent one qualifies as a revolution.

I wasn't counting non-violent revolutions; if I was my numbers would match yours.

 

[discrete*]

Just out of curiosity, why does everyone seem to think a third world war is so unlikely?

 

[G037H3]

Just out of curiosity, why does everyone seem to think a third world war is so unlikely?

Last Men always think that way.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Just out of curiosity, why does everyone seem to think a third world war is so unlikely?

Nuclear weaponry, the democratic peace, increased international trade.

 

[discrete*]

Nuclear weaponry, the democratic peace, increased international trade.

It seems to me that all three of these things could be used to start, continue or end a world wide war.

 

[lisab]

Just out of curiosity, why does everyone seem to think a third world war is so unlikely?

To go to war, a majority of citizens of country X must believe that the people in country Y are evil, and the only way to deal with them is to kill them. Globalization and the internet make it very difficult to isolate a country enough to effectively do that, IMO.

 

[discrete*]

To go to war, a majority of citizens of country X must believe that the people in country Y are evil, and the only way to deal with them is to kill them. Globalization and the internet make it very difficult to isolate a country enough to effectively do that, IMO.

This is a good argument, and probably the most realistic one in terms of common sense. But, there are exceptions. For example, suppose nation Y launches a large scale attack on nation X, nation X is too weak to combat nation Y alone and thus calls on nation Z (an ally) and so forth.
It's at this point that isolated countries do not matter, and it than becomes a group of allied nations vs another group. Now, this is an extreme example, but certainly not a far-fetched one. I suppose it's more likely that, if a conflict of this caliber was to break out, nuclear weapons would end it before many nations had a chance to "jump in". Either way, humanity takes a serious blow.

 

[CRGreathouse]

To go to war, a majority of citizens of country X must believe that the people in country Y are evil, and the only way to deal with them is to kill them. Globalization and the internet make it very difficult to isolate a country enough to effectively do that, IMO.

Precisely -- that's what I was talking about wrt trade.

“When goods do not cross borders, soldiers will.” -Bastiat

 

[lompocus]

Hey, why don't I add a few non-political things to the tech/science shortlist:
-Cheap commercial space travel; widely accessible across globe (because, on occasion, cheap and accessible are not mutual... brain is gone today, I am afraid...)
-Personal computers as fast as the most powerful modern super computer (you'll have to look the numbers up, I'm afraid...). Must be affordable and accessible, i.e. your grandmother will have one.*
-permanent habitation on Mars, the Moon, or a station in lunar orbit (where permanent implies just that, permanence in the sense of life/death in orbit or on a non-earth planet).
-Some form of (again, cheap & accessible) life extension.

All of this by that same deadline of 2070.

*Your grandmother may not be alive; however, I hope you understand my meaning!

 

[Ivan Seeking]

To go to war, a majority of citizens of country X must believe that the people in country Y are evil, and the only way to deal with them is to kill them. Globalization and the internet make it very difficult to isolate a country enough to effectively do that, IMO.

Imo, it may come down to energy - it is pretty hard to sell world peace when fuel hits $10 [or $20] a gallon - but I think the internet and trade do offer the real hope that war as we have known it will finally end.

On the flip side, the internet has helped to radicalize individuals and groups that would otherwise just be nuts. I am reminded of the movie, Brazil, which portrays a world where terror attacks are just an everyday event that hardly anyone notices.

Regarding life extension, while I would regard this as a fringe claim, I have heard experts in the field claim that, in the lifetime of a young person today, life could be extended to 200-400 years. The claim is that advances in this field will simply outpace the aging process. So through one advancement you may get, in effect, an extra twenty years, and before you get too old, another advance comes along and you will get another twenty, and then another forty, and so on.

With that in mind, today's news.

Researchers at Harvard-affiliated medical centers genetically manipulated mice to age faster, and then used gene therapy to lengthen telomeres -- compounds found at the ends of strands of DNA -- which reversed age-related problems such as decreased brain function and infertility...

