What you describe is a static world, a world without change. That I will fight against. A world however, where one's infinite age gives rise to infinite possibilities, when one does not need to act brashly, but still can, a world where chaos is there, ready to be embraced by the willing, yet at bay for those not ready to let go of it, that is what I seek in the future. Helpful reading on this subject: Rise of Hiperion quadrilogy The Status Civilization. Both of these describe precisely what I fight against, if you read far enough in them.
Agreed. Albert Wesker said it best; there is wheat, and there is chaff. Sometimes, you have to separate the chaff from the wheat in order to maintain a steady order.
This all sounds very interesting, Chap, but I see one problem. Assuming Moore's Law is absolute fact, and the rate at which technology advances is exponential, there is still the possibility of a limit. Some exponential functions have limits, and others do not. Since it's difficult to model the advancement of technology mathematically, it's also hard to say what that limit is, or if it exists. If there was such a limit, it would exemplify the point where we could not advance further. I'm not worried about it, since this is all hypothetical anyway. All in all, math is simply much more complex than this. If we look at one segment of a set of data points and call them "exponential" without even looking at the rest of the data points (a.k.a. the future yet to come), then we aren't actually seeing the big picture. We're only observing a trend, not a function. And since we haven't identified the function, we can't predict future data points. If you've followed me, what I've said means this: Moore's law is largely unsupported.
>the black stuff's running out. Yes. Clearly a renewable resource like oil is running out, since we do not have any way of creating it. Such as certain species of bacteria that excrete hydrocarbons instead of carbohydrates as a result of photosynthesis. Or just tapping old oil reserves, which "magically" have oil in them again. Translation: We're not running our of oil. We might have a smaller steady supply of it, but it's not running out. The whole running out think is mostly a market ploy to get oil prices up. Sadly, enough people believe it for it to work. >eroding topsoil Ontario and Quebec HAVE no topsoil for the most part, and has not had any for about several thousand years. Or at least very small amounts. We still have a large amount of farms, as we have had for 400 years. If farming eroded topsoil, we would have been unable to feed ourself for the past century or so. Note, however, that we use the same equipment as everyone else, and consequently, similar technologies to everyone else (since no technologies in farming are ever the same.) >Nuclear warfare Yes, we can several times over destroy the surface of the world. If humanity was as stupid as you claim it to be, we would have done so many times by now. However, we have not. We were close once, but that was once, long ago, and was avoided. In any case, any energy we humans can produce pales in comparison to natural forces around us. We produce 2% of the Earth's yearly carbon dioxide emissions, if they matter to you. Volcanoes produce 25%. The ocean warming up and therefore releasing dissolved gas (since water can dissolve more gasses when it is cold) is about 25% also. The remaining 50% is miscellaneous reasons such as geysers, every living thing on earth besides us, and other such minor causes. We produce enough energy per year, including energy stored in munitions such as nuclear weapons, as the sun shines upon the earth over a period of several minutes. Not just produces in several minutes, just the tiny part of it that hits the earth. We are, in the grand scheme of things, beyond the notice of a species that can travel at many times the speed of light, since in order to visit us, they have to travel at least 4.2 years AT the speed of light to reach us, and that is if they have the capability to colonize stars with no planets.
