/sci/ - Science & Math

yea

really, because im just 19

Nope.

>have a cyborg body, live forever, have virtual realities, superintelligent AI government
>implying any of that is depicted on movies

Anyways, OP:

http://thenanoage.com/
http://www.molecularassembler.com/Nanofactory/

Don't trust Kurzweil or any of the other false prophets.

Pic related should explain some things.

fuck it

>superintelligent AI government
>Implying people would actually vote for Skynet

>>3799223

The other sources are at the bottom.

>>3799247

i would, i want to watch the world burn.

>>3799197

Cyborg body and live forever....probably

"Hard" virtual realities, AI goverment and travelling to other stars....less likely.

We might be on the verge of understanding how FTL travel is possible, maybe.

la la la i'm implying nanoscale chemistry is mechanical and none of you can stop me la la la

>>3799256
but if I can live forever as a ciborg, then eventually I will visit other stars or see an AI

Immortality will never see the light of day because big pharma will block it. The only way they'll let it reach the market is if it requires periodic use of a product they could supply.

>>3799261
I imagine that you wake up every morning and ejaculate on pictures of nanomachinery

>>3799265

About the AI...well...you would be that AI. Visist other stars...something tells me you would be destroyed due the tiny probability of suffering somoething body crushing each day before traveling to other stars is posible.

But now....if you have back up minds...then...yes, it is a posibility.

>>3799274

Thats why im already starting firendly contact with the guy in charge of the project blue brain.

I'm really hoping practical nuclear fusion power happens within my lifetime. Even if things go well it's not expected to happen until I'm already an old man.

>>3799277

>About the AI...well...you would be that AI.

Mind uploading != AI.

>>3799274
long-term sales are preferred, but blocking something like that is just impossible. If one corporation doesn't want to produce it, then another will, and will profit thereby even if it's a one-time treatment.

>>3799354
I don't think you know how the real market works, because it's absolutely nothing like the imaginary free market.

>Are we on the verge of an enormous leap in technology?
Y'know how you hear that 'Oh the Great Wall of China took this many dozens of years to build many lives were lost yadda yadda' ?
Well now imagine you have a technology which can replace human labour to any extent and scale you want as long as you have the materials and the blueprints. Automation is going to be *fucking* huge.

>will I go to other stars
Yes
>have a cyborg body
Something like that, yes
>live forever
Nah, heat death. How about living at least a few billion years?
>have virtual realities
Definitely. In your standard human lifespan.
>superintelligent AI government
Seems likely

>>3799394
Automation of manual labor is only worthwhile if most people are educated enough to at least be skilled laborers, otherwise it just causes mass unemployment and pushes down wages. We're no where near ready for it.

>>3799394

Heat death is further away than thousands of quadrillion years...

>>3799369
>>3799369
there would be more than just profit driven motives for hiding immortality from the world.
Besides it's more likely that our "immortality" will take the form of treatment which needs to be continually given. Even if we have robot bodies they still need to be repaired.

>>3799421
Because mass unemployment always has to be bad, amirite?

It's a law that's written into the fabric of reality: The higher the unemployment becomes, the worse the living conditions for everyone become. No changing it.

RIGHT?

>>3799394

GTFO with your cyberkyke delusional bullshit

>>3799432

Nowadays I'm doubting we'll be able to use molecular assemblers to print food.

Maybe trick some bacteria to squirt out a brick of protein, though...

>>3799432
Yes. I'm glad you understand.

>>3799443
I would imagine food would be too complex for a molecular assembler.

>>3799442
It's cyber 'kike.' You may want to improve on your English before you start making derogatory racist comments; makes you look unprofessional.

>>3799443

What do you think? A closed-loop life support system for everyone, feeding off shit and piss and producing bricks of wet protein, with the energy coming in from the Sun or some shit. Maybe the bacteria can be photosynthetic or fed through some ordinary chemosynthesis plant that is powered by sunlight or electricity from sunlight.

Only for the rich and powerful. Basically, fuck everywhere that isn't America, (Western) Europe, and Japan

>>3799451

>>3799460

>I would imagine food would be too complex for a molecular assembler.

Of course. But I was thinking: That which cannot be synthesized by a molecular assembler or by other mechanical means can be synthesized by a nanoscale, highly efficient chemical synthesis plant created by a molecular assembler.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lab-on-a-chip
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microfluidics

Trippin' balls.

>>3799474
Then you might want to actually say something rather than imply that mass unemployment of an uneducated workforce is somehow a good thing.

>>3799478
Shiny.

>>3799486
Normally I would go on about the whole robots becoming so versatile they can take over all work for necessities for human comfort and basically everyone living unemployed doing whatever the fuck they want to do with the robots having only one goal, maximizing resources which can be used by the human race in order to usher in a new world where your abilities are only limited to your imagination and perseverance but I've been awake for 22 hours straight and I've repeated such a sentiment more times than I care to remember, so I'm just going to leave you with a link that is approximately what I would foresee happening by 2050.

http://www.marshallbrain.com/manna5.htm

>>3799274
>The only way they'll let it reach the market is if it requires periodic use of a product they could supply.

I can see this happening. They managed to stunt aging in mice but there were too many side-effects. They might work on drugs to help fight those side-effects.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/nov/28/scientists-reverse-ageing-mice-humans

>>3799510
In other words all you have a day dreams, not real answers. In reality all you will have is a large mass of people that consume resources but give nothing back, acting as a dead weight on society. Instead of trying to trying to think of a solution that would allow people to be productive and useful you instead say it's better to do nothing.

>>3799534
Because working two jobs both at an automotive factory stamping metal plates and a waitress at Hooters is so productive. Because a high two-digit number of the population are contributing to the intellectual and technological progression of our civilization and species. The same regimented jobs that permeate throughout the world, shaping the education system, right down to the entire foundation of governance.

>In reality all you will have is a large mass of people that consume resources but give nothing back
Plasma gasification units recycle over 99% of the material thrown in them which can then be directly transported where it is required for industry and agriculture. Any additional elements required can be supplied from the sea or the asteroids.
>acting as a dead weight on society.
That first example I gave is a stunning example of how important and valuable they are to society. If they suddenly had lots of free time, with free access to educational materials or just instruments, or a laptop for programming, or art... that's so much worse than an engendering environment where you must show extra cleavage to get a tip. Right?

In 25 years more change will happen than the past 100. Technology nowadays is an unstoppable snowball effect.

yes, but not the things you said

we are on the verge of several leaps in technology OP.

we are also on the verge of malthusian catastrophe, particularly in matters of diminishing returns on fuels and fertilizers.

it's a race- technology will probably win, but something like 6/7 of people alive won't be around to see it.

>>3799557
I don't think you even bothered to read my post >>3799421 . You would have noticed I said we're not ready for it NOW, and honestly imagining it will be possible by 2050 is ludicrously optimistic.

>>3799248

Phil Moriarty was always my favourite on nottinghamscience. He deserves the grant money, especially after his last video lol.

>>3799562
> Technology nowadays is an unstoppable snowball effect.

WOW! That's amazing! And there's no reason to consider the limits imposed by oil and resource depletion! You're so fucking smart!

Or you're American, and you actually BELIEVE THAT STUPID SHIT YOU JUST POSTED. Wanker.

faster internet op, thats the hope.

>>3799671

Not really seeing any reason why it wouldn't be worth it anyway. The immediate gains wouldn't be as much, but we'll be waiting for them either way. No magical techno-dust would be wasted by automating sooner.

> Are we on the verge of an enormous leap in technology?
No. We're right in the middle of it.

Not sure if relevant, but random question.

What were some things that were "just science fiction" only 20 years ago, but are commonplace, or at least working prototype today.

What about 10 years ago? 5?

Asking because I don't really know, but I'm interested in what is scifi today that might be normal in the future.

>>3799197
Short answer, no.

Long answer, pray to jesus and the magic technology fairie will make it so.

>>3800827
We can not accurately predict what developments will take place more than a few years in the future. For instance in the 60's people thought there would be permanent moon colonies by now but no one predicted the creation of the internet.

>>3800848

Are you some kind of troll or just a reincarnation of Science/Scientist/whomeverhewas with a different tripcode?

>>3800718
had the same idea when i read OPs post.

fucking kids born after 1990.

50 years ago computers were as big as a fucking room

>>3799478
Microfluidics and lab-on-a-chip. You just summarized my PhD topic. Just started this semester. Next month I'll start fabricating micro- and nano-scale microfluidic devices using plasma deep ion etching and electron beam lithography.

We're still in the industrial revolution, technological development doesn't seem to have reached a new equilibrium yet, though if you compare the last 50 years with 1911-1961 you might conclude that the peak is over.

Yes. Soon we will get to abolish food and live on solar energy.

>>3799460
>implying a solid block of glucose couldn't be considered food
>implying a nanoscale assembler would have trouble with a 6-carbon sugar

>>3800913
There were basically no internet and proper electronics before the 70's

>Are we on the verge of an enormous leap in technology?

yes, faster than light porn

I know this is /sci/, and I myself am a scientist, but I often get the feeling that the general feeling here is that technology (in particular technological progress), efficiency, production, and intellectual contribution should be the only goals of a society. Is it that, or are we just focusing on this side of things because this is a science board?

>>3800899
Are you MechE or Materials Science?

>>3800943
Yes, until we reach the limit.

>>3800950
Neither actually. I'm studying environmental engineering.

I study energy. Specifically, I study petroleum and fossil fuel depletion.

The answer is a disappointing no.

>>3800954
TTHHOORRRRRIIIIUUUUMMMM

>>3800960

Ah, yes, the new replacement for the "hydrogen" economy.

>>3800943
We don't know what our ultimate goal should be in life, it's just that efficiency, production and intellectual contribution help achieve whatever shitty goals we assign ourselves.

>>3800951
I've just always found that idea very unappealing.

>>3800936
There was no radio, proper aircraft, proper cars, proper electricity, proper piped water, many little industrial innovations, no tv, no proper cinema and no proper steel skyscrapers in 1911.

>>3800970
I'm certainly not against technological progress in general, but it's sad knowing that certain social experienced I've enjoyed will be lost when a faster, more efficient design is implemented. I can give one example in regards to travel by train in China or India.

I've taken 40 hour train rides across China and have some extraordinary social experiences. It's also a pleasure meeting new people, sharing food and drinks, debating politics...etc. In India, I'd much rather ride on the top of a slow train, talk with the locals, and enjoy the sun than take a bullet train to my destination in a silent journey. I understand the importance of the bullet train and its necessity in the business world, but inevitably it will become the only option effectively cutting out that social experience I once enjoyed.

I feel as though technology is reducing the human experience into something that can be quantified. It's eroding our social ties, which are ironically becoming more superficial as they become more numerous. I wish it were possible for humans to evaluate the impact of technology on society (and the environment) before implementing it on a massive scale. Sorry for the rant. Just something I think about every now and then.

>>3800920
Why would you want to abolish food?

>>3801034
how about you don't talk to strangers on a train like a douche

>>3801039
It takes too much time to cook and eat. Not to mention all the land that's wasted on producing food.

>>3800984
babylon doesn't ask for your permission

>>3801043
Talking to strangers is a fun experience, and I do it in every country I visit. I've entertained groups of random strangers from all over the world at hostel common rooms for hours with my stories, or with political discussion. I've played card games and shared beer with random people while travelling by bus or train, tagged along with people on hikes through the mountains, hopped into cars with other tourists, and some of those people have joined me on various adventures in different parts of the world.

It can be very useful to talk to strangers as well. I met a couple in China and told them about a problem I had buying a train ticket from Shanghai to Hong Kong while I was in another city. They told me to give them the cash, and they'd not only buy it for me but give me a place to stay in Shanghai when I got there. I handed over $100, received my ticket in Shanghai when I met them a week later, and stayed at their place overnight. Another time I talked to a couple at a famous bar in Germany. They told me to take a train and find my way to their house in a forested area in the south. Once there I was treated to wonderful dinners, my own bed, and a trip to one of the best spas in the region because it was owned by the wife. You can only have these types of experiences by talking to people. It's good to be extroverted.

>>3801048
But food tastes good, it can be fun to make, it brings families together, and can also be cathartic. You'd give that up?

>>3801202
Food won't taste good once you are not getting hungry anymore.

>>3799247
>Implying people wouldn't vote for the lovechild of Adolf Hitler and Satan as long as he lies good enough.

>Implying a hyper-intelligent super-AI such as skynet would actually be allowed to participate with its own campaign by the powers that be, or that it would give a fuck about politicis, it could sidestep that whole mess by say, founding its own nation.

>>3801214
>Food won't taste good once you are not getting hungry anymore.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>ITT, humans severely underestimate the degree to which their personalities and sense of "self" is defined by the biological vessel that carries them.

>>3801220
Even obese people would not eat if they weren't hungry occasionally.

>>3801214
I'd choose to be hungry though. Would you prefer not to be?

>>3801468
of course

you need food for more than just energy. though you could rid yourself of the parts of the body that do (all of them)

>A second reanssance?
>reanssance
Not with you we're not.

>>3801978
mfw Im the OP

>>3801227
>wut

Fart.