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Alzheimers/aging-reversed-mice/story?id=12269125

emphasis mine

About twelve years ago on a long flight, I met a person from Harvard doing telomere research. He too thought 200+ year lifespans were entirely possible in the relatively near future [decades].

Also, hopefully, paralysis, blindness, deafness, lost limbs, and other similar human conditions will be a thing of the past. There is a real possibility that we will one day have the medical technology to regrow lost limbs and correct the other problems.

We had better develop sustainable solutions for farming, our energy needs, and our desired rate of consumption.

Beat the crowd and practice birth control now!

 

[Ivan Seeking]

5. "irrefutable evidence" of a habitable planet

> 90%

 

[BobG]

Let's give this thread some teeth.



Suppose you were in a betting mood. What odds would you place on each of these events?
1. Third World War
2. Second American Revolution
3. First female President of the US
4. First person walks on Mars
5. "Irrefutable evidence" of a habitable planet
6. ET life discovered
7. Palin elected President of the US
8. World epidemic
by, let's say, 2070 (since I don't know your age).

1. Almost 100%. However, it won't be the nuclear holocaust most people imagine. It will take place in the Middle East South Asia and will be more devastating than World War II (especially the disruptions to oil supplies), and may well include some nuclear weapons, but it won't be the end of the world.

2. Almost 0%. This is counter-intuitive. The chances of a country with such a large diversity of ethnic and religious groups avoiding civil war should be very small, but we seem to have hit on a system that finds a way to eventually incorporate everyone into the mix.

3. 85%. I don't think Clinton was a good choice as the first serious female candidate, but there's too many good female candidates available for this to be more than a matter of time. The only thing pulling the percentage down so low is that elections only take place every 4 years, the number of 2 term Presidents, and that there will probably be more male candidates than female candidates for some time.

4. Maybe about 1%. This is an expensive undertaking that needs an artificial reason to provide the necessary motivation. It just doesn't have a good cost-benefit ratio on its own.

5. Almost 100%. We keep getting better at detecting smaller planets and technology is the only limiting factor.

6. 1% to 2%. Our detection of ET life will be detecting intelligent signals from space. Signal strength is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the source and us, there's a lot of space to survey, meaning the odds of finding a signal soon are very low, even if the event itself should be inevitable.

7. 2%. TV and movies have a big impact on our lives. Fred Thompson was a leading Republican contender last election (but at least he actually had some political experience prior to becoming an actor). I think there's at least a small chance of getting one really bad President from the entertainment field before people realize politics is a serious business. (And, in spite of Palin being a former governor, I do consider her more of a celebrity candidate than a serious politician.)

8. Depends more on the definition than anything else. Technically, this is a 100% probability. If you start placing limits, say wiping out 20% of the world's population, then the chances go down significantly. If you start placing limits such as an epidemic wiping out a high percentage of the industrial world, then the probability approaches zero. (I think an epidemic that wipes out 300,000 people in the US would be a pretty bad epidemic - that would wipe out 0.1% of the US population.)

 

[Chi Meson]

2. Second American Revolution <1%

We seem to have a "revolution" every 8 to 12 years, don't we? If you mean with guns, etc, I doubt that anything larger than a few pockets of out-of-hand militias will be skirmishing. I believe our strongest asset is the dedication of our military forces to the constitution and the concept of the United States. My father is a retired Navy Captain, and I live in a Navy-dominant area and so I know that the predominant ideology of our military officers is not superficial adherence to the word of anyone person, but to the welfare of the Union.

All those militias are weak farts in comparison to the force and fortitude of our trained military. I would put more trust in the worst academy-educated officer than the "best" guy any populist militia has to offer (grain of salt: OK, some officers might have gone "over the edge," so I'm referring to any officer the military deems to be fit).

Regarding the OP, yes we do live in interesting times, don't we? I look forward to the second-half of my life (here's hoping) with apprehension and excitement. I'm intrigued by how we shall deal with the loss of cheap oil (please note I said loss of "cheap" oil; there's plenty of it, it just won't be cheap anymore). Which way will we go? Will we get hydrogen fusion figured out, or will we just burn everything?