SciFi Visions of the Future - What do you hope for?

[KernalK]

Quite frankly dystopias** have always been easier to imagine AND implement than utopias**. In fact, in a particulary apposite development of the series, Roddenbury's utopia was revealed as the veneer that it was, scarcely existing inside the Federation and Starfleet, let alone outside. DS9's Section 31 was in my opinion endemic of the kind of way-of-life that the Federation imposes on both its members and its proselytes.

Babylon 5 for me is rather realistic, in that it acknowledges the darker elements of human society, whilst representing some kind of hope. Earth: Final Conflict appears to be a decaying utopia, but I'm not sure how that resolves itself - sci-fi in the UK can be cruel to its viewers! (DS9 is only on after 01:00)

I suppose to make a watchable sci-fi you have to appeal to either the hope of the viewer or the realism. Or both?

K.


* this title has nothing to do with my post really
** I'm sure there is a proper plural for these, but I can't find it as I post this.

[CatBar]

I'd love to live on the planet Aurora in Asimov's robot novels.

There'd be peace, space, beautiful countriside, one's own detached house in lovely grounds, lots of nice quiet robots to protect me, do all the boring chores etc, no neighbours too near, no cars except little airfoil things with automatic doors, and the food sounds really good and there'd be the dishy Daneel Olivaw for eye-candy and who would never upset me or get on my nerves like people do!

[Moonbat]

I like the idea of a Star Trek type utopia and especialy the Ian M Bank's culture. Human beings just enjoying life and computers/minds looking after everything.

I think the question here is what makes writing or planning a sci-fi universe really interesting but hard also. It's easier to plan a universe if you wipe the slate clean with a nuclear war. You can ignore history and don't have to research so much of modern technology predictions. The star wars and Culture aren't actually humans, they have no direct link with Earth, so apart from the obvious hominid-ness of the characters they don't have the history to deal with.

I like universes with a healthy mix of both, utopia is something only the rich can afford, but the simplest lives are the most rewarding.

[manephelien]

I'm wondering why this thread is in the Asimov forum?

I like reading dystopias, but our current world is near enough one to give one pause. So when I want to escape reality, I'd much rather grab a more optimistic book to read.

What am I hoping for? A future with a true galactic federation of intelligences, although probably some kind of energy beings rather than flesh-and-blood. These would be rather rationalistic in outlook, and would prevent any person or race with superstitious beliefs from joining. That would either cure humanity of its greatest sickness -religion- rather quickly, or else we'd be left to perish. Of course, with the chosen few without religion joining. Then the rest of the Earth could blow itself up.

[sarakoth]

I think there will be a world war in the future but hopefully, missile defense technology will prevail over nukes.After the world war, humans will concentrate on rebuilding and expanding. I envision a future where Earth is overcrowded so human build huge floating cities and start mining the resources on the ocean floor.As for the energy problem, fossil fuels will last for several more decades. I envision a future where every city has fusion reactors powering them.

[ntstatic]

id like mankind to go the asimov way the first empire and then the mental second empire.

[sarakoth]

Originally Posted by sarakoth

I think there will be a world war in the future but hopefully, missile defense technology will prevail over nukes.After the world war, humans will concentrate on rebuilding and expanding. I envision a future where Earth is overcrowded so human build huge floating cities and start mining the resources on the ocean floor.As for the energy problem, fossil fuels will last for several more decades. I envision a future where every city has fusion reactors powering them.

Oh, by the way! I think the process of colonizing space will be a long one, spanning mellenia. First, there will be small research bases throughout the solar system, to mark out key resources. Secondly, industrial complexes will emerge, to use the resources. Thirdly, small pockets of habitable land will be populated. Fourthly, as the cost of life is gradually reduced, more and more commoners will move to other worlds.

[andrew.v.spencer]

It depends how far ahead one wants to look.

The simplest methodology is to extrapolate current trends. However, there is always something left field, the prevalence of communication technology is something largely unforseen by earlier generations of sci-fi writers.

So an extrapolation, say a hundred years might be:

1. In-built communication systems, machine mind interfaces. (We're already seeing very simple versions of this.)
2. Very extended life spans as gene and medical technology advances, and the mechanisms of aging become better understood, perhaps we might even switch them off.
3. Non-polluting cars/planes probably based on hydrogen. Very fast planes, 5 hours to Australia.
4. Fusion power.
5. Stable human population at around 10 billion.
6. A relatively peaceful world based on the co-operation of four great powers, USA, European Union, China and India.
7. Unfortunately not much in near earth space, a moonbase, a few orbital hotels. Perhaps with new cheaper stronger materials we'll be building or planning a space elevator, which is the true gate way to our solar system.

Generally I think it will be pretty positive.

[sarakoth]

Originally Posted by andrew.v.spencer

It depends how far ahead one wants to look.

The simplest methodology is to extrapolate current trends. However, there is always something left field, the prevalence of communication technology is something largely unforseen by earlier generations of sci-fi writers.

So an extrapolation, say a hundred years might be:

1. In-built communication systems, machine mind interfaces. (We're already seeing very simple versions of this.)
2. Very extended life spans as gene and medical technology advances, and the mechanisms of aging become better understood, perhaps we might even switch them off.
3. Non-polluting cars/planes probably based on hydrogen. Very fast planes, 5 hours to Australia.
4. Fusion power.
5. Stable human population at around 10 billion.
6. A relatively peaceful world based on the co-operation of four great powers, USA, European Union, China and India.
7. Unfortunately not much in near earth space, a moonbase, a few orbital hotels. Perhaps with new cheaper stronger materials we'll be building or planning a space elevator, which is the true gate way to our solar system.

Generally I think it will be pretty positive.

How long can the world's natural resources sustain 10 billion people? The oceans will be fished clean. The soil will be farmed dry. The rivers' water will be exhausted. The earth's mineral wealth will be stripped.

[manephelien]

It depends on how efficiently matter is recycled.

I think, however, that our most critical resource will be clean, fresh water.

[andrew.v.spencer]

"How long can the world's natural resources sustain 10 billion people? The oceans will be fished clean. The soil will be farmed dry. The rivers' water will be exhausted. The earth's mineral wealth will be stripped." Sarakoth.

That's a fairly Malthusian response that assumes technology will not advance in the next one hundred years.

As for natural resources (in the next 100 years), well power is not a problem, metal is not a problem, gas is not a problem, coal is not a problem. Known reserves (without new discovery, or better tech is estimated in hundreds of years). Oil will probably be a problem.

Fresh water: unfortunately fresh water will probably be a problem for poor countries. For industrialised countries you might need desalination plants.

I think the problem is more likely to come from the macro increase in human consumption of resoruces and power, and the consequent
pollution issues.

But then the question is "what do you hope for" not "what do you fear will happen"

[manephelien]

Alternate energy sources are available, and can be made in a viable manner, once the oil shortage really starts to bite. We will get around those problems eventually.

[sarakoth]

Originally Posted by andrew.v.spencer

"How long can the world's natural resources sustain 10 billion people? The oceans will be fished clean. The soil will be farmed dry. The rivers' water will be exhausted. The earth's mineral wealth will be stripped." Sarakoth.

That's a fairly Malthusian response that assumes technology will not advance in the next one hundred years.

As for natural resources (in the next 100 years), well power is not a problem, metal is not a problem, gas is not a problem, coal is not a problem. Known reserves (without new discovery, or better tech is estimated in hundreds of years). Oil will probably be a problem.

Fresh water: unfortunately fresh water will probably be a problem for poor countries. For industrialised countries you might need desalination plants.

I think the problem is more likely to come from the macro increase in human consumption of resoruces and power, and the consequent
pollution issues.

But then the question is "what do you hope for" not "what do you fear will happen"

First of all, you already stated power is not a problem. That automatically knocks out coal, gas, and oil for they are all sources of power.

Second of all, desalinization plants will tip the delicate balance of salt to water in the oceans and disrupt the ocean currents.

Third of all, what you don't realize is that metal is a problem. Assuming the human population hovers around ten billion, the precious metals (platinum, silicon, gold) will be used up very quickly and even heavy metals will dwindle (unless humans develop a way to drill very deep very inexpensively)

Fouth of all, food will be a problem.

[sarakoth]

Originally Posted by manephelien

It depends on how efficiently matter is recycled.

I think, however, that our most critical resource will be clean, fresh water.

As I have already stated, the earth's soil will be used up much faster than it can be resupplied.

[andrew.v.spencer]

Sarakoth,

You state these things with a certainty you cannot possibly possess. The use of the word "will" occurs frequently.

You can check my suppositions against authoritive sources if you like. As a for instance 99% of all gold ever mined is still in existence (it's in the vaults of central banks). Do you really think a few desalination plants will tip the balance of the earth's oceans, which are two thirds of the earth's surface and in places miles deep. It's also simple enough to tip the extracted salts back into the ocean. But i fear you might have a misapprehension of the relative volumes of water.

It's also my understanding that most projected food calculations are on a human population of ten billion, and there's plenty of unused or underutilized land.

I don't understand your point on power. What I am saying is there is no shortage or power, using current technology as the reserves of coal and gas are massive (coal is over a hundred years on known reserves). Perhaps we are making the same point here.

As I say I'm working from remembered facts and knowledge. I could be wrong on the exact measurements of reserve sizes. I don't claim certainty. But I was a natural resource analyst for seven years (1986-1993), and I doubt that much has changed in the interim.