Your vision of the far future...

[Evo Plurion]

What will galactic civilization in the far future really be like? Some questions to consider:

1. Assuming the development of advanced cybernetics, robotics, artificial intelligence, genetic engineering and nanotechnology, will humans still be humans as we are today? Will humanity even exist as a distinctive species?

2. Historically, human societies have tended to evolve from violence toward non-violence as a means of resolving conflict. Will this trend continue?

3. If the answer to (2) is no, how will wars be fought? Will we be able to fire antimatter bombs through hyperspace at our enemys' worlds, hurl black holes at each other or send AI superviruses to destroy each other's infrastructures (as in TNE)?

 

[Andrew Boulton]

I'm not convinced that (2) is true...

 

[far-trader]

I probably shouldn't be posting to this in my current state but...

I'm with Andrew, only I'm convinced that (2) is not true. All we seem capable of is making our mass homicidal tendency as conflict resolution more violent, though sometimes more "sanitized" from a certain perspective. And I have little faith in the human condition overcoming this.

So to answer (3) we won't be hurtling any kind of bombs at enemy worlds because we'll never get off this one with our current species immaturity. And as far as that goes I don't hold out much hope for our species ever growing up either.

Finally back to (1) all that is very possible if we don't destroy ourselves resolving conflicts first. Then we may very well have time to annihilate the species through other means if natural disaster doesn't do it for us first.

Sorry, just a little depressed, and this is one of those issues that gets me going.

 

[Evo Plurion]

OK, let me rephrase:

2. Historically, human societies attempt to evolve from violence toward non-violence as a means of resolving conflict, while their technological capacity for destructiveness increases. How might these two trends play out?

As for the validity of the underlying assumption (that we go from violence toward non-violence), allow me to illustrate my point with another assumption.

Civil society was developed as a means of survival against our instinctive tendencies toward violence. Humans began without laws or morals - these are artificial constructs upon which we've based the rules of society. Essentially, we've adopted a set of principles which can be summarized by the phrase "Don't Harm Anyone".

Obviously, these are principles and ideals, often compromised by our violent survival instinct poking through the fabric of civilized society. But we are discussing this, are we not? We have laws and morals with which we struggle to moderate human behaviour. We look back on a history of violence and conflict and we strive for a future of peace and co-operation. These ideas are widely held to be of utmost importance, even when our political leaders appear to be ignoring them.

Okay Q. Are we innocent or guilty?

 

[far-trader]

On a... "happier" isn't quite the right word, maybe... less depressing note I'm reminded of a cautionary tale, think it was Niven but I'm not sure and the title was something like "A small talent for war."

SPOILER WARNING

I will no doubt be ruining the story for anyone who has not read it and possibly for some who have with my poor, short, retelling...

Anyway this relates to (2) above.

In the story Earth is visited by an obviously interstellar alien craft which broadcasts to the whole world that we are going to be exterminated. It seems these aliens have returned after ages and find our "little talent for war" not to their liking. They have been watching us and all they can see is our now and again tendency to go to war and kill a few hundred thousand of our species.

The leaders of the world all get in a panic and call urgent special UN meetings and plead with the aliens for one last chance to prove ourselves. The aliens grudgingly allow it and extend the deadline.

Just as the deadline approaches the world leaders proudly present the aliens with the crowning achievement of our species, a working world peace!

The aliens sadly shake their heads (metaphorically) and sigh. They are even more disappointed now, it seems this breed of warrior they seeded so long ago is a total failure and they can no longer waste their time here, they have a war to fight and other planets of warriors to harvest.

 

[Evo Plurion]

Originally posted by far-trader:
I probably shouldn't be posting to this in my current state but...

...Sorry, just a little depressed, and this is one of those issues that gets me going.

OK, let me rephrase:

2. Historically, human societies attempt to evolve from violence toward non-violence as a means of resolving conflict, while their technological capacity for destructiveness increases. How might these two trends play out?

I actually do believe that ours is a less violent society than it was centuries or millenia ago. I agree, far-trader, that things are pretty bleak at the moment. However, I think the last few years have been one of those nasty little periods in the grand scheme of things that make the developmental curve of history bumpy, not smooth.

 

[aramis]

There is no historical evidence to support contention 2. All that has changed is that larger groups are acting with violence against each other. The US has engaaged in a major ac of agression no les than once per 20 yeaars throughout its relatively short and bloody history. The midle east lacks "Officially sanctined" violence, but a terrorist warfare mode took up in the late 1800's, and hasn't left.

Brittain has been involved in large scale aggressions at least once per 30 years throughout its history.

I don't accept that condition one will lead to the cyberpunkish aspects implied.

I think, for the most part, people will reject invasive implants, but will go for non-invasive biotech alternatives. Humanity will diverge into a number of species and subspecies; ammount of speciation dependant upon whether or not a stardrive of somekind is discovered.

