ITT: we brainstorm and try to come up with a list of scientific and technological goals that could and should be done within the 21st century.
I'll start pitching ideas
>Fully commercialise fusion power to the point where it supplies greater than 99.9% of global energy demand
>Establish a practical, efficient, cheap and safe method of space travel
>Establish a permanent and fully self-sustained off-world colony
Ok let's go
OP here, just throwing out some more ideas
>Offer genetic optimisation to all newly formed embryos / foetuses / whatever and have it be as normalised as vaccination in babies
>Develop quantum computers
>something something nanotechnology?
>>Fully commercialise fusion power to the point where it supplies greater than 99.9% of global energy demand
our batteries still suck ass, and there is literally not enough of the metals in the earth to build all the batteries we would need.
our power problems are not going to be fixed until space mining becomes a thing.
well then let's put space mining on our list.
Also you can store energy by pumping water upwards against gravity (potential mechanical energy), you don't have to have batteries although they are superior in the sense that you can move them around.
Also I think space mining would be beneficial to the production of fusion power itself because fusion with helium 3 is much better than fusion of deuterium or tritium, and helium 3 hardly exists on Earth (but does on the moon).
Create a civilization without artificial stress.
Meaning a civilization that doesn't play off the fears and insecurities of people.
Where empty houses don't outnumber homeless people 6 to 1, and you don't have the fear of being kicked out of your home for not being able to pay.
Develop rapid diamonoid molecular manufacturing.
With this almost all of our current problems can be solved.
>Establish a practical, efficient, cheap and safe method of
this is pretty much the answer to any technological advance. "how long will it take for us to get X" depends highly on that (once the technology has already been obtained of course).
in order to change society one must not only come up with the new tech but also develop a practical, cheap and easily accessible way for the masses.
what if they come up with a flying car prototype in 50 years that ends up costing 45 million dollars a unit?
how would you cool this, so it doesn't just wobble out of shape
> win the global war against gender opression
> achieve gender-equality in EVERY country on earth
> replace the words male/female/... with UNIGENDERED
to be honest i think thats everything we need to achieve in order to overcome ourselves and build an earth-wide paradise - INDEPENDANT of technology, progress and economy, a paradise of love.
>Can we also talk about how stupid and impractical flying cars would be?
I'd rather talk about how stupid and impractical our CURRENT predictions are. Anyone can pick apart a failed prediction. It takes a truly intelligent man to pick apart the current predictions that you virgin-nerds keep making, since those predictions are 99.9% hope and 0.1% actual science and insight.
Because of our standard Human economics. Potlatch, my friend. We'd rather destroy something than let somebody "unworthy" have access to it or otherwise own it.
>>IIRC the science was disproved
O'rly? You got any evidence of that? For the time being no one has proved or disproved diamonoid mechanosynthesis.
A lot of humanity's problems are problems with getting matter into the right shape. So let's go over the problems in this thread:
OP wants cheap space travel, space colonies, and a cheap source of power.
With cheap, strong, and lightweight materials made possible by molecular manufacturing, it become possible to make rockets, space planes, or space elevators cheaply.
With the same materials, large space colonies can be made cheaply from in-situ resources. We could launch one molecular manufacturing machine, run off more molecular manufacturing machines from that until we have enough to quickly build a space colony.
Now fusion power, by tokamaks at least, has a big problem, it requires so much resources that it's only slightly better than conventional nuclear power. In short tokamak based fusion power will scale just about as fast as conventional nuclear power. With molecular nanotech, we might be able to accelerate this.
Of course, if we have molecular nanotechnology we can make solar power very cheap. With molecular nanotechnology we can make thin sheets with really tiny antennas that absorb visible light and rectify it into DC electricity
this post is worried about storing energy. With molecular nanotechnology making cheap high energy density batteries from widely available elements becomes possible.
this post wants strong AI. With molecular nanotechnology we can make very powerful computers to facilitate this.
this post wants life extension technology. With molecular nanotechnology we can make nanorobots(technically microrobots because of their size) to carry out life extension operations.
i don't know what this diamond bullshit is but the next big step in nanotechnology is lego like building blocks. this tech is currently developed and used in laboratories
basically you have bacteria and other stuff preparing building blocks and then you just put them together instead of building the whole thing from zero
well yeah but that would create a ton of jobs in addition to improve our understanding and application of AI, which is obviously beneficial as it will prepare us for future projects.
Wrong, we have some basic proof of concept work in silicon:
>>but there is literally no one working on dry nanotech.
wrong again, there are a couple people working on it, but progress is slow because the field is underfunded and there is too much emphasis on nanotech that can be commercialized in the short term:
Zyvex is also expected to have their atomically precise manufacturing technique somewhat working this year.
Now rapid atomically precise diamonoid manufacturing need not be mechanosynthesis, there are quite possibly other ways to achieve this besides the approaches envisioned by Freitas
>>Exactly how could you use nanotechnology to make fusion a more viable source of energy?
Being able to crank out tokamaks faster. With molecular nanotechnology, one might be able to rebuild the entire infrastructure of the US in 1-2 weeks, so cranking out tokamaks rapidly shouldn't be too hard:
More speculatively, making high temperature superconductors out of common materials
>Where empty houses don't outnumber homeless people 6 to 1
That's just retarded.
We could fix your "problem" by making lots more people homeless.
And, just like any product, there will always be as-yet-unpurchased (empty) houses.
>A.I and advanced prosthetics
>fusion power is the future.
Well, that's great and all, until the human population tops out at 9 billion and everyone on earth is using as much power as they want.
Sure, there's no greenhouse gases involved, but that's still a giga-shittion of energy being dumped into the earth's atmosphere.
Ya'll niggers _should_ be wishing for atmospheric co-generation as a practical, large-scale energy source.
Oh, and flying cars. (AI-piloted of course).
Co-generation is the effort in industry (mostly power generation) to capture waste heat and turn it into useable energy.
Atmospheric co-generation is harvesting energy from the atmosphere.
We do this already with heat-pumps.
If you all get your wish about fusion, we'll NEED this tech to keep people from melting the polar ice-caps.
>nigga what the fuck was you trying to say right now
First law of thermodynamics, bitch.
All the electricity, gas etc power you use winds up in the Earth's atmosphere.
All the current predictions about fusion power. We've heard this nonsense for decades about fusion being "20 years away". The sad truth is that the fusion reaction is too powerful to be contained, hence sustained. And a contained, sustained exploitation environment is what makes for viable commercial power.
The silly thing about fusion power is that we already have access to a huge fusion power plant, called Sol. But there are very strong (essentially ruling) socio-economic forces that stop humans from exploiting solar energy for power and heat. In short, since you can't put a power meter on streams of photons and masses of moving air, our societies invariably suppress activities that try to produce individual solutions for exploiting solar and wind power. Where we have individual power, so to speak, is in having technology that's linked to making monthly payments to corporate entities. So human liberty is largely tied to corporate and secular submission.
Come up with ideas that don't involve us all living
in high rise apartment buildings in shoebox sized apartments that rent for $7600 a month surrounded by "keep off the grass" city park space.
Something to fix the obesity problem,
plus solutions to other "too much of a good thing" problems.
For instance, increased automation SHOULD be reducing labor requirements, and economically empowering the working class, but gains have mostly been concentrated in the hands of the 1%.
When my parents were kids (the 40's and 50's) a single wage-earner (without a college degree) could support a family of 6, and pay for a house.
Of course they didn't have 3 cars, laptops, etc, etc.
But still. How is the current situation "progress"?
>>The sad truth is that the fusion reaction is too powerful to be contained
>>doesn't know about magnetic confinement
>>doesn't know that the biggest problem with fusion is energy sapping instabilities
>>Something to fix the obesity problem,
with molecular nanotechnology, your excess body fat can be used to power microbots in your bloodstream!
Develop advanced electrochemical neuroprosthetics and augmentations that allow you to instantly learn something with 100% comprehension and understanding. They should also serve other functions, such as granting the wearer superhuman focus or incredibly detailed powers of visualization.
doable with molecular nanotechnology. How many times do I have to push this stuff before it sticks?
Very interested in nanotech/bionanotech. Also, as a writer/artist I find the grey goo scenario something like "the ultimate villain", conceptually speaking of course. So, how likely is such a scenario in the next 1000 years or so? Would the goo develop some sort of birthing/manufacturing process of truly terrifying mobile weaponry?
Here's a more reasonable list
1. Gradual progress in a variety of fields (still no singularity)
2. Gradual progress in a variety of fields (still no singularity)
3. Gradual progress in a variety of fields (still no singularity)
4. Turn of the century and singularity-fags start killing themselves en masse
why don't we build cities that look like that already?
what always really annoys me with these utopian city designs is that we could already easily build something like that, yet no one has the courage to implement futuristic design.
Actually there are places that come close to the lead pic.
Maybe not an entire city, but fairly large developments. I've seen some really neat stuff from around the world on
the media every once in a while.
Here are a few points about the futuristic pic.
a) kind of presumes everything is done in office cubicles
b) roads are shown, but notice they don't seem to fully connect like a regular urban grid
c) there doesn't seem to be much parking
> this is what resource depletionist actually believe.
No, we "depletionists" always talk about ECONOMICS. Diminishing returns. Increasing costs of exploiting harder and harder sources.
Take oil for an example. There are trillions of barrels still in the ground. But you can't get all those trillions out. The last bits will be in deposits like a few thousand barrels spread through a vast mantle of shale under the seabed that's under Antarctica or something like that; there's no economic model (other than slavery, maybe) that permits gainful exploitation of such a source.
99.99% of gold now mined isn't the exploitation of gold veins. Veins that are economically exploitable, have all been exploited. Instead we process tons and tons of gold-laced ores at mere ppm, so that we can obtain 1 lousy ounce of the stuff. Essentially only large industrial producers can contribute to the gold mining effort today. And that's because RESOURCES DEPLETE. They deplete because economics says so.
>doesn't know about magnetic confinement
Show me a sustained reaction that remains magnetically confined. I dare you.
>doesn't know that the biggest problem with fusion is energy sapping instabilities
"Instability" means it can't remain confined. Fusion has always had the problem that it ESCAPES CONFINEMENT and then cools down.
P.S. Note that "remains" means "for indefinite duration" that applies to every other power supply.
>Actually there are places that come close to the lead pic
False. You're blatantly ignoring the massive amount of green space. No urban area with such towering buildings has anything close to that much green space; instead, the land around each tower is covered with buildings, concrete and asphalt, with a tiny % of green space. That's what ECONOMICS demands of Humans; urban land is associated with such high demand, that a high price is obtained, and then little of that expensive land is "wasted" on green space.
Learn economics, you stupid engineers!
>that's not what that means
False. That's EXACTLY what it means. The reaction becomes unstable since it escapes confinement.
Try again, Orwell. Billions in wasted fusion funding are at stake, after all.
you really could save a lot of time and embarrassment if you just googled something you didn't know before making baseless claims about it without any knowledge.
Every attempt to confine the plasma of fusion has resulted in it ESCAPING CONFINEMENT. Every. Time.
You can Orwell the problem all you like. No amount of delusional verbiage will keep plasma confined. No amount of Cheetos will produce sustained fusion, unless you have at least 1/7th of Sol's mass of them in one place. Get it? LYING GETS YOU FUNDS, BUT NO RESULTS, so ultimately the free government cheese(tos) will stop flowing to the fusion con artists.
It's hilarious, in one post he'll go off about how humans are helpless slaves to the ironclad laws of economics so that it is physically impossible for any project that doesn't enrich the elite to get a dime of funding, then he turns around and says fusion power is a multi billion dollar scam that will never work and all the rich people investing billions into it in the hopes of making a profit are just stupid chumps who don't understand physics.
>we do but not everyone
Everyone in developed countries. The bare minimums of those things are so cheap they're practically free. Potable water is so cheap that everyone gives it away for free. Energy is so cheap that everybody leaves lights on even if they don't need them, and people leave their computers on 24/7. Food is so cheap that even working the lowest possible paid jobs, a person can feed themselves for a day from an hour of labor. That's fucking cheap.
>at no cost.
No. Free is unworkable. So cheap it may as well be free is 1000x better.
Mmm... I was recently reading about nuclear warheads being used to cause neutron flux and a layer of gas to push it away. The article addressed the laser idea and said it would be way less efficient when compared to warheads.
We've got wonderful control of all things electric and magnetic, but we have NO way of manipulating gravity.
No gravity field generators, no anti-gravity, no real understanding of how it works, etc etc,
We could have:
Spacecraft with engines not using reaction mass, nor limited to 1G of acceleration.
Gravimetric confinement of plasma for fusion.
>Have you ever heard of a tokamak???
Have you ever heard of a tokamak that indefinitely contains the fusing plasma?
All fusion reactors that are designed and built, end up with fusing plasma that can't be contained. Period.
Nature gets around the problem by using 10^24 tons of matter to both contain and sustain the reaction. Whaddya know, we have one of those handy things in the center of our solar system, called THE SUN. And yet, we refuse to gear up to capture the output of that hugely successful fusion-reactor design. And you know why? Because a Human corporation can't control that sort of exploitation.
>fusion power is a multi billion dollar scam that will never work and all the rich people investing billions into it
Rich people aren't investing in fusion. Only governments are. And that's because it IS a scam, and they're using it to funnel public funds into the pockets of the military-industrialists (i.e. money flows TO the rich people, not AWAY from them).
Nano-bio engineering. Organically sustained composites. Moon colony, experimental sustainable biome.
Biological is so much more efficient than mechanical. As much as our space endeavors can be based on biological resources the better. The face of the future astronauts aren't metallic husks of tech, but an odd amalgam of bio-tech more reminiscent of alien invaders from horror films... you know, the weird pods and dripping ooze types.
>All fusion reactors that are designed and built, end up with fusing plasma that can't be contained. Period
you're so fucking dumb. there is some leakage, just like air leaks out of a balloon. that doesn't mean it can't be contained.