Comments on Trajectory, Benchmarks, 100, 500 and 1000 years impact, and Low Probability Consequences of each factor

The Millennium 3000 first round respondents’ scoring of the factors was computed as the product of probability, importance, and priority. The table below ranks the factors by this index. The number in parentheses next to each factor is the sequence number of the factor as listed in Round 1.
 
 

The Factors:
 

1. Abrupt Climate Change
2. Global Warming
3. Human-Environment Dynamics
4. Energy
5. Nanotechnology
6. Forms of Governance
7. Forces that have the Ability to Destroy Humanity
8. Mental Maps of Reality
9. Collective Future
10. Global Ethical System of Values
11. Human Genetic Engineering
12. Conscious-Technology
13. Increasing Intelligence
14. Conscious Evolution
15. Immortality
16. Family And Gender Relationships
17. Extraterrestrial Contact
18. Space Migration
19. Interspecies Communications

Additional Comments

1. Abrupt Climate Change
Trajectory

Efforts to control this complex system could lead to profound unexpected changes. Scientific research will lead to better understanding, but intervention will remain difficult.

Trajectory: none. Abrupt climate change within a single decade, should it occur, would most likely result from either a major cosmic event such as earth's collision with a large extraterrestrial object or some catastrophic terrestrial event such as an enormous volcanic eruption. Humanity is unlikely ever to develop capacity for significant influence over natural forces of sufficient magnitude to devastate ecosystems on a worldwide scale. The only force supporting the notion of human control is hubris.

Probability of abrupt climate change is slightly getting increased together with increase in protection technology. Potential danger can come not only from the space object but from the system itself like in chaos catastrophic theory (e.g. change in the angle of Earth's Pole's axis.

A completely previously inexperienced impact-type would likely alter.

No foreseeable trajectory. I'm not aware of any evidence to support the claim of "devastated ecosystems within a decade on a worldwide scale" (the four or so mass extinction events were spaced a few dozen or hundred million years apart)- which is not to say various systems weren't "devastated" with some rapidity. There are areas such as the Congo, Amazon Basin, etc. which appear to have been climatically stable for tens of millions of years. We are witnessing a "sudden" (geologically speaking) mass extinction event right now that has little to do with climate change. I would suggest adding a question to this effect.

By the year 3000, humanity or its descendants should have complete control over terrestrial climate. Weather and climate will be managed from day to day, much as we set domestic thermostats in our houses to maintain whatever temperature and humidity the inhabitants may deem optimal or comfortable. This conclusion seems fairly obvious from examining the energy considerations involved. The terrestrial weather system probably dissipates ~10^16 watts continuous, globally. Humanity today uses 10^13 watts with a long-term (200-year) growth rate of ~2.9%/year, so in ~300 years (e.g. by 2300 AD), humanity will control ~10^17 watts and thus can overpower the terrestrial weather system by expending on the order of ~10% of its power resource. By 2400, we will control 10^18 watts (only ~1% of our energy) to control global weather. This item is of only modest importance because by 2400 AD, most of humanity probably will no longer be living on Earth.

There is a great probability of changes, which endanger the biosphere. The focal factor is the basis of human economy; if it is renewed, the danger probably can be avoided. Technological development has a crucial role although without change in the human economy it won't prevent major impacts.

Continuing "slow-on-a-human-scale changes" lead to "frog in a slowly heated pan of water"-type lack of timely action. Counter-examples such as the global Fusion Research effort or the creation of the National Parks System in the US, etc., offer analogs for altering this outcome.

It will be few considered till an abrupt climate change will threaten the welfare of a powerful country. Suddenly there will be big investments to improve this ability.

Serious risks for the ecology.

Continued lack of political will; serious health concerns. - Political awareness!

Ability to avoid impacts of abrupt climate change - what has, every several thousand years in the past, devastated ecosystems within a decade on a worldwide scale. Becoming more probable simply from length of interglacial warm period so far (they end with an abrupt cooling); greenhouse warming makes it much more probable. But intervention in Greenland and Labrador Seas might stabilize against abrupt shifts.

Abrupt changes are unlikely since we will be able to determine oncoming events. Some impacts cannot be changed (e.g. disastrous storms) while others (comet impacts) can be avoided.

Neglect ice-ages. They will come but in the 15.000 year spans. Consider even major volcanic activities (with heavy clouding) as short lived events (3-5 years)

What means abrupt climatic change" ? Variations within 1.5°C are historic normal variations in a millenium. Changes of more than 3° within 1000 years are unlikely. Human intervention potential - positively or negatively - is the same as for earthquakes or volcanic eruptions. CO2 emissions will substantially decrease with fossil fuels' depletion within the next 40 to 100 years.

Difficult to foresee as yet with the present climate models. Both human generated factors (greenhouse effect, etc.) and natural factors (e.g. dust in the atmosphere because of asteroid impact or volcanoes) can have a strong impact.

Change of life stiles and values - connected with keeping population-explosion in check/better reducing population.

If abrupt climate change happens as swiftly as over a decade, hard to see what might alter it, if caused ultimately by chaotic processes of ocean-climate system. The question might better be posed, if this happens, how would humans cope? Factors that promote solidarity in the face of problems experienced in the case of rapid climate change need to be identified, e.g. by systematic study of what social arrangements proved effective in past abrupt changes, and what did not (e.g. with respect to a thirty year drought in the Perth region, Western Australia). The thousand year future may be made up of a series of such thirty year changes. The trajectory is imagined as a jolt, a jump followed by relative stability until the next jolt; uniformitarianism with the odd catastrophe.

Ice ages have occurred on a regular basis throughout history. Recent scientific research indicates that the next ice age is a distinct possibility during the next 1,000 years. Other abrupt climate changes can occur due to cosmic impact or major volcanic eruptions.

