Locally things can be depressing.
That's sth humanity could achieve in the future. We could colonize Mars and the asteroid belt and maybe space. If we do not destroy ourselves. But then what is our source of energy after the sun became a white dwarf? Just in case we made it another 5 billion years.
Geothermal and nuclear but if you're talking about FAAAAR in the future: red dwarfs and stellar remnants trying to conserve as much energy as possible. 100 quadrillion years in the future there's only black dwarfs. Whatever our power-plants can produce. Even further?? The last energy source would be the slow decay of black holes (hawking radiation). We could power simulations of humanity and they would also be artificially slowed down to save energy. Eventually protons and neutrons will decay (this depends on the standard model) so stars and planets will disintegrate 10^36-10^38 years after that it's only blackholes. The 10^100 years is theoretical heat death. Pure darkness with assumption that protons decay. Super massive black holes will slowly decay through hawking radiation (and eventually evaporate) and push heat death to 10^109 years. The last few patches of subatomic particles will wind down to their lowest energy state.
Will it just be the 1%? 1% is a misleading term IMHO. Likely many people will die in the first stages of colonization. You asked about humanity collectively as a species surviving.
www.visualcapitalist.com
We will terraform insides of structures that we construct from asteroid rubble. Ceres alone could produce usable surface area roughly 2000 times bigger than Earth's surface, assuming rubble thickness that provides the same shielding as Earth's atmosphere.
This is so interesting. I liked to read about such stuff a lot in the past. Thx for sharing your thoughts.Geothermal and nuclear but if you're talking about FAAAAR in the future: red dwarfs and stellar remnants trying to conserve as much energy as possible. 100 quadrillion years in the future there's only black dwarfs. Whatever our power-plants can produce. Even further?? The last energy source would be the slow decay of black holes (hawking radiation). We could power simulations of humanity and they would also be artificially slowed down to save energy. Eventually protons and neutrons will decay (this depends on the standard model) so stars and planets will disintegrate 10^36-10^38 years after that it's only blackholes. The 10^100 years is theoretical heat death. Pure darkness with assumption that protons decay. Super massive black holes will slowly decay through hawking radiation (and eventually evaporate) and push heat death to 10^109 years. The last few patches of subatomic particles will wind down to their lowest energy state.
There's also some hope, some quantum fluctuation might eventually spark a new reality into existence.
There is a chance there is some life not bound to the fate of the heat death given the time scale. There is also the implication of the existence of higher and higher universes that envelope smaller and smaller universes like a jawbreaker.
Or there could type 4 civilizations (maybe we will achieve that one day given enough time). The power of the continuum (like Star Trek's Q). The power of dark energy. Type 5 could be stealing energy from a parallel universe.
Will it just be the 1%? 1% is a misleading term IMHO. Likely many people will die in the first stages of colonization. You asked about humanity collectively as a species surviving.
In the US 1% is under $6 million net worth. Far from the billionaire class. Thats not even making $1 million a year. So the term is a little misleading to me.
Wealth Needed to Join the Top 1%, by Country
European hubs top the list, with Monaco requiring $12.9 million to join the top 1% club.
Quantum fluctuation - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
We will terraform insides of structures that we construct from asteroid rubble. Ceres alone could produce usable surface area roughly 2000 times bigger than Earth's surface, assuming rubble thickness that provides the same shielding as Earth's atmosphere.
I foresee colonizing the solar system although not with the Dave Dyson sphere but a bunch of free orbiting stations – cylinders with gravel walls (packed in carbon fiber sleeves) roughly 3 m thick that we would live inside. Ceres alone would provide enough gravel to build habitats with total surface area equal to 2000 times Earth's surface. The gravel walls would not spin much (just enough to distribute the heat of sunlight), and inside each thick cylinder would be an airtight thinner-walled cylinder that would spin to create artificial gravity. If we carve of the moons of Jupiter we can get over a million Earth's worth of space without even touching the planets themselves...
Or, the universe may be slowly traversable. If we were just a little more advanced than we are now, but with the same physics (just applied on a larger scale), we could cross to the nearest stars in a few tens of thousands of years. That would be quite doable for machines, or for spacecraft carrying sperm and eggs and artificial wombs, and potentially for humans in suspended animation. Or, if we solve aging, what's a few tens of thousands of years in a very long life?
Or we discover a new understanding of physics to achieve FTL capability.
For the iron stars - do protons decay after 10 duodecillion years leaving nothing but photons and leptons? Scientists don't yet know if protons decay or not and the standard model doesn't suggest that they should ever become unstable and decay. The short answer of why particles decay is become everything in the universe tends to a more stable state and you're more stable when you have less potential energy to spend. If you rip a neutron from a nucleus after approximately 15 minutes it will decay into a proton and emit and electron. Protons are lighter than neutrons so they have less energy and thus are more stable. Both are baryons so after the decay the type of particle remains unchanged, it's only the energy that decreases. But there's no other types of baryons that protons can decay into since it's the lightest of them so it's the most stable form.
Also depends on the feasibility of cold fusion. My friend might have a way to test it…
I think AI and other technology, such as genetic engineering, will make learning, working and reproduction meaningless. The current world, its values and rules, are mostly based on a work mentality and an objective to regulate reproduction. Many laws are directly or indirectly related to who can copulate with whom, who can inherit what, race, gender, etc. I think the current workaholic human form is definitely going to be extinct.
Last summer, in China, I heard from this guy who studied traditional Chinese medicine that the Yi Jing said that 2024 will have fire
Considering the fact that humans have trashed the planet, it's obvious that if we managed to colonize other planets like Earth, the same thing would happen there. Humans have no right to infest other planets and ruin them like we did with this one. If the Earth is gonna get destroyed, it's best if we just go overboard or go down with the ship.
I think we will have space stations as I detailed above but also our technology improves so will our conversation and resource management.
I agree. I would hate to see humanity destroy yet another planet
I don't know much about Yi Jing, but recently some dude said "The next China is still China." That sounds creepy. I googled it for the source. It has been attributed to the Chairman of China, its foreign minister, or some investment bankers. Anyway, there isn't much average people can do. Places like New Zealand, Argentina, and South America in general, seem to be likely refuge if people can go there.
New Zealand and South America would probably be least affected by a forthcoming nuclear war.
"The next China is still China." What does that mean?
I guess they wanted to say "the next [emerging market with highest growth] is still China".
"Save the world"? What is that even supposed to mean lmao? Save what, rocks? Infusoriae? Feces?
A much more sensible solution would be to drain the Sun of its Hydrogen lmao via star lifting.
Regarding the latter point - I'm not sure that's feasible because enforcing submission with enough light lag would be difficult. And without enforcing submission, all such a civilisation would be doing is breed potential enemies. That's my argument for remaining in a single solar system - or a few dozen at most.
Any ideology that doubts its right to exist will go extinct, so there's your answer. There is nothing beyond reality. We don't give a shit about Zeus because Zeus got cucked by Yeshua. And if you lose the war, everyone will spit on you and forget you.
If another species becomes dominant, what do you think humans will evolve into?Lol
Yes, many dinosaurs evolved into birds
Star lifting is much further out but also a possibility. Moving the earth is more feasible with current technology.
Do you think China will overtake the US?
Comparing the two, star lifting would likely be more complex and challenging due to the sheer scale and energy involved, whereas moving the Earth with gravitational assists from asteroids would require precision and patience but might be more feasible with current technological understanding.
China is the second largest economy in the world, its an emerging superpower and the United States is threatened by China. Otherwise it wouldn't be such a kerfuffle. Their economy, at least historically, has been growing faster than the United States and its entirely possible that it could continue to do so into the future. 1.4 billion people. The Soviet Union competed with the United States with a fraction of the population and a fraction of the economy. China is even in proximity to a huge part of the global population. They basically dominate Asia. Obviously the United States has its little alliances with Japan and Australia counter balancing the Chinese in that respect. But they're a big player in Asia. The most populace region and country in the world.
Of course, because America is becoming Brazil 2.0, an idiotic, hysterical, compassionate nation of drug-addicts and school-shooters.
China has been created by the dumb American élites who could not foresee such an obvious development.
China is a landlocked nation that cannot dominate anything, it's surrounded by a range of enemies, all sponsored by America (Vietnam, Pinoy, Korea/JP, India). The only avenue for Chinese expansion is Kazakhstan, but the geography is still awkward.
...Exactly! China only exists because the American élites are brain-damaged and sabotage their own power, their own money bags. It's pathetic, really. China should have been blockaded in the 1990s immediately after Russia's collapse.
Lizard brain, monkey brain, however one wants to call the same base instincts that make me crave physical intimacy and to put my pickle in a pickle jar. I guess there's things I could do to remove these urges like getting on antidepressants but the funny part about these instincts is that they're guiding me to not opt for that.
Squids/Octopi.