3 isutterly dependant upo developed technologies, but, as a rule,automation wil not reduce the military staffing levels, but will increase the likelyhood that it will be used.

 

[alanb]

Originally posted by Evo Plurion:
1. Assuming the development of advanced cybernetics, robotics, artificial intelligence, genetic engineering and nanotechnology, will humans still be humans as we are today? Will humanity even exist as a distinctive species?

Yes.

The way the phenomena you describe are handled in much SF, and most RPGs, probably will turn out to have little resemblance to reality.

2. Historically, human societies have tended to evolve from violence toward non-violence as a means of resolving conflict. Will this trend continue?

This trend does not exist.

3. If the answer to (2) is no, how will wars be fought? Will we be able to fire antimatter bombs through hyperspace at our enemys' worlds, hurl black holes at each other or send AI superviruses to destroy each other's infrastructures (as in TNE)?

We will most probably only have one world - Earth. OK, notionally, settlements on the Moon and Mars are possible, but there are serious economic obstacles to establishing them, and little benefit in doing so.

Wars will most probably largely be fought with rather primitive weapons, just as they mostly are today.

More advanced weapons will also exist and be used, but your guess is as good as mine about what they would be like.

---

OK, that was the answer that assumes that there are no major social changes.

It is possible to speculate about changes in human social organisation that would invalidate many of these answers - but I'm not going to do so in this forum.

I will say, however, that even changes that would be beneficial would not create a Utopia - just something "better" than what we have now. The laws of physics still apply.

In addition, many changes for the better will be ferociously resisted, causing prolonged and bloody conflicts, and will be very difficult to implement, causing conflict during these attempts, and probably resulting in setbacks, false starts, and all kind of nasty side effects.

---

I'm going to try to avoid posting further on this topic, since it's the kind of thing that can spark flame wars very easily.

 

[Evo Plurion]

Originally posted by Aramis:
There is no historical evidence to support contention 2.

Keep in mind that I'm not referring to recorded history only. Nor am I referring to war as the only example of violence among humans. We began as a species without any societal rules. If someone entered our territory, he was killed. With the development of language, myth, writing, moral structure and laws, we lessened the need to kill such a person. We now attempt to resolve most conflicts through negotiation. The degree to which violence is considered an acceptable resolution has decreased significantly since our days as cave-dwellers.

 

[aramis]

A) WE, H. Sap. Sap., were NOT cave dwellers.

b) pre-ag msocieties are actually less likely to engage in warfare; it is doubtful that they would killintruders; more likely they would scare away or avoid intruders.

Real world examples: The inupiaq peoples of Alaska have no history of inter-tribal warfare. In fact, meetings with strangers were a chance to enhance the tribal gene pool...

The non-nomadic tlingit and tsimshian, however, do have a history of warfare... based upon raiding of agricultural resources.

In fact, few pre-agricultural societies have violence unless they interacted with agricultural societies.

Until one is reliant upon a stable location for food products, there is little reason for fighting over territory. The plains indians had suficient density that it became an issue... but not a common one.

All in all, if anything, violence has been acquired with technology, not the other way around.

But then again, chimps engage in warfare... organized and with weapons (clubs, stones). They seem only to do ths due to populations exceeding the confortable forage density, from what I've read, but still... they are almost to stone age technology.

 

[PBI]

I think the question of what form warfare would take in the far future would have a great deal to do with the structure of any future society and the technology. There's no doubt there would be warfare; the only question is how it would manifest.

 

[Elliot]

By the way, IIRC, the Small Talent for War was made into a Twighlight Zone episode starring Ted Danson as the alien!

 

[FlightCommanderSolitude]

Originally posted by Evo Plurion:
We began as a species without any societal rules. If someone entered our territory, he was killed.

Sounds like a rule to me!

 

[Evo Plurion]

OK. We've gotten off topic here. Is this topic worth reposting?

 

[plop101]

OK. We've gotten off topic here. Is this topic worth reposting?

Just ignore the tomatoes and press on!

What will galactic civilization in the far future really be like? Some questions to consider:

1. Assuming the development of advanced cybernetics, robotics, artificial intelligence, genetic engineering and nanotechnology, will humans still be humans as we are today? Will humanity even exist as a distinctive species?

2. Historically, human societies have tended to evolve from violence toward non-violence as a means of resolving conflict. Will this trend continue?

3. If the answer to (2) is no, how will wars be fought? Will we be able to fire antimatter bombs through hyperspace at our enemys' worlds, hurl black holes at each other or send AI superviruses to destroy each other's infrastructures (as in TNE)?

I think it would be very difficult to postulate what the future will hold for us 3000 years from now. Consider that, roughly (+ or - a century) 3000 years ago...

Eygpt was under the domination of the Hyksos...
The Hittites were raiding Babylon...
The Xia Dynasty in China was overthown by Tang the Victorious [what a name!]...
Minoan trade was in decline...
Myceanean culture and power was growing rapidly in Greece...
The Indus river civilitation was in decline, and would in roughly a centurys time be over run by Aryan tribesman...

I doubt anyone who witnessed these events could have imagined things like jet liners, microwave ovens, television, computers, automobiles, books, etc. Main Battle Tanks? The priniciple mode of armored warfare back then was the chariot. Airpower back then was hoping that the gods were on your side.

The next 3000 years? Count ourselves lucky if it turns out like Traveller postulates.

 

[Psion]

One thing that I find interesting about Traveller that aids my suspension of disbeleif in this vein is that current issues and nations are pretty much assumed to be bygones. The history of the imperium is more relevant than the history of earth.

Of course, that they follow some conventions of modern military heirarchy and pre-modern nobility so stringently seems a little odd that it would be similar then. It could be that these customs had a strong effect on the Rule of Man which affected everything after it, but I wonder if there are any customs of ours that go back thousands of years this way.

 

[Evo Plurion]

Originally posted by plop101:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />OK. We've gotten off topic here. Is this topic worth reposting?

Just ignore the tomatoes and press on!</font>[/QUOTE]Well said, plop. On with the mental masturbation.

I like to ponder what life might be like in a far future society, assuming enough similarity to our own so that we have a coherent frame of reference. Supposing we became god-like energy beings or data streams in a galaxy-wide hyperspace computer construct wouldn't be much fun for speculative purposes.

I just wonder things like:

How will people be educated? For example, will we be genetically engineered with basic knowledge sets hard-wired into our brains from the start?

What if robotics and genetic engineering converge to a point where "robots" are merely a genetically engineered servitor subspecies. Interesting moral questions arise therein.

How might government work across interstellar distances? I think that the nature of communication and travel will be crucial in determining this. Traveller postulates the absence of FTL communication, leading to a feudal structure of interstellar government. But would that work?

 

[Straybow]

I think it would be very difficult to postulate what the future will hold for us 3000 years from now. Consider that, roughly (+ or - a century) 3000 years ago...

Not the same at all. Until maybe 3 centuries ago the only concept of the future was continuation of the present or a supernatural apocalypse. The concept of science, of "progress," is very new. We are today far more capable of looking far into the future, at least conceptually.

Look at Jules Verne. He foresaw air travel, moon landing, massive submarines powered by something other than internal combustion.

We can foresee huge generation ships for sublight interstellar travel. It is definitely possible, foreseeably feasible, the question remaining whether anyone would make such an enormous investment with no possibility of direct benefit. We foresee FTL travel even though we aren't the least sure how it could feasibly be done and left to wild guessing about theoretical means.

Genetic tweaking is a given. Going beyond tweaking is a moral question more than a technical one. So also for cybernetic tweaking. I'm guessing clinical immortality will be the first goal.

I agree with some who say that there is no tendency toward lessening of violence. Soccer hooligans riot when their team actually scores a goal, or fails to do so. It's a big deal if you're there when it happens, otherwise you read about it and shake your head. I'm not the least depressed or dismayed.

By the way, IIRC, the Small Talent for War was made into a Twighlight Zone episode starring Ted Danson as the alien!

Er, there was an Outer Limits episode with John de Lancie as the alien. More of a freelance recruiter rather than a direct copy of the Small Talent plot. Dunno about TZ.

 

[TKalbfus]

The Far Future would share alot in common with a Fantasy Role Playing Game. My idea of the far future is that people would live inside of computers as software simulations of human beings and other things. As programs running in a computer, people can have near immortality with backup copies of their memories and personality incase anything should happen to their main files. Entire wolrds would be simulated, with simulated physics, flora and fauna, but certain exceptions would be planted in the simulation. For instance by uttering a key work, food can suddenly appear on your table, garbage can disappear afterwards, and the simulated person can travel where ever he wants in the simulated world simply by uttering a few key phrases. If simulated people want to interact with the real world, they can upload into a robot and control that robot as if it were his own body.

Could also form the basis of "Faster than light travel" If the simulation is typically run much sloer than the real universe, a simplated person can simply beam his program to another computer located light years away and be back in time for dinner.

 

[mike wightman]

I agree that the far future would resemble most peoples' idea of a fantasy game, Clarke's Law and all that. But a virtual universe as the norm???

What would happen to all those poor people who couldn't afford to be uploaded into this computer utopia?

There might be quite a few who would objest to having their memories copied on the grounds that the computer simulation isn't really them, it doesn't contain their soul.

Could be an interesting high TL interdicted world for Traveller players to stumble across.