Understanding what we now call "complexity" - the phenomenon of naturally occurring order on a level previously unobservable, due to the enormous amount of information to consider - will dominate the natural sciences within the next hundred years. After that, weather and climate will come increasingly under our control via a mammoth number of small-scale, coordinated interventions. It will be as if we actually assumed the role of that infamous "butterfly", but on the level of, say, 10²³ butterflies.

New technology of adaptation of human created systems and humankind organization on the abrupt climate change.

Getting worse towards the catastrophe/radical change in the way of life in global dimension.

We will never be able to protect us completely from global climate changes caused by disasters like meteor impact or polarity change of the Earth’s magnetic field or some other unexpected thing. Not in this form of existence.

Will cause unusual flooding, drought and hot weather in every decade; man can hardly harness it except prediction and alleviation.

Wild Card. We have no control over this event. We have only a limited estimate of it's probability, but apparently we are overdue for such an event. Our technology will protect us somewhat but if, for instance, the event is a major asteroid strike then climate control technology would be inadequate. Our only recourse would be to move to space or to deflect the asteroid before it hits. Either of those options presupposes a mature space-faring capability (see Question 18).

Our present understanding is that we are spared this for at least another 5000-6000 years.

Global climate change will remain to considerable degree "black box" - climate is so complex system we shall not be able to predict and influence major consequences. Therefore main principle how to deal with it is precautionary principle. Key benchmarks: Probably the most important will be next 100 years. Because of CO2 and other greenhouse gases (especially in developing countries) temperatures will grow and it will have considerable effect to (probably unpredictable) climate change and perhaps new migrations of millions of people as result of it. Low probability consequences: - Melting of ice and increase of ocean/sea level.

It is necessary to distinguish between natural climate change and the man-made one. The man-made one could be caused, for example, by nuclear war on the large scale.

Less or equal than 2300 AD.

Impredictable – See August quake In Turkey.

Global warming will probably cause such abrupt changes to occur with increased certainty.

Increased release of carbon dioxide. Cleaner and less transport working from home.

Ability increasing.

Trajectory: a factor for development of technology will take a period of about sixty years to accomplish according to the present rate of technological development. Conclusions: accelerating technological development with information tech. and biotechnology and new renewal energy/exgergy technology necessary. Results come however with a delay but may result in a shortening of the period to four decades if population growth is halted. 2) Trajectory: population growth is to be continued still some fifty years and leveling off at the level of 12-15 billion people at the best, and then it takes some two centuries to get it down to a sustainable level of about less than the present level in certain over populated areas. conclusions: total environmental stress of enhancing climate change will continue for a long time to come may be two centuries (defense of humankind needed). 3) Trajectory: then possibly the calamities will level off (if we are successful in defense) giving space to new more positive strategies to some other than defensive direction from that situation. Conclusion: the future outcome is very much uncertain and unknown at the present may be even unknown how and of what issues it is unknown (unknown of unknown = unk-unk -problem) the climate problem is thus a double-unknown problem: a problem of which we don’t even know in what way it is unknown to us.

Benchmarks

Surface salinity changes in Greenland-Norwegian Sea and Labrador Sea, flow estimates of North Atlantic Current (AKA Gulf Stream), index of the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO, a decade-cycle shift in the latitude of the westerlies that affects Gulf Stream heat transfer to Europe).

None.

Continuing observation might provide warning of a cosmic object on a collision path with the earth, or of a massive eruption in our galaxy that might engulf the earth, or of a major increase in activity below the earth's crust, etc. Even if observations provide meaningful advance knowledge doesn't mean mankind would possess the capability for effective countermeasures.

While there may be population losses, there is continued survival of human population groups, wildlife population groups; and, while changed, ecological systems remain viable and productive.

The next 20 years are crucial. The negative effect accumulate next 100 years. The gradual balancing operations will effect after 100 years. The mistakes are not repeated and the favorable circumstance are reached in 200 years. What important low probability consequences should be considered? Changes in solar energy inflow, major volcanic eruptions, and unexpected meteorite. Massive change in the demand for energy. There is no energy source without problems and consequences to environment. Epidemic virus killing majority of human population.

Positive benchmark: use of satellites for prevent fires of rainforest.

Changes in harvest and cattle.

Steady deterioration; popular efforts.

Drastic planetary changes in temperature and weather patterns and the resultant impact on food production. Species extinction of some or many species due to these devastating events. Human beings may be able to alter the occurrence of these natural phenomenon or their impact if our technological abilities are of an exceedingly advanced level. For example, if the onset of ice ages was understood well enough them mega-level countermeasures could possibly be taken. And, comets or asteroids likely to strike the Earth could be identified and deflected or destroyed prior to impact.

Positive: man will be able to predict the abrupt change (in 100 years), partly alleviate its negative effects (in 500 years) and avoid it (in 1000 years); Negative: the disaster will become more and more severe and cost tremendous damage to human being.

CO2, temperature and ocean levels.

A "benchmark" would be its occurrence.

Technology can help provide warming of … etc. and meteor collision.

Move from short term thinking to long term forecasting based on a world view.

Continuous increasing of prediction capabilities and technology development.

Acceleration of technological development: factor four in 2050, factor ten in 2500; dematerialization effect: objectives to be determined through research; increase of welfare (economic/technological-social/political-cultural/spiritual) productivity of GDP: welfare units produced per one unit of GDP : turning from the present decrease of productivity first to zero by 2050 with increasing shift to services and solidarity , then execute a sustainable development policy for growth of welfare productivity by a rate of 3%/a by 2100 and beyond; population growth: leveling off to zero growth by 2100 and then a decrease to a level of about 5 billion by 2500.

100

Public awareness and strong incentive robust first steps: http://www.ceptualinstitute.com/genre/benking/globalstability.htm.

Coral bleaching may be one such jolt, with coral bleaching associated with global warming causing massive destruction of coral reef systems world-wide as soon as 20 years from now, threatening the livelihood of people in tropical marine areas. Ref. http://www.greenpeace.org.au.

Development of guarding systems on the Earth; but still impossible destroying the space object.

A comprehensive automated comet/asteroid-strike monitoring and defense system will be in place.

Understanding the force of natural order in the universe. General agreement that it does exist. What now seems intuitively to violate the 2^nd law will within 100 years be as universally accepted as Darwin. (Except for the fundamentalists, of course.)

New technology of forecasting and modeling the climate changes.

The strategy of sustainable living.

500

If weather conditions extreme, and ecological change selectively targets some nations more severely than others, might expect cultural adaptation of some survivors to extreme conditions. Greatly reduced human, animal population, with widespread extinction of organisms.

Ability to destroy space object.

Full control of terrestrial meteorology, according to conscious and deliberate human desires and choices.

We're there. By 2500, we'll be able to control the climate as well as we ever will. By now, the political issue is how much to control it, not how to control it.

New technology of communication with the Nature and the Earth.

The artificial control of climate by high-tech systems of AI.

1000

Fail safe early warning systems over the next 200 years.

Recovery after ecological disaster that is precipitated within a decade might be expected at places least affected or in places that benefit from the very rapid change - e.g. perhaps parts of the southern hemisphere more likely to recover from sudden onset of next glacial period in the north and vice versa.

Space guarding systems  near planets.

Full control of planetary orbital elements, allowing Earth's orbit and various rotations to be circularized or modified at will, thus eliminating all undesired long-term periodic climate drivers, Ice Ages, and so forth. My supporting calculations: Earth's orbital kinetic energy around the Sun is ~10^34 joules. To alter Earth's orbital velocity by, say, 1% over the course of one year requires a continuous expenditure of energy (e.g. for planetary propulsion) of ~3 x 10^24 watts (only ~1% solar luminosity). At a growth rate of +2.9%/yr from current levels (see discussion under Question 4 below), humanity surpasses ~3 x 10^24 watts in the year 2900.

Earth is a museum piece. Many people choose to remain on earth, but climate is simply not an issue. The parameters for control have been hammered out, and there is no viable movement to exceed those parameters. To do so would simply mean the end of Earth, and the beginning of Something Else. Earth, as a sort of museum, is revered, much like the constitution.

Symbioses and harmony between the humankind and the Nature.

The mankind will leave the Earth and enter to the space-age.

Low Probability Consequences

Failure is low probability on century scale – but like an uncertain cancer diagnosis, you have to treat "as if" because consequences of catching it too late are so catastrophic. Volcano dust regions having their agriculture wiped out for 5 years.

Stopping of the "conveyor belt" mechanism of the Gulf stream that brings warm water to Europe.

The low probability is for no sudden climate change at all. Perhaps humanity’s experiment in global warming is already working, postponing the coming of the ice. Perhaps we should really give ourselves a 5 here for (unconscious) policy intervention.

Misbalance of our solar system due to the testing crashes, possibility to use crashes as source of energy.

Completely previously inexperienced impact-type for which human, wildlife and ecological systems have no adaptive response mechanism.

That Earth gets walloped by a big asteroid before our planetary defense is in place, and before a critical mass of human civilization has established an independently sustainable existence off-Earth -- thus causing human progress to go seriously retrograde.

Abandoning of some regions of the world; they become uninhabited.

Changes in the geographical scenarios.

Irreparable damage to biosphere.

A new ice age or cosmic impact could seriously jeopardize the survival of our species. That our processes, in the initial phases, would take on a life of their own. Not so improbable, actually, and it is here that public policy will focus.

World-wide famine caused by the abrupt climate change.

This whole area needs much more research and efforts to rescue missions.

Failure to take worldwide decisions.

Dangers and risk involved with hazard technology development (nuclear power of the present concept) and mismanagement of nature for humans and corruptive human interactions which will penetrate in and spoil humanistic development and destroy freedom of spiritual life.

Trajectory

Climate changes have always been cyclical, and the great increase in carbon dioxide production by humans has been a major modern factor but is limited by supplies of fossil fuels. Thus over the longer term, fossil fuel consumption will certainly decline.

Clear warming trend, though superimposed on it we might have some temporary respites. Reduced CO2 could alter it, so could changes in ocean circulation that secondarily reduce water vapor in the atmosphere. (Calvin) It is dependent upon world leadership and political will. Over the long term the problem is solved, if we don’t screw it up in the short term.

The policy needed here relates to CO2 and NOx absorption, catalysis, cracking.

Temperatures are likely to continue increasing over at least the next hundred years, unless major reductions in CO2 emission or increases in CO2 absorption are achieved.

Given time to spot trends and to make quite sure of contributing factors (difficult, granted their apparently chaotic nature) global action on the relevant front; e.g. changes in industrial processes might achieve something. The trajectory is imagined as an upward linear trend to a point of chaotic intervention.

Trajectory: not predictable. Before the trend of the current interglacial turns, the present cycle may include considerably more warming. Or perhaps the warming trend is so close to peaking that the next millennium will be primarily one of global cooling. In any case, minor climate changes can have major impact on people through increasingly violent storms, drought or deluge, flooding or drying of coastal areas, etc. Even if humanity can't control climate changes, their effects might be ameliorated by anticipatory actions such as: relocating population centers away from geological faults or coastal areas likely to be inundated; making more efficient use of water, arable soil, fish, and other finite resources. Such enlightened activities would obviously benefit from funding, forecasting, planning, and mobilizing activity in good time. Certainly, the extent to which benefits are actually realized would depend, in no small measure, on attitudinal shifts by a sizeable percentage of the world's population.

May be altered only by catastrophic events that lower population or curtail economic growth.

No foreseeable trajectory. The models used for global warming to date are unreliable, as is the data. It may just as easily be the case that we are staving off an ice age with our (relatively minor compared to natural processes) CO2 emissions.

Same answer as 1.

There is a great probability of changes, which endanger the biosphere. The focal factor is the basis of human economy; if it is renewed, the danger probably can be avoided. Massive change in the demand for energy. There is no energy source without problems and consequences to environment.

It is likely that greenhouse gas levels will continue to rise during the next century, with resulting steady increases in global mean temperature. There is some possibility of a sudden change in the Antarctic ice sheet with sudden impacts on sea levels. There is some small probably of an impact from a significant comet/asteroid. Investments related to carbon-free energy and/or space might mitigate the first and the third over time. The second suggests a need for various types of preparations, such as physical construction projects, regulations on construction near the coast, insurance practices, etc.

There will be more and more frequent strong climate changes. Alternative energy transport could positively alter it.

It might be cooling.

The possibility that Antarctica and North Pole will reduce.

Continued indifference; consumerism; simple and aware life.

Man-made climate change will likely have a major impact on humanity in the 21^st Century including global warming, shifts in ocean currents, wind patterns, etc. according to many computer simulations. Only a significant reduction in human and animal related CO2 emissions would likely alter the warming trend.

The trajectory for the next several hundred years can be statistically plotted using any sizable group of 200-400 year historical periods. Major climate change is as sure as erosion or particle decay, and nothing will prevent it until we "break the code". And we won't really prevent it, we'll just orchestrate it. That's 500 years away. In the meantime, we'd better just get accustomed to things like global warming. It is not a 20^th (or 21^st) century phenomenon.

Occurrence of major and dangerous climatic changes in first 100 and feedback in form of change of economic and social organization of humankind, harmonization human economy with laws of Nature.

Getting worse / effective policy / funding in global dimension.

The occurrence of this factor in next 1000 years is absolutely certain. The policy/funding can change the trajectory a bit, but most important is the inner responsibility of each of us. If we would take care of the Earth, the Earth will take care of us.

Global weather will become more and more disorder and approach a threshold that severely threatening life support system and social-economic development.

Slow climate change (whether man-made or not) is highly probable - based on the fossil record. However, our technology will absorb much of the impact allowing us to continue living at the same level of material wealth (albeit with some fairly significant impacts on quality of life). It is unlikely that energy sufficient to redirect climate on a planetary scale will be available even over a time-span of a thousand years. (since we would be competing with a star). A speedy transition to non-polluting energy sources and high-efficiency uses of that energy could possibly postpone the onset or diminish the extent of the climatic change.

Global warming leading to melting of polar ice caps leading to disruption of ocean currents leading to ice age.

Scenarios of climate change are well known, we just cannot predict exactly if and when this will happen. Transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources ("solar age") would help. This could be accomplished by implementation of ecological tax reform.

The real danger of green-house effect and warming atmosphere. The danger of such kind could be mitigated through the limitation of emissions over the next 100 years (ecological taxes, new kinds of fuels). Consequences: the decline of agriculture, heavy floods in coastal areas, hunger, poverty, social unrest, migration of poor.

Change of lifestyle in western culture; elimination of poverty in rest of the world.

It is inevitable, eventually. Only the timing is highly unsure.

Better research and much greater concern for environmental issues.

Less incidence of human factor because of pollution control.

I refer to the previous comments. It is difficult to put these things on a time frame. What we know is the strong impact of human use of energy , and of course all related to it. The present energy world supply based on mineral non-renewable energy forms may stay viable for fifty years without not too severe disruptions of supply and demand. And generating a novel energy supply on a word scale markets need at least fifty years too. Is this going to happen is the crucial question, are the companies and governments wise enough to accelerate development of technology and business for new supplies and demand and infrastructure for it to be applied. In Finland at least the forces (domestic and multinational) are about making another strong push for getting old fashion nuclear plants to built. The whole international nuclear business seems Finland as the only western place to built nuclear still, in all other countries building more is denied, plants shut, or if not denied the market forces are not interested in putting their money because of the high commercial risks involved. Exceptions are the totalitarian energy economy countries like France, Russia, China, Korea etc, whoa has also their atomic weapon programs to protect. Nowadays they do in Finland, where the risks have been taken away from the companies according to the Finnish atomic energy law!

Benchmarks
 

The greenhouse gases (CO2 and H2O), but also the regional drought indicators.

Measurements of important factors such as average temperature, ocean depth, glacial extent, atmospheric composition, distribution of precipitation, etc. It is vital to distinguish between trends and ordinary variability from decade to decade.

Birth rate; Gross Domestic Product (GDP).

Same answer as 1.

Warmth-enlargement of the seawater, and partial melting on continental ice which cause sea level rise about 1-2 meters in 100 years. After that the positive intervention of humankind gradually stops it. What important low probability consequences should be considered? New kinds of epidemies among both vegetation, animals and humans as result of climate change.

Increasing of high tides, desertification and severe storms.

Appearances and disappearance of desert areas.

Floods - Neco Virus and Diseases.

Damaging developments one after the other.

Rising sea levels, warming in northern climates as well as Antarctica, melting of polar ice sheets. Changes in food production.

Positive: main processes which contribute to climate change will be clear and ecologically controlled (in 100 years), man will be in harmony with nature (in 500 years) and climate will not influence heavily human being (in 1000 years); Negative: some regions will gradually become un-habitable and huge amount of migrants or refugees will have to leave their home town.

Doubling of atmospheric CO2 in 100 years time, resulting in estimated 2 degree Celsius increase in temperature and half-meter rise of ocean levels.

Closely measure climate changes, ice reduction at South Pole, etc.

Its occurrence.

Move towards a holistic world view. This is happening with the decline of the nation state. This process is not developing quickly enough.

Pollution control and prediction capabilities.

100

Great reduction in anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions.

By 100 years (2100) surely we shall have a viable catalysis system, whatever the primary power source (mono nuclear hydrogen from the oceans, no doubt).

In a 100 years, the major positive (increased crop yields?) and negative effects (increased storms and flooding, triggering of a major climate change such as an Ice age) of global warming will be known. Beyond that, it is difficult to guess what will happen.

As for previous question, the widespread recurrence of episodes of coral bleaching may make global reef systems the first casualties of global warming within 100 years.

None.

Major climatic changes, change of economic and human organization.
 
 

500
 
 

Climate is "natural".

Measurable impact, but uncertain consequences.

Design and creation of new global social organization of humankind oriented towards harmonization of relationships between the humankind and the Nature.
 
 

1000
 
 

Track policy developments over the next century.

Human, other animal and plant populations in decline if change to much colder conditions.

Acceptance of what we can and cannot change if we want Earth to remain Earth. By now, to exceed these parameters would be ludicrous. There's nothing to gain.
Low Probability Consequences

Humans develop technology enabling them to live in even very inhospitable climates.

Disruption of the major oceanic currents (e.g., Gulf Stream) could bring about a new Ice Age, causing profound changes in the northern hemisphere, which would in turn have knock-on effects everywhere else.

Major epidemics.

Added costs to the economy ; we already have "clean" air economies versus dirty air economies. Are we prepared for cleaner air?

"Paradoxical" reactions, such as global warming triggering an Ice Age (e.g. through increase albedo because of more clouds, or stopping of Gulf stream).

The low probability of no change, or conditions under which in the past previous episodes of global warming led to glacial period prove dissimilar next time.

That increase in GDP, residuals and population do not, in the long-term lead to degradation of the biosphere [Presentation of the premise is unclear as is the wording].

Same answer as 1.

Tropical diseases in temperate regions.

Irreparable damage to the biosphere.

Increase in diseases, new pandemics, etc. due to general warming of conditions. Increased forest fires including in rain forests which could dry out. Serious consequences to human survival.

Catastrophe around 500 years out. A few near misses around 2-300 years out, but nothing Gaia can't handle.

Transition from present entropic type of human evolution to anti-entropic/syntropic/ type of human evolution, emergence of new syntropic human economy based on using information as basic anti-entropic resource of human development and organizing on the principles of the information theory of value.

Many coastal cities will disappear due to the sea level rise.

Genetic manipulation resulting in successful biological adaptation to extreme temperatures.

Not easy to say but study weak signals in scenario planning as these could be important.

Desertification and sea level rise.

A wrong direction of energy polices in the world will seriously affect our possibilities to counteract the climate change effects and to find a better direction for development in due time. The other factor having a same kind of influence is not to direct economies more to services but continue industrial society form of life too long.
 
 

3 Human-Environment Dynamics

Trajectory

Over-consumption of resources and imbalance between population and resources leads to tragic collapse of human population in the long term, fundamentally disrupting the current form of civilization.

Parallels population and economic growth.

When the 2O ex-Eastern block states along the EU eastern border, and populations beyond them all decide that they will "go West", then Western Europe as we know it today will have human compression dynamics on its hands. The same logic goes for a South-North move across the Mediterranean, and probably so for other parts of the world which I "feel" much less.

Although it is unlikely that natural resources will really be exhausted (as resources becoming scarcer stimulate the development of alternative/more efficient uses), the danger is great that biodiversity and the general quality of the ecosystem will be seriously diminished, unless much more forceful policies for conservation and sustainable development are implemented.

Various disaster scenarios may be imagined, as if the arrows of plague, famine and war are scatter-fired simultaneously from a single point. However evolving human-environment dynamics does not necessarily entail global disaster in the thousand year future. Some parts of the planet may benefit, even from an asteroid collision. Differential survival and cultural adaptation to changing conditions, even much worse conditions, is possible given solidarity and the maintenance of social conditions such that problems can be tackled as they arise. Since particular changes emerge from complex systems, ability to mobilize science to emerging crises matters. On the population front, the task is to make first make explicit the political nature of inequality, then work on ways to ameliorate it.

Trajectory: relatively flat and at low levels (inconclusive results). Continuing advances in knowledge and communication technologies might be expected to encourage improved human-environment dynamics. However, strong counterforces exist such as (1) inadequate access to those advances by much of humanity, (2) growth of religious fundamentalism and violent reassertion of ethnic divisions, and (3) continuing population growth coupled with rising economic aspirations.

There are key factors population growth in economically week countries and economic growth in others. In poor countries at first there will be no cares of hum.-env. dyn. (mostly this is included in their religion system). Rich countries will try to invest in the modern area ecology building cities under or on the see level.

Inability of humans to "integrate" available knowledge can provide negative trajectory.

By the year 3000, most people or people-entities will live off-Earth. If individual humans still exist, there may be more than 10^15 of us (see very crude estimate, Question 4), but Earth cannot sustain more than ~10^9 people in technological comfort comparable to the standard of living in late-20th-century industrialized nations. (10^9 people x up to 100 kilowatts/person = 10^13 watts, the current global usage, which is probably already starting to negatively affect the ecology). By this estimate, in the year 3000, ~99.9999% of all humans will live off-Earth, and only ~0.0001% (one human of every million) will still live on Earth - very roughly analogous to the difference between the entire population of New York City and the passengers inside a single yellow cab traveling its streets.

So the principal human-environment dynamic will be the effect of humans on the "rest" of the Solar System, *not* on the Earth.

The principle of sustainable development will be accepted widely in 20 years. After that the world dynamics will be favorable.

A bottom-up process from civil society to governs. Lack of water might alter it.

Migration flows and ethnic conflicts.

Conscientization; political activism; participation – Ignorance.

As human population grows so does the impact on the planet and its eco-systems. This includes mega-climate change and rapidly expanding consumption of non-renewable and renewable resources. The global human population will continue to expand at about 80 to 90 million people per year for at least the early part of the 21^st century. Over 8 billion people by 2025 is forecast. Thus, human impact and interaction with the earth’s environment and resources will become more pronounced, more intertwined and more complex over the next 50 to 100 years until some stable state is reached. The best means of reducing population is through sustainable economic development and education.

Not noticeable for several hundred years, in any way that is fundamentally different from today. Then, the working knowledge of how that "butterfly in Peru really does affect the weather in Chicago" will infuse people with a sense of urgency and power. The "how can one individual make a difference" mentality that is in ascendancy today will only fade as 100 years of scientific breakthroughs in complex information processes trickle into the public's awareness.

This is probably the most critical issue for the next millennium. The next thousand years will determine if any wild lands at all will be permitted to exist. If that is to occur humans must radically change their attitude towards other species. Just as the U.S., as the only super-power, no longer has the luxury of all-out war, as a species humans no longer have the luxury of viewing nature as either a resource or something to fear or conquer. We are too powerful for that, to do so in either case is to guarantee our 'opponents' total destruction and therefore our own downfall. Widespread acceptance of the philosophy of sustainability and a new conceptualization of Man's relationship to nature is required. As much as we might not wish it, we will have to take a more paternalistic attitude toward nature and take affirmative control. We must set aside enough of the earth, sea and sky to ensure that a stable eco-system (that includes us) can continue indefinitely. National Parks are not enough, we need a World Park System that meets the ecological needs (prey, migration, etc) of all of Earth's remaining species. Unfortunately current trends are moving away from this end. Policy and funding to promulgate the new eco-consciousness is needed and quickly.

Biotechnology and genetic manipulation of plant and animal food resources offers prospects of increased food production Breakthrough in new energy sources may yet keep earth’s economy going and growing.

The world’s population tends to stabilization. But much more difficult problem if the growth of consumption everywhere. The overpopulated nations of the Third World could not reach the Western standard of life without destroying the global ecosystem. The only solution of this "circulus vitiosus" is radical limitation of consumption in the rich countries and their "good example through the deep change of values and more spiritual way of life and behavior.

Will be driven by young people. Failure of young people to influence an out of date establishment.

Resource pressures. Have’s vs. have not dilemmas.

Inevitable if we continue "business as usual" – and we will, I believe.

Conditions improvement due to increasing global awareness.

Humankind is forced to a new direction either by blind evolutionary forces or lead by the choices we make. Ref: Pentti Malaska,(1971) Future Prospects Of Technical Man , And Technosystem And Ecosystem - A Problematic Relation (attached).

Benchmarks

The growth of sewage and junkyards.

Any 3 bad consecutive winters between now and 2020

The negative effects are likely to be strongest in the next 100 years. The next centuries will probably see a gradual restoration of the natural environment, as more ecofriendly technologies and policies are globally implemented.

Principles of sustainable development understood both as ecological, and social are accepted by all major states and companies by the year 2010.

Positive benchmark: Agro-alimentar revolution (development of biological natural agriculture).

Information, awareness, dialogue, give and take spirit.

Increased human population in the short term and then the possibility of a stable population, fewer resources, degraded eco-systems.

Food production needs to double in 100 years time, in tandem with projected doubling of population to 12 billion.

Material gaps between haves/have nots, both between countries and within them.

Improving in environmental and resources exploitation managing and development of alternative technologies.
 
 

100
 
 

Population stabilizes and begins to decline.

Wish-list would include: Politics of inequality tackled, with success in stabilizing human population intensification. Biological trend towards increasing infertility meets political trend towards tackling inequality; a combination of legal change, change in business practices, education through wider media access.

Experiences of rich countries to discover possibilities to live on artificial islands, under water.

Extensive use of extraterrestrial materials to build technological artifacts of various kinds. Beyond - it is hard to estimate this without making a lot of unduly tenuous assumptions. But at some point, humanity will have used up all of the easily-accessed "detrital" resources of the Solar System - small asteroids, comets, debris, etc. - and the question may arise whether or not we want to start taking the major planets apart to obtain their raw materials. (In part this depends on how mass-intensive, as opposed to energy-intensive, our future activities will become.) This could be a difficult decision, as there are pros and cons on both sides. This issue may first arise when a particularly large named asteroid is collared and slated for extraction. But the discussion will intensify when the disassembly of planetary rings, small moons, and ultimately the gas giants (which hold most of the planetary mass), is seriously proposed.

None, other than the usual ebb and flow of public conscientiousness.

New economic theory based on information theory of value as a base for creation of anti-entropic /syntropic/ human economy using information as main resource and source of development.

The alleviation of the population explosion by diminishing.
 
 

500
 
 

People living in balance with available resources.

Human-environment dynamics is the central political issue. Balancing the environment budget is part of balancing fiscal budget. Move towards the concept of the individual as an ecological "self", where the self-concept is of the individual in relation to the community and the environment rather than the isolated selfish ego.

New sources of energy, trying to colonize the outer space.

We're smack in the middle of the age of individuals making a difference. There's hell to pay. Many people yearn for the good old days when true individualism was a hard-fought and generally scarce commodity.
 
 

1000
 
 

Humans prove themselves capable of global solidarity in the face of global change. If not, then human life may rather a nasty affair.

Growth of population is not a threatening factor, space resources of energy, more complex but simpler civilization.

Cooperation has been hammered out. We get it now. Today, the issues have more to do with the collective consciousness and propulsion. The concept of "civilization" and the problems of individuals getting along is a quaint relic of our tumultuous past.

In 500 to 1000 years we will change the face of the planet, and this is mostly for the worse.
 
 

Low Probability Consequences
 
 

Resource-based wars leading to profound declines in human population and disruption of modern civilization.

Famine, simply because there is little buffering capacity for the bad years.

The destruction of key biological species may trigger a collapse of (part of) the global ecosystem.

Nuclear arsenal and nuclear aggressors live in northern hemisphere, which may also possess a potential for more rapid destructive climate change. Southern hemisphere emerges as best place for human survival. South Africa, South America, South Pacific Nations and Australia rule!

The third world war should be considered together with contact with extraterrestrials.

A major portion of humanity undertake naturalistic, holistic or 'animist' lifestyles.

New turbulent chaotic processes appear as result of sustainable development policy.

Safe food for all the world.

More people and fewer resources such as clean water and food leading to increased conflict among nations and peoples. Successful and utter domination by a single group or coalition. This is actually a fairly low probability, believe it or not, because if we make it past the age of the individual (which will make today's struggle for individual expression look like a Quaker prayer meeting) any group with that much power will be comprised of individuals with a fierce respect for the destructive power of forced subordination.

Malthusian factors may yet work to curb population growth.

But important to focus on issues related to power/responsibility links.

Understanding differing national cultures. Some work has been done but largely ignored.

Clean technologies development.

Risks come unmanageable, and inequality of people becoming unbearable to active and influential poor. Migration and internal disturbances, terror, collapse of symbol systems like information network and system of money.
 
 

4. Energy

Trajectory

Fossil fuel energy use declining over the long term; renewable sources of energy becoming increasingly important; hydroelectricity use declining because most appropriate facility sites already exploited; radical new technologies being developed, such as hydrogen-based energy.

This will absolutely happen, and probably over the next century. I see nothing that will significantly alter the trend already in place.

The only viable "safe" energy we know something about (but not enough yet) is nuclear fusion (stars). We have enough hydrogen captive in the Earth to "make do" for a couple of centuries, when we solve the controlled fusion problem ; another source is strictly mechanical and will involve drawing massively from tidal movements. This in turn will lead to slowing down the rotation of the Earth, but not significantly over another 500 to 1000 years.

In the short term, exhaustion of fossil fuels will trigger more research and development of renewable or inexhaustible energy sources (solar, nuclear, fusion, etc.), together with a much more efficient use of energy (fuel cells, telecommuting, etc.). This is likely to definitively solve the energy problem in the next few centuries.

Go solar and geothermal.

I’ll take the particular issue of the use of the energy-efficient individual dwelling place, whether an energy-smart house or some other form of dwelling organized to harness renewable energy, i.e. to contribute as well as consume. Trajectory is imagined as a feed-back loop.

Huge solar collectors in space are the most likely source of energy 1000 years from now.

Trajectory: low levels for the next 10-40 years unless another major oil disruption occurs; thereafter a steady or possibly frantic rise in concern and activity until the next big energy source is developed and made commercially viable. The oil embargo and Gulf War demonstrate the great significance of this issue. Consumption of energy will continue to increase as technologies advance and more people maneuver to enjoy their advantages. New technologies will undoubtedly be developed to deal with inevitable depletion and increasing cost of energy from fossil fuels. Growing use of sport utility and other large vehicles in the U.S., demonstrates again that incentives to conserve energy and develop new energy sources in anticipation of future need will be weak in the absence of duress. However, duress will certainly materialize within the next 100 years and force major resources to be devoted to this challenge.

Till the end of 2100 disappearing of petrol resources looking for new mine centers in the see and oceans. Looking for new resources of energy.

Trajectory seen as level, as more eager users worldwide enter market, abundance and safety may become moot.

Nuclear fusion will probably become technically and economically viable. Solar energy will become the main source both on and off Earth. Hydrocarbon oxidation will always be around in some form or other (e.g. fuel cells, mechanosysnthesis), however it applicability is limited on Earth by the atmospheric O2 shortage (not at all by the fossil fuel shortage nor by the greenhouse effect). Nuclear fission will still be kicking around, mostly off-Earth. It will continue to be metered. Hydroelectric, wind, geothermal will remain marginal. Tapping the vacuum energy probably won't work. Converting kinetic/potential energy of solar system objects may provide a significant fraction of space power. The hydrogen economy, antimatter, kinetic rings and such are storage media which may find places of use.

To estimate some possible endpoints, we can do a few simple extrapolations. Conservative Estimate: Energy consumption of the Roman Empire ~2000 years ago is estimated as ~3 x 10^9 watts, whereas current global energy usage by humanity is ~1 x 10^13 watts, giving a historical growth rate of +0.29%/year; linearly extending this historical rate forward by 1000 years implies ~2 x 10^14 watts by the year 3000. This seems absurdly low. Liberal Estimate: Per capita usage was ~30 watts/person in the Roman Empire, but still only ~40 watts/person by 1800, versus ~10,000 watts/person in the most industrialized nations today, a growth rate of +0.29% over the last 2000 years but +2.8%/year over the last 200 years. The average population growth rate has been ~0.06%/year over the last 12,000 yrs (farming), ~0.17%/year over the last 2000 years, ~0.95%/year over the last 200 years (Industrial Revolution), and ~1.4%/yr during the last 100 years (20th century medicine). Population can grow until it hits natural limits (see below), so if nanotech allows +1.4%/yr population growth plus +2.8%/yr per capita energy growth, then by the year 3000 there will be a population of ~6 x 10^15 people consuming ~1 x 10^12 watts per capita, for a total human power demand of ~6 x 10^27 watts in the year 3000. Argument from More Fundamental Physical Limits: Given the possibility of uploading and other likely conceptual changes in what it means to be "human", the notion of "population" may cease to have any physical meaning by the year 3000. So we should seek an alternative method of extrapolation that is independent of the notion of a human "population". The idea that humanity (in whatever future form) may occupy a (nonrigid!) shell-like structure around the Sun, thus absorbing and presumably harnessing virtually all of the Sun's natural energy output, has been called a Dyson Sphere, a now-ancient concept. And yes, solar luminosity is ~4 x 10^26 watts, but I always like to point out that this is not the upper limit for a "solar civilization" because the power density of the Sun (viewed as a fusion power plant) is extremely poor, under ~1 watt/m^3, vs. at least 10^6 watts/m^3 in most proposed fusion reactor designs. Solar mass is ~2 x 10^30 kg, mostly fusionable H/He which may be converted to energy with ~1% efficiency, giving a total accessible native Solar System energy resource of ~2 x 10^45 joules if the Sun is turned off and its fuel inventoried and burned more intensively than normally occurs in Nature, in billions (trillions?) of man-made fusion power plants. To estimate power, we need to know how fast we can burn that 2 x 10^45 joules. In the simplest case, we can burn it just as fast as we can reasonably expect to replace it, e.g. by scavenging neighboring (uninhabited) star systems. If the entire Solar System mass is transported at ~1%c to the nearest uninhabited star system (for refueling), and assuming that such star systems lie ~10 light-years away, then the journey consumes ~2 x 10^43 J or ~1% of all available energy to make this trip which lasts ~1000 years. (Travel speeds much faster or slower are less efficient.) Burning the remaining 99% of our energy stores over the ~1000 years while we are in transit gives a maximum power usage of 6 x 10^34 watts. Given all of the uncertainties involved, and the fact that Nature has provided star-sized "fuel depots" conveniently situated around the Galaxy, a reasonable "sustainable" maximum power draw for a stellar civilization is probably ~10^34 watts.

Renewable energy sources are accepted as major sources of energy by the year 2025. Major conflict between the North and the South might obstacle the favorable development.

This is an extremely time-critical factor; if a reasonable global standard of living were established (e.g., 1 kWh/per capita per day), then over the next 100-200 years, carbon-based fuels are likely to be largely exhausted; over the next 1000 years (if major increases in use occurred), even nuclear fuels could become depleted. Unless unforeseen changes occur in technologies for manufacturing, information, entertainment, transportation, heating/cooling, etc., to reduce the energy needed for an advanced standard of living, then once fossil fuels are depleted, the global quality of life could drop substantially. Major investments in key power alternatives (e.g., Fusion, solar, space solar, others?) would be essential to alter it.

What we are using the energy for? This question is a main part of solution. Abundant safe energy is a useful idea for research and development, but read classic novel from Karel Capek: A Factory Producing Absolute Thing. There is the possible scenario in it.

If there will be abundant safe energy, it will be controlled and monopolized by few companies. Education can improve a better use of energy.

Wind, solar power etc. - corporate interests.

It is highly likely that abundant sources of safe energy will be created during the 21^st century particularly through solar power and Hydrogen. Necessity as fossil fuels expire will rapidly spur human invention in this area. Tax policy and pricing can have a huge impact on the speed of development of these new energy sources.

That all depends on the Human Intervention question. Abundance is not the problem. Safe is the problem. This will be one of the hottest political issues of the millennium.

Transition to solar energy and creation of human economy and society based on solar energy technology and solar energy as main source of development.

The fossil energy will be gradually substituted by renewable energy such as solar, biogas, wind, hydrogen etc.

Infinite safe energy (i.e. 80+% efficient solar power) is virtually certain. The technology is very close now, all that remains is to make it cost effective. Currently this technology is being held back by the interest and investment in the technology that it would replace. Cost savings alone would justify the change if a rational "cost of pollution effects" were incorporated into the business cost of the polluters. Eco-economic policy implementing such a cost accounting could help by putting the cost burden of pollution directly on those businesses that create it. Another way policy could expedite acceptance of this technology would be to offer advantages to countries that elect to adopt it from the first rather than base their development on polluting.

Greater reliance on renewable sources of energy – solar, wind, etc. Power sources in space will be explored.

I think this is reality today and trend will be strengthened in the future. We do not have just biosphere of the Earth but also noosphere (Vernadsky) and/or homosphere (J. Svoboda, Toronto University - published in Encyclopedia of Environmental Science, Kluwer Academic Publishers. Boston, 1999, 741 pp.) physical limits of the Earth (energy, raw materials, space). Nuclear, thermo-nuclear and perhaps other sources of energy will be used for space exploration, not on the Earth.

There is the growing interest everywhere in the use of safe energy (wind, solar, bioenergy). Such interest could be strengthened with decrease of traditional sources (oil, coal), growing danger of green-house effect and opposition against nuclear energy. Consequences: The trend of this kind could be slowed down with the lesser demand on energy in general and growing role of energy savings.

The main trend should be towards to renewable energy use: solar energy, geothermal energy, bioenergy. Main target in the global energy policy should be saving the energy particularly in industry, housing and traffic.

New research/investment.

It will be mandatory for humanity to generate abundant safe energy, and we will succeed.

More efficient methods. Save money rising costