/sci/ - Science & Math

Its the future anything can fucking happen.

war in Europe likely.
Chian will invade its neighbours, likely.
USA, civil war, likely.

- peak oil?
60%
- the end of Moore's law?
75%
- the discovery of the higgs boson?
20%
- experimental evidence for string theory?
0%
- manned mission to an asteroid?
60%
- virtual reality for all five senses (and over million users)?
10%
- manned mission to Mars?
60%
- a war between two developed and powerful countries
50%
- sexbots (and over million users)?
75%
- attempt to colonize Mars or Moon?
20%
- commercial fusion power plants?
20%
- A.I. that passes the turing test?
60%
- mind uploading?
10%
- technological singularity?
10%

We've passed peak oil. We're also going to start reaching the peak of elements which can store digital data, and we're going to have to start considering that.

>peak oil?
Over 99%

>the end of Moore's law?
Under 5%

>the discovery of the higgs boson?
1%

>experimental evidence for string theory?
1%

>manned mission to an asteroid?
Over 99%

>virtual reality, fully immersive, large userbase
Over 99%

>Manned mission to Mars
100%

>a war between two developed and powerful countries (like
China, European countries, the USA, Canada, Brazil etc.)?
25%

>sexbots (and over million users)?
95%

>attempt to colonize Mars or Moon?
99%

>commercial fusion power plants?
20%

>A.I. that passes the turing test?
80%

>mind uploading?
10%

>technological singularity?
40%

peak oil %100 and everythin els %0 becuse everythin will end xD

>>3986701
>>- peak oil?
Meh, no idea. Maybe we'll have largely switched ot thorium and other alternative sources.
>>- the end of Moore's law?
Low. Here is my reasoning: as the hard limit draws closer we are already started researching alternatives and we found quite a lot. The industry and the military simply cannot afford to be left behind. Between DNA computing, graphene chips and quantum computers I doubt we'll see the end of Moore anytime soon.

>>- the discovery of the higgs boson?
High chance
>>- experimental evidence for string theory?
>>- manned mission to an asteroid?
>>- virtual reality for all five senses (and over million users)?
Low chance I'm afraid.

>- peak oil?
Have we not already peaked on discoveries of new oil?

>2011
>having five senses


LOL

Regarding peak oil.

www.netl.doe.gov/energy-analyses/pubs/Oil_Peaking_NETL.pdf

Moore's law will end for certain within 50 years. However that is only because the law is narrowly defined and would not apply to new paradigms 3D circuits or memristors.

inb5 violent simians

>>3986744
> Have we not already peaked on discoveries of new oil?

Oh yes. Most people just don't know that world oil discoveries peaked in the 1960s. U.S. production peaked after 1970, and finally world production peaked around 2005/6.

Oil will still be discovered and produced. But we will never find as much as we did before, we will never find at the previous frequency, and our production will plateau for a time and then fall, no matter what we do.

2.5 billion people in China and India are looking to consume oil like the average APN (American Petro-/\/igger (i.e. middle class White person)), and with production unable to increase, then petroleum will greatly increase in price (using speculation peaks, then demand destruction, with a return to a higher plateau each time) or become unavailable in more and more markets. The next 25 years will be a period of increasing Oil Starvation. Americans will have gasoline and diesel during that period, but just like with health-care, they will have to pay more and more for it, breaking their budgets.

Outside of the American market (which in all its imperial arrogance, REFUSES TO ADAPT), there will be anger and adaptation. But with imperial arrogance and with overall anger levels rising, the already-started Resource Wars will just expand. Oil-producing areas in places where there are a lot of people with dark skin, will be more and more contended by militaries. (Which excludes imperial interior regions like Texas.)

>>3986766
Funny thing is, that there are several new developements that Moore didn't count on. They look like little dents in the graph now, but at those times, people predicted the end of Moore's law.

>>3986701
> - the end of Moore's law?

Eventually. As Humanity re-arranges itself to singularly fight the Resource Wars of the entire 21st Century, there will still be a military need for higher densities of computational equipment.

> - the discovery of the higgs boson?

That will no longer matter since the Resource Wars will swallow up the cultural energies of the First World. More and more high-energy physics facilities will shut down, starved of funding.

> - experimental evidence for string theory?

That will never happen. ST isn't a theory, it was just academic pissants looking to get around the hard work of theorizing, designing experiments, and collecting data therefrom. We will never EVER have the equipment for probing scales that are so small beyond our current abilities. The physics institutions of the First World became lazy and dependent upon entitlements; they created an authoritarian structure that overrides science itself. So they are milking the money and will fail eventually. PhDs will be repurposed for war or thrown away.

>>3986968
>world production peaked around 2005/6.
Except that 2007 had a higher production.
That 2008 - now do better, is simply due to the recession. In times of recession, oil consumptions (and therefore production) tend to go down a bit.

>>3986701
> - manned mission to an asteroid?
> - manned mission to Mars?
> - attempt to colonize Mars or Moon?

These are dead projects. Humanity is gearing up to wage the Resource Wars, which will eventually consume nearly all cultural energy in the First World. There will be no time or money or general interest in space "exploration". Surely even if the Resource Wars didn't exist, the world has should a very strong disinterest in manned spaceflight, as expressed through their politicians. In other words, people like to talk about space, but that's as far as they're willing to go.

Manned spacefilght is dead. Anyone planning on it, is the most delusional motherfucker ever.

> - virtual reality for all five senses (and over million users)?
> - sexbots (and over million users)?

Not so much the former, except for military applications. Some of the latter, to help keep the population insular and distracted from their coming doom.

> - a war between two developed and powerful countries (like China, European countries, the USA, Canada, Brazil etc.)?

The Resource Wars assumes that. By the end of the RW, the waging of the Last War must involve the major industrial powers of the world.

>>3987000
> Except that 2007 had a higher production.

Then my data is merely off by a year. There are only so many barrels of oil that can be economically exploited in each era. That means there MUST be a production peak. So it's here or there, and the temporal radius of here or there is small.

You Cornucopians believe in Asymptotic Oil. You're morons.

>>3986701
>- peak oil?
70%

>- the end of Moore's law?
95%

>- the discovery of the higgs boson?
40%

>- experimental evidence for string theory?
40%

>- manned mission to an asteroid?
10%

>- virtual reality for all five senses (and over million users)?
95%

>- manned mission to Mars?
60%

>- a war between two developed and powerful countries (like
>China, European countries, the USA, Canada, Brazil etc.)?
15%


>- sexbots (and over million users)?
60%

>- attempt to colonize Mars or Moon?
2%

>- commercial fusion power plants?
75%

>- A.I. that passes the turing test?
70%

>- mind uploading?
20%

>- technological singularity?
1%

>>3986701
> - commercial fusion power plants?

Never. We cannot contain the fusion reaction long enough to produce commercial power. The end.

> - A.I. that passes the turing test?

The AI community isn't interested in AI, therefore they won't achieve that. They are only milking the money like most other Western academics.

> - mind uploading?

Without resorting to Human experimentation, the Western powers won't achieve this, ever.

> - technological singularity?

There is no such thing.

>Brazil
>Developed, powerful.
um, yeah...

>>3987031
>Without resorting to Human experimentation, the Western powers won't achieve this, ever.

Since when is human experimentation off limits in the west?

Moore's Law will definitely end.
There will be no extraterrestrial permanent colonies.
War between first world nations will not occur.
Peak oil will happen, if it hasn't already.

The rest, who knows.

>>3987019
>Implying I said we will never reach a peak production.
>Implying that I didn't say that 2007 is the year before the recession, which is a plausible cause for a local maximum in production.
Normal scientists, not conservitards, nor greenpeace, believe that we have not yet reached peak oil. Current oil wells are running below capacity, due to the recession.

>>3987049
Why must Moore's law end (in the foreseeable future)?

>>3987037
> Since when is human experimentation off limits in the west?

Obviously you don't understand. REAL Human experimentation is an impossibility in the West, and anything that has to do with experimenting on people is highly limited except for the vast legal entanglements around it.

China is willing to just cut prisoners up for organs. That's what it must take to truly determine what's going on in the brain. We must treat people like lab rats to find out, and nobody in the West can do that legally, since it's brutal and lethal.

BOTHER TO FUCKING UNDERSTAND.

>>3986701

> peak oil?
100%

> the end of Moore's law?
100%

> the discovery of the higgs boson?
50%

> experimental evidence for string theory?
5%, the apparatus required may be too expensive to build. Another likely scenario is that some other theory is discovered, and string theory goes into the dustbin.

> virtual reality for all five senses (and over million users)?
0% because I suspect that either 1) you don't need *all* five senses for a good VR experience or 2) it would be cost prohibitive for at least one sense.

> manned mission to an asteroid?
25%
> manned mission to Mars?
25%
> attempt to colonize Mars or Moon?
5% (none, really, but goddammit I'm a hopeful bastard)

> a war between two developed and powerful countries (like China, European countries, the USA, Canada, Brazil etc.)?
75%

> sexbots (and over million users)?
60% (Captcha: sea sinclub :D)

> A.I. that passes the turing test?
10% (more likely is AI that is beyond our understanding, but not good at emulating us)

> commercial fusion power plants?
> mind uploading?
> technological singularity?
0%

>>3987059
>Why must Moore's law end (in the foreseeable future)?

The question you should ask is why should it continue.

But, to answer the question, because matter is not infinitely divisible, and because the speed of light is a constant.

>>3987059
physics and math. BTW, the law is that "feature density doubles avery 18 months". Physics: getting to the realm of individual atoms, where quantum noise dominates any signals. Math: you just can't double forever, you will eventually get to a longer tail (2 years, 5 years). Moore's "law" is already nearly at an end; hence the move to multiple cores, and a marketing emphasis on smartphones which are going for low power not highest speed.

>>3987134
>the speed of light is a constant.
not according to neutrinos

>>3987104
>100%
>There is no possible scenario that it doesn't happen.
Why can't there be (yet another) breaktrough in chip technology, or oil drilling? Even if unlikely, it's not impossible.
>0%
Shit dude, you just did it again.

If it's really 0%, you should be willing to make the following bet, for any N. We bet, if I win, I get N (local currency), if I loose, you get 1 cent in local currency. The odds are N*100 against, but that's still a good bet, if the outcome is 0%.
Are you willing to make this bet for 10,000? For a million? For your own family and friends life (I suppose that's worth a lot more than a million)?

>>3987141
I'm a computer scientist, btw. I can tell you, that the single atom argument doesn't make sense.
If you can lower the price of a transistor, (but not the size) Moore's law will still hold, provided we can parallelize most of the processes in the CPU. This is the reason your computer is dual (or even quad) core. The price of a quad core now, is a lot lower than a single core a couple of years ago.

>>3987143

0/10

>>3987152
>density can increase by making it bigger

What about augments?

>>3987167
Moore's law isn't about density, but about absolute numbers, for a reasonable price (say, a fixed price, corrected for inflation).

To quote wikipedia:
>The number of transistors that can be placed inexpensively on an integrated circuit doubles approximately every two years.
Making bigger circuits would be a valid way to go. It's just that bigger circuits have new problems. Which may be solved by more research.

>>3987208
>Making bigger circuits would be a valid way to go.

No, because the speed of light is limited, and bigger=slower. Also, components just doubling in physical size every 2 years is silly. That means in 50 years it will be 2^25~=32 million times as large.

>>3987219
>No, because the speed of light is limited, and bigger=slower.
>Speed of light
That's not relevant at all.
A truck carrying a shitload of DVD's has a way bigger bandwith then a optic fibre cable, operating at the speed of light.
One of the hottest research area's is automatically pipelining massive calculations. Basically, having assembly line computations, rather then unitary computations.
Shit, you don't think such a revolution in computing will basically do the same to information technology, as what the real assembly line did for manufactoring?

>>3987167
Not the guy you were responding too, but:

"The number of transistors that can be placed inexpensively on an integrated circuit doubles approximately every two years."

>make transistors cheaper AKA increase chip yields
>becomes more feasible to build larger chips (more transistors
>density in transistor/inch^2 doesn't change
>moors law holds

>>3987238
but
>>3987219

>>3987236
>That's not relevant at all.

It's sure as hell relevant when you're making stuff physically larger, which is what we were talking about.

>>3987241
but
>>3987236
Also, more emphasis on pipelined computation would severly modularize chip design, which means that there a a lot less long connections on the circuit board. That's what takes up the most space, you know?
The same drive for non-locality also allows you to go 3d.

>>3987219
1.) electrons and signals on a computer chip don't move at the speed of light.
2.) making everything more parallel means parts on the chip need to communicate with each other less anyway - so whatever the limit on actual propagation speed is mitigated.

>>3987244
No, a larger size only increases latency, it doesn't change computational power. It's still better to go bigger, than to freeze technology.
Even though a chip twice the size isn't twice as good, it's still better. Hence, if transistors get cheaper, boards will get bigger.

>>3987250
>1.) electrons and signals on a computer chip don't move at the speed of light.

That's true. The speed of light is the upper limit on how fast anything could travel in theory. It's just one of various limiting parameters that is independent of any engineering advances, which only comes into play when you make crazy assertions like Moore's Law continuing for 50 years.

>>3987250
Thanks. At least someone gets the point.

>>3987255
>Hence, if transistors get cheaper, boards will get bigger.

But not indefinitely, which is what Moore's Law demands. We're talking about a factor of 33 million.

>>3987219
That is not how area works.

If you double the width and height, you quadruple the area.

>>3987244
The time it takes light to go from one end of your computer case to the other is still trivial from the point of circuit design. Then again, we are talking about signal propagation speed, but that can be mitigated by design layout and whatever we come up with in the future (ex, 3d things)

>>3987260
I'll reformulate Moore's law:
>Price*(area of transitor) halves every 2 years.
Even if the area required for a single transistor cannot decrease, the price can still halve.
Now, if the chip design isn't retarded, more transistors is always better.

> the discovery of the higgs boson?

> experimental evidence for string theory?

can't find evidence for something that doesn't exist.

>>3987274
And if chips are more modular, they can be in 3d. Then, doubling the each dimension leads to 8 times more transistors.

>>3987260
>>3987270
The original paper said the trend (not called moores law at the time, ofc) would continue for "at least 10 years". This was in 1965. If this is true for the next 3 years it *will* have held for 50 years. And with all the shenanigans we are coming up with like memresistors and whatnot.... I do not think it is reasonable to say there is no way moores law could hold for quite some time.

Also, CISC vs. RISK, go!

>>3987274
>If you double the width and height, you quadruple the area.

Gee, thanks for explaining how area works!

Not really sure what your point is though!

>- peak oil?
100%
>- the end of Moore's law?
99%
>- the discovery of the higgs boson?
Arbitrary
>- experimental evidence for string theory?
Arbitrary
>- manned mission to an asteroid?
70%
>- virtual reality for all five senses (and over million users)?
65%
>- manned mission to Mars?
80%
>- a war between two developed and powerful countries (like
China, European countries, the USA, Canada, Brazil etc.)?
40%
>- sexbots (and over million users)?
45%
>- attempt to colonize Mars or Moon?
60%
>- commercial fusion power plants?
55%
>- A.I. that passes the turing test?
70%
>- mind uploading?
90%
>- technological singularity?
If you define it as the appearance (Not necessarily creation) of posthuman intelligences, yes, though it will be through mind uploading not AI.

>>3987315
To get 33m times more area, something isn't going to be 33m times the height and width. Even less so if its 3d at all.

>>3987315
33 million times bigger, means 6,000 times longer, and 6,000 times wider, or 320 times longer, 320 times wider, and 320 layers. The latter doesn't sound too unreasonable now, does it?

>>3987301
> I do not think it is reasonable to say there is no way moores law could hold for quite some time.

I don't say there is no way, just that there is no reason it SHOULD. I say it is highly unlikely, as we will soon reach hard limits on the things which it allowed it to continue so long already.

>>3987316
>100%
I've had the rant before. You want to bet your families life against a cent over it? If it's truly 100%, it's a good deal: a free cent.

>>3987326
>To get 33m times more area, something isn't going to be 33m times the height and width

Who said it was?

>>3987332
That's what they said 40 years ago, 18 years ago, 11 years ago and now.

>>3987338

Yes, and?

>>3987336
Nobody said that, but the way you formulated it, might sound like it does. Whether you meant to imply that is irrelevant.

>>3987327
>The latter doesn't sound too unreasonable now, does it?

...yes?

>>3987334

Maybe Peak Oil has already happened! Haha!

Oh, shit, these predictions were for 50 years not 100.

>>3987316

You honestly think that there's higher chance of some attempt at colonizing mars (for politics total waste of their precious money), that there is for a sexbot (which would be EXTREMELY profitable, seeing how fucked up humanity is)?

Awfully optimistic of you

>>3987348

I thought sexbots having over one million users by 2060 was a bit unrealistic considering social stigma and the uncanny valley.

>(for politics total waste of their precious money)

>implying politicians

Open manufacturing. Grow the rockets in your backyard.

>>3987343
We are always running into physical impossibilities. If it were easy, we'd be developing the chips way faster. The fact that transistors are now in the order of one atom big, just means that we need other ways to decrease the cost*area parameter. We haven't yet met the physical limits of circuitsize, material cost, modularization, power-efficiency (more power efficiency allows for packing the transistors more tightly together, without heat-problems), desynchronization, etc.

>>3987338
>>3987343
He is implying that there is a trend in that people keep saying moores law won't hold but so far it has. You are playing dumb (and kind of being an ass).

>>3987332
>no reason why it should.
Thats easy. We still want and can use more computational power. duh.
>will soon reach hard limits
we are only using 2 of 3 dimensions, and still using electricity instead of light. And again, that is just for conventional thinking, not memresistors/quantum computing/other stuff thats still a ways off.

>Peak oil:
10%. Our oil reserves are enormous, and our biggest imports are from Canada, and they have lots of oil sands. Peak oil is a possibility in the next 100 or 200 years, but 50 isn't enough.
>The end of Moore's Law
I'd guess 5%. See: Nanotechnology
>The discovery of the Higgs boson
50%. I would say the only thing holding us back is bureacracy and heavy machinery
>Experimental evidence of string theory
0%. That theory is full of shit
>Manned mission to an asteroid
0%, we just gutted NASA. gg.
>virtual reality
20%, is this even big?
>manned mission to mars
0%, same as above
>war between developed countries
0%. Global hegemons would never go to war because we depend on each other so much for trade
>sexbots
80%. People really are horny
>attempts to colonize mars/moon
0%. See above
>commercial fusion power plants
10%. Im sure we can actually achieve cold fusion, but getting it to be commercial would take a while
>AI that passes the turing test
70%, lots of shit in robotics
>mind uploading
10%, that stuff is pretty far off
>technological singularity
5%, I would say this would happen when Moore's law would end

>>3987349
>growing rockets and capsules in your backyard
Oh how I wish.

>>3987346
The little box you see is almost entirely an impact protection material, containing a unit which is almost entirely a heat sync, containing a tiny circuit board. That tiny circuit board could be made 320 times bigger, and it would still be smaller then your computer case right now.

>>3987352

>I'd guess 5%. See: Nanotechnology

At this rate we're bound to reach the scale of atoms way, way before 2050.

The improvements will then come through better-organized circuit layouts, power efficiency, reversible computing, other ways to dissipate heat, embedded computing and domain-specific hardware.

>>3986993
>>3987288
Ummm, doesn't the mainstream science community say that string theory is correct? So why do you say it isn't?

>peak oil?
60%

>the end of Moore's law?
20%

>the discovery of the higgs boson?
80%

>experimental evidence for string theory?
1%

>manned mission to an asteroid?
5%

>virtual reality for all five senses (and over million users)?
30%

>manned mission to Mars?
80%

>a war between two developed and powerful countries (like
China, European countries, the USA, Canada, Brazil etc.)?
10%, probably less

>sexbots (and over million users)?
5%, because of the over million users shit

>attempt to colonize Mars or Moon?
75%

>commercial fusion power plants?
20%

>A.I. that passes the turing test?
90%

>mind uploading?
10%

>technological singularity?
5%

>>3987394
Not quite, rather, that string theory is the only theory in town.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mda_p1Sx1lE

>brazil
>powerful and developed
HAHAHAHAHA

>>3987409
Are you aware of BRIC?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BRIC

>peak oil
20%, not gonna happen soon
>then end of Moore's law?
5%, not in the next 50 years, quantum computing and nanotech
>the discovery of the higgs boson
90%. I WANT TO BELIEVE
>experimental evidence for string theory
0%, bout as likely as experimental evidence for god
>manned mission to an asteroid
0%, much easier to do with robots
>virtual reality
30%, I'm not sure if smell will be a big priority in virtual techonology
>manned mission to mars
70%
>mars/moon colinization

40%, only if there is some large incentive to do so
>commercial fusion power plants
100%, we're almost there
>A.I that can pass turning test
100%, cleverbot nearly did
>mind uploading
0%, nope
>technological singularity
pipedream.jpg

>>3987143
don't know if troll or just dumb

>>3987349
50 years is a long time... see homosexual relationships and divorce 50 years ago.

>>3987336
Mmmm, yea. Dimension to area relationships are much less interesting than area to volume relationships.

peak oil is for sure, though perhaps not in the way y'all mean. You have to keep in mind that the impact of decreasing oil supplies is not running out, it's skyrocketing prices as markets realize that scarcity is increasing and speculation goes wild. It doesn't really take that much of an increase in gas prices to make many American lifestyles very, very expensive. That, taken into account with BRIC development, means that demand for oil is going to increase more exponentially than it does now. Given that and a supply that will remain essentially constant (getting at oil is incredibly difficult now compared to what it was) and eventual begin decreasing, I'd guess that oil will be a non-viable or, at least much smaller, source of energy within 50 years.

Take care not to underestimate exponential growth, both of populations and the energy desires of those populations.

>>3987427
>commercial fusion power plant
>fusion power plant
>fusion
>power

Has there even been a prototype that hasn't produced a net loss of energy?

>>3987452
Yeah with JET but only for a very short period of time

>>3987452
> Has there even been a prototype that hasn't produced a net loss of energy?

Oh, you silly goof! ITER proposes to spend billions on the largest fusion boondoggle to date, to try to bring up a sustained reaction (before it inevitably escapes containment, just like every other attempt ever tried) to 1000 seconds.

1000 seconds! WOW! That's like, 17 minutes! Real power plants RUN NIGHT AND FUCKING DAY, but after 50 years of trying, the world is hoping to establish a 17-minute run as a MAXIMUM.

The sad truth... wait, there are TWO sad truths here:

1. Fusion can't be contained by Humans with technology. Sustained fusion only happened in stars where there is a trillion trillion tons of mass to contain it.

2. Humans can't accept the truth of #1. Of course, most humans believe in a Big Sky Ape, so it only logically follows that Humans are pretty stupid.

>>3987452

What does that have to do with the possibility of such a thing being created within 50 years? NONE of the things on OP's list (except peak oil) have happened yet, that's why he labeled his thread "futurology".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_studies

>>3987506
>we're almost there

That's what it has to do with it. We're not almost there at all. We'll probably have the first fusion power plant in 50 years, but we're not almost there.

>>3987506
> What does that have to do with the possibility of such a thing being created within 50 years? NONE of the things on OP's list (except peak oil) have happened yet, that's why he labeled his thread "futurology".

Because we LIVE in fusion's future. We've been trying HARD to create a sustained fusion reaction for 50 years already. We just can't fucking do it. WE CAN'T CONTAIN THE REACTION with anything that we have or that we propose can be made. Fusion reactions are ONLY sustained under conditions of pressure that we cannot sustain for ourselves. Only a trillion trillion tons of mass called a STAR can do that.

The irony is that we already have a major fusion reactor nearby, but since no capitalists can intercept solar output with a meter for charging the masses for it, they did the next best thing: SQUASHED SOLAR DEVELOPMENT. So we keep using power from conventional sources, which can be monopolized by companies and thus CHARGED TO CUSTOMERS.

>>3987531
Hello Violent Simian

>>3987531
Holy shit. So much CAPSLOCK.

>- peak oil?
40%
>- the end of Moore's law?
60%
>- the discovery of the higgs boson?
10%
>- experimental evidence for string theory?
2%
>- manned mission to an asteroid?
2%
>- virtual reality for all five senses (and over million users)?
15%
>- manned mission to Mars?
2%
>- a war between two developed and powerful countries
75%
>- sexbots (and over million users)?
2%
>- attempt to colonize Mars or Moon?
0.3%
>- commercial fusion power plants?
90%
>- A.I. that passes the turing test?
3%
>- mind uploading?
0.3%
>- technological singularity?
0.001%

If you increased the timespan from 50 years to something like 200 years, then the plausibility of most of these would increase by a lot.

- peak oil? 20%

- the end of Moore's law? 50%

- the discovery of the higgs boson? 80%

- experimental evidence for string theory? 25%

- manned mission to an asteroid? 10%

- virtual reality for all five senses (and over million users)? 50%

- manned mission to Mars? 20%

- a war between two developed and powerful countries (like
China, European countries, the USA, Canada, Brazil etc.)? 50%

- sexbots (and over million users)? 15%

- attempt to colonize Mars or Moon? 15%

- commercial fusion power plants? 30%

- A.I. that passes the turing test? 25%

- mind uploading? 1%

- technological singularity? <1%

I wonder if Violent Simian is as universally hated irl as he is here.

>>3987635
I would really like to know the answer to that question.

>>3987531
This. You can only do fusion in stars.

We will have to dramatically cut back our energy usage when oil runs out. Maybe there is some promise in asteroid thorium mining, but it will be extremely costly.

>>3987635
Is there any story behind this "violent simian" or is it just an insult you use for posters who don't share your opinion?

> peak oil?
Already happened

> the end of Moore's law?
Certain in the long run, within 50 years? 80%

> the discovery of the higgs boson?
If it exists, we'll probably find it within 50 years

>experimental evidence for string theory?
0% within 50 years, the energies needed are probably hundreds or thousands of years away

>manned mission to an asteroid?
0%, no point. Maybe within a few hundred years, once a permanent population lives in space.

>virtual reality for all five senses (and over million users)?
Virtually certain.

>manned mission to Mars?
80%+, a massive PR opportunity awaiting an economic upturn to attract the funding

>a war between two developed and powerful countries
0%. Big powers don't wage wars directly, what we'll see is a return to the Cold War style proxy war.

>sexbots (and over million users)?
Virtually a certainty

>attempt to colonize Mars or Moon?
Good chance of a tokenistic effort by one or more powers, no chance of successful long term colonization within 50 years

>commercial fusion power plants?
60%, but it won't solve our energy needs

>A.I. that passes the turing test?
No

>mind uploading?
Unlikely, less than 1% of ever happening let alone within 50 years

>technological singularity?
No

>>3987645

...why would you mine Thorium from asteroids when we have tens of thousands of years worth right here on Earth?

Several people in this thread seem to need a lesson on plausibility.

0% and 100% are simply not options when it comes to plausibility.

>>3987660
This. Mining the skies for Thorium won't be required for a hundred thousand years.

>>3987659

You are an autistic retard. PROTIP: When people say something is "certain" or "100%", they don't actually, literally mean 100%. Learn to colloquial usage.

>>3987650

He's a guy. We call him that, he calls himself that, and it's easy to spot him even though he'll never get a tripcode.

- peak oil?
5%
- the end of Moore's law?
68%
- the discovery of the higgs boson?
0%
- experimental evidence for string theory?
0%
- manned mission to an asteroid?
0%
- virtual reality for all five senses (and over million users)?
10%
- manned mission to Mars?
805
- a war between two developed and powerful countries (like
China, European countries, the USA, Canada, Brazil etc.)?
100%
- sexbots (and over million users)?
100%
- attempt to colonize Mars or Moon?
100%
- commercial fusion power plants?
10%
- A.I. that passes the turing test?
100%
- mind uploading?
100% BUT not in the way you think
- technological singularity?
0%

>>3987662

No, you'd be surprised how many people actually mean 0% when they say 0%, and I fully believe some people of /sci/ are dumb enough to fall into this category.

>>3987665

Wait, you think we're 15% more likely to colonize Mars than to send humans there? Interesting. Also
>during the next 50 years

>>3987663
How to spot Violent Simian:
- Extensive capitalization of entire words
- Use of terms like megadeaths, Resource Wars, Cheap Oil/Expensive Oil, errr, can't think of anymore right now. Suggestion guys?

- peak oil?
90%
- the end of Moore's law?
10%
- the discovery of the higgs boson?
40%
- experimental evidence for string theory?
-100%
- manned mission to an asteroid?
90%
- virtual reality for all five senses (and over million users)?
0%
- manned mission to Mars?
20%
- a war between two developed and powerful countries (like
China, European countries, the USA, Canada, Brazil etc.)?
100% (why do you think USA is stacking military power?)
- sexbots (and over million users)?
101%
- attempt to colonize Mars or Moon?
0%
- commercial fusion power plants?
20%
- A.I. that passes the turing test?
100%
- mind uploading?
0%
- technological singularity?
20%

>>3987531

Violent Simian, I challenge you to a debate regarding the nature of the human condition, because I am frankly disgusted by everything you stand for.

>>3987673

Don't forget "Outjew a jew", "Jewbankers", "1)CHEAP 2)PRACTICAL 3)ABUNDANT"

>>3987650
>>>/lounge/1314086478/120

>>3987691
Holy fucking shit. Best troll ever, 10/10

>>3987691
He comes to /sci/ ... for trolling?

>>3987691

But... But I thought you were for real!

>>3987705
Well it fucking worked.

I retract my challenge.

10/10

>2011
>Still doubting about fusion power

He has to be the best troll I've seen in my life. And I've been on /sci/ since it started.

100000/10

I feel honored.

>>3987682
He doesn't debate. He shouts abuse and recites his spiel over whatever you're trying to say.

>>3987727

Setting aside from the fact that he's a troll, (funny how collective opinion of him did a COMPLETE 180), I figured that SOMEBODY who had the AUDACITY to call other people "Simians" would recognize that kind of DEBATING as APELIKE.

- peak oil?
Probable
- the end of Moore's law?
Possible, but computers will keep getting better in an exponential fashion even if the specifics of Moore's law are broken
- the discovery of the higgs boson?
No idea, it might not exist.
- experimental evidence for string theory?
Again, it might not even be true, but unless a breakthrough is made in the theory then we won't even have the possibility of looking for experimental evidence of M-theory
- manned mission to an asteroid?
Depends on economic factors - if we aren't all superpoor in 40-50 years, then this is very possible. Assuming there's a suitable asteroid nearby.
- virtual reality for all five senses (and over million users)?
Very unlikely, unless you count really poor imitations of reality. Then I just need a million people to buy my smelly massage box telly.
- manned mission to Mars?
Very unlikely
- a war between two developed and powerful countries (like
China, European countries, the USA, Canada, Brazil etc.)?
Probable
- sexbots (and over million users)?
Possible, but depends of what you mean by 'sexbot'.
Do vibrating fleshlights count?
- attempt to colonize Mars or Moon?
Nope.
- commercial fusion power plants?
Very possible.
- A.I. that passes the turing test?
Probable, but it mght only be used by big companies
- mind uploading?
No chance
- technological singularity?
Depends what you mean. Technically it's possible, but don't expect your computer to kill everyone as a result.

Wouldn't we be able to severely cut down on energy requirements with the invention and subsequent perfection of virtual reality?

>>3987767
You don't realize how much that kind of simulation would require energy?

>>3987682
> Violent Simian, I challenge you to a debate regarding the nature of the human condition, because I am frankly disgusted by everything you stand for.

Sorry, guys. I was off having a real life.

I can't accept an insincere challenge, since you can't debate the points that I've raised, since in order to do so, you'd have to support provably false ideas like:

1. Energy exploitation on the Earth will just continue to exponentiate (ie. rise without limit).

2. Humans are not violent simians, and our civilizations are not a thin layer over a massive core of animalistic irrationality and violent tendencies.

And for the record, my name is Violent Simians Guy, or VSG for short. The first term is mine, but the more expansive term was laid on me by other posters. I accepted that term for no particular reason, other than perhaps convenience. After all, using a trip would mean the Fa/sci/sts would filter me, and why the fuck would I allow that? I'm here to be HEARD. I want to have the fuckshits who post here to encounter all the opposition that they avoid in their personal, professional and media/citizen lives.

I'm tired of living in the most effective propaganda system ever devised (Western Civilization), and I'm gonna put a fucking STOP to it. These fucking SINGULARITIANS and CORNUCOPIANS on this board are the very worst of the bunch.

- peak oil?
100% already happened
- the end of Moore's law?
100% or 0%, depends on the definition of the law.
- the discovery of the higgs boson?
25% it will be discovered IF it exists.
- experimental evidence for string theory?
0%
- manned mission to an asteroid?
30% why go to an asteroid, Mars is a massively more impressive target.
- virtual reality for all five senses (and over million users)?
5%
- manned mission to Mars?
90% Columbus, Gagarin, Armstrong. who wants to be the next on the list?
- a war between two developed and powerful countries
40%
- sexbots (and over million users)?
80%
- attempt to colonize Mars or Moon?
0%
- commercial fusion power plants?
10% it's always 30 years away
- A.I. that passes the turing test?
80%
- mind uploading?
0%
- technological singularity?
0%

>>3988212
Oh hello RedCream, how are you?

>>3988212

>SINGULARITIANS

>implying any respectable person in this board is a fucking Singularitarian

>>3988212
>Sorry, guys. I was off having a real life.

>>3988278
"A Singularitarian is someone who believes that technologically creating a greater-than-human intelligence is desirable, and who works to that end."

I'm not sure I see anything wrong with that particular ideology.

>>3988278
> implying any respectable person in this board is a fucking Singularitarian

You fuckshitasswads make such claims all the fucking time. You start entire threads about it.

>>3988296

That's transhumanism rebranded, like extropianism or 'technoprogressivism'. Singularitarians, the real ones, are the ones that see progress as a program described by the likes of Kurzweil and believe that technological determinism is real and progress is asymptotic.

I also have qualms with 'creating'. Why create a posthuman and hope everything will automatically turn out fine? Why not augment humans along with the creation of posthuman intelligences to ensure that there's some balance of power between us and a potential Paperclip Maximizer.

>>3988299

>You start entire threads about it.

Singularitarianism != Transhumanism

>>3988296
> I'm not sure I see anything wrong with that particular ideology.

1. Because you won't have Cheap Oil to fuel it anymore.

2. Because the pasty-white, basement-dwelling, sexless-nerd Cheetos-eaters aren't going to become some sort of Technologic Priesthood that leads the Human race into some glorious future that can't be imagined from here. Only the huge and I must add ONE-FUCKING-TIME energy input of Cheap Oil allowed such worthless individuals to dream of that, but now it's time to wake the fuck up and plan for a future where billions must starve to death.

>>3988212


Holy shit I lold hard.

>>3988323
Y'know you can't troll us anymore if we've seen your posts on the lounge. Though you were damn good.

>>3988212

>1. Energy exploitation on the Earth will just continue to exponentiate (ie. rise without limit).


So you think it wont continue at all? This is the most advanced we will ever become and we will never manage to create something easy like sustained fusion for easy energy?

>2. Humans are not violent simians, and our civilizations are not a thin layer over a massive core of animalistic irrationality and violent tendencies.


Really? I feel sorry for you man because you actually believe this when statistically the violence of the human race is on a steady decline, and we've never caused our own extinction therefor we wont, prove me wrong.

>>3988312
Yudkowsky's original essay does not specifically define Singularitarianism as a movement working towards the creation of an AI - given that he's an AI researcher, I can see why you'd make that assumption. Instead, he discusses any "greater-than-human intelligence", be it IA or AI. Transhumanism is about enhancement in general, while (Yudkowsky's) Singularitarianism is specifically about cognitive enhancement.

Personally, I'm inclined to agree that IA is a better route to go, at least in the short term.

>>3988357
>IA
Never heard of that one before. Care to explain?

>>3988357

>given that he's an AI researcher

He's not an AI researcher.

>>3988371

Intelligence Augmentation.

It means 'Intelligence Amplification/Augmentation' (of humans); sorry, I should have used the full term the first time.

>>3988385
>2027
>not augmenting your intelligence
I sure hope you guys don't do this

>>3988385
>>3988389
Ah. Thanks for that.

>>3988351
We don't even need fusion. Thorium based nuclear and even more light water reactors will suffice. The replacement for oil is nuclear power plants and battery electric vehicles. Everything else is a matter of improving automation and recycling technologies so we can do more with less, find replacements for increasingly rare substances and make better technology that consumes less power. Malthusians will be forever frustrated for the same reasons anti-moore's law types always are; they cannot anticipate the ways we'll discover to get around what appeared to be hard limits.

>>3988357
>implying I need cognitive enhancement

IQ of 151

come at me, bro

>>3988376
Well then, I guess you'd better go fix his Wikipedia page, since it says exactly that on the very first line (and has for at least three years).

>>3988357

>while (Yudkowsky's) Singularitarianism is specifically about cognitive enhancement

Do you have a source for that? I'm pretty sure most of his work deals specifically with AI and specifically with FAI.

>Eliezer Shlomo Yudkowsky
>Shlomo
>owsky

Why do you guys worship a kike?

>>3988410
The source is his essay 'Singularitarian Principles', published 11 years ago, which represents the first coherent definition of 'Singularitariansim'.

>>3988403

I don't care that he never graduated, but he has not published a SINGLE peer-reviewed paper. With all of his writing you'd think he could slip some basic stuff, or maybe release a few lines of code for us to see.

>hurr I'm a quantum chemist because i dick around with nanoengineer in my free time

Come on now.

>>3988351
> So you think it wont continue at all? This is the most advanced we will ever become and we will never manage to create something easy like sustained fusion for easy energy?

It won't continue to exponentiate. We're at a plateau now, and the end of Cheap Oil will be a strong downward force on exploitation. Oil was like finding magic, since it was so cheap, energy-dense and practical. That's coming to an end. Clearly, the CHEAP-ness of that era is over. Not-So-Cheap Oil will dominate matters, and towards the end of that era (about 15-20 years long), it will reduce globalism so much that the media will be forced to admit that "it's over".

2.5 billion people in India and China would love to live like North Americans now. They can't. There's nowhere near enough economically-extracted oil to allow that. That enormous pressure will obliterate globalism.

>>3988401
> The replacement for oil is nuclear power plants and battery electric vehicles.

Wrong. Too much of Western Civilization runs on the primary fractions of Cheap Oil, namely diesel, gasoline and kerosene (jet fuel). Batteries and electricity either can't replace those, or can only replace those at huge costs, or can only replace those with versions remarkably less capable. NONE OF THAT is acceptable to the Western Lifestyle.

You can't run construction equipment on batteries. There's an energy-density factor that you're glossing over.

I can't deride Thorium since any thinking man must find it to be a good idea. We need to embrace nuclear, and that's a good derivative of nuclear. The key issues are that we need to adopt it FAST, and we need to recognize that adopting more electric transportation will mean radical changes to the Western Lifestyle. Americans in particular are not prepared for any of that. They'd much rather keep gassing up their SUVs and then keep sending the U.S. military to the Middle East to ensure that "the spice must flow".

Well, Muad'Dib already did his Water-of-Life trick with the sandworm and destroyed Melange. The Spice Era is over. So what Americans think will happen, is directly opposed to what will happen. What WILL happen is hyperconsumption, then shortages, then war War WAR.

>>3988569
>You can't run construction equipment on batteries. There's an energy-density factor that you're glossing over.
LITHIUM AIR BATTERIES LITHIUM AIR BATTERIES LITHIUM AIR BATTERIES LITHIUM AIR BATTERIES LITHIUM AIR BATTERIES LITHIUM AIR BATTERIES LITHIUM AIR BATTERIES LITHIUM AIR BATTERIES LITHIUM AIR BATTERIES LITHIUM AIR BATTERIES LITHIUM AIR BATTERIES LITHIUM AIR BATTERIES LITHIUM AIR BATTERIES LITHIUM AIR BATTERIES LITHIUM AIR BATTERIES LITHIUM AIR BATTERIES LITHIUM AIR BATTERIES LITHIUM AIR BATTERIES LITHIUM AIR BATTERIES LITHIUM AIR BATTERIES LITHIUM AIR BATTERIES LITHIUM AIR BATTERIES

- peak oil?
unknown
- the end of Moore's law?
unknown
- the discovery of the higgs boson?
bullshit
- experimental evidence for string theory?
bullshit
- manned mission to an asteroid?
unknown
- virtual reality for all five senses (and over million users)?
bullshit
- manned mission to Mars?
unknown
- a war between two developed and powerful countries (like
China, European countries, the USA, Canada, Brazil etc.)?
bullshit
- sexbots (and over million users)?
bullshit
- attempt to colonize Mars or Moon?
bullshit
- commercial fusion power plants?
thorium
- A.I. that passes the turing test?
bullshit
- mind uploading?
bullshit
- technological singularity?
bullshit

tl;dr aspiecrashandburn

>>3988569
>You can't run construction equipment on batteries.
How about running it on mains? Or pneumatically?

>I can't deride Thorium since any thinking man must find it to be a good idea. We need to embrace nuclear, and that's a good derivative of nuclear. The key issues are that we need to adopt it FAST.
Fuck yeah!

bump

>>3988569
dude, i seriously think you dont even fully understand the concept of peak oil, peak oil means the point at which known oil reserves stop growing, its not "cliff oil" or something where all of a sudden oil becomes completely unavailable, it's just the point at which oil starts becoming more and more scarce, it's gonna suck when it happens and it's gonna force some societal changes but it would be a good 30-40 years after peak oil before it became a scarce resource even if consumption didn't scale down rapidly as oil became less and less economically viable.

>I'm here to be HEARD. I want to have the fuckshits who post here to encounter all the opposition that they avoid in their personal, professional and media/citizen lives.

wow! Keep going!

Moore's Law will end within the next 20 years, maybe 10. The main reason transistors become cheaper is because you can make them smaller. Smaller means less materials used which means less cost. However, fabrication companies are already into the high 20s of nm. Electrons behave differently when the materials are so thin and will actually tunnel through barriers which ruins the gate properties of a transistor. The wiki says IBM thinks it'll happen at 16nm, but even if it can be smaller, you're approaching the size where materials are going to be only 10s of atoms thick and that will be a quality control nightmare.

Regardless, simply making circuits larger (like I've seen mentioned in this thread) won't make it cheaper due to material cost. Of course, semiconductor crystal growth will get cheaper over time, and layering the transistors on a single wafer will make it cheaper per fabrication process (but add additional design headaches), so it could drag it out a little longer. Doubtful though.

>>3986701

>peak oil?

95 %

>the end of Moore's law?

60 %

>the discovery of the higgs boson?

90 %

>experimental evidence for string theory?

70 %

>manned mission to an asteroid?

80 %

>virtual reality for all five senses (and over million users)?

>10 % (but for sight, hearing and touch its 90 %)

>manned mission to Mars?

25 %

>a war between two developed and powerful countries

20 %

>sexbots (and over million users)?

80 %

>attempt to colonize Mars or Moon?

80 % (Moon)

>commercial fusion power plants?

35 %

>A.I. that passes the turing test?

>mind uploading?

15 %

>technological singularity?

5 %
50 %

>futurology is a science

0/10

So many retards answer this threads, fucking tripfags

forgot my sage

- peak oil?
>20%

- the end of Moore's law?
>65%

- the discovery of the higgs boson?
>50%

- experimental evidence for string theory?
>35%

- manned mission to an asteroid?
>20%

- virtual reality for all five senses (and over million users)?
>5%

- manned mission to Mars?
>10%

- a war between two developed and powerful countries (like
China, European countries, the USA, Canada, Brazil etc.)?
>75%

- sexbots (and over million users)?
>10%

- attempt to colonize Mars or Moon?
>50% (i reckon china will try the moon)

- commercial fusion power plants?
>15%

- A.I. that passes the turing test?
>50%

- mind uploading?
>1%

- technological singularity?
>1%

am i a pessimist? I dont see myself as one but others may.

- peak oil?
>probably happened
- the end of Moore's law?
>90%, will slow down at least for some time
- the discovery of the higgs boson?
>not enough info
- experimental evidence for string theory?
>5%
- manned mission to an asteroid?
>1%
- virtual reality for all five senses (and over million users)?
>we have more than 5 senses.
>you mean networked (multiplayer)? that shit is too laggy
>5%
- manned mission to Mars?
>30%
- a war between two developed and powerful countries (like
China, European countries, the USA, Canada, Brazil etc.)?
>5%
- sexbots (and over million users)?
>85%
- attempt to colonize Mars or Moon?
>8%
- commercial fusion power plants?
>40%
- A.I. that passes the turing test?
>by simulating brain
>78%
>raw programming
>2%
- mind uploading?
>what do you mean by mind? knowledge in the brain? whole personality?
>5%
- technological singularity?
>1%

peak oil?
>been there done that
- the end of Moore's law?
>no abrupt end, diminshing returns
- the discovery of the higgs boson?
>no ideea, and uneducated guesses are stupid
- experimental evidence for string theory?
>see above
- manned mission to an asteroid?
>0%
- virtual reality for all five senses (and over million users)?
>maybe 10% but only with brain invasive procedures
- manned mission to Mars?
> 0%
- a war between two developed and powerful countries (like
China, European countries, the USA, Canada, Brazil etc.)?
> no war, 75-90% for various conflicts but only through proxies, Vietnam style
- sexbots (and over million users)?
> no Hadaly, virtual sexbots maybe, see above virtual reality
- attempt to colonize Mars or Moon?
> 0%
- commercial fusion power plants?
> 0%
- A.I. that passes the turing test?
> 80-90%
- mind uploading?
> 0%
- technological singularity?
> 10%. (Wishful thinking. Because it will invalidate all the other predictions -- in a good way, hopefully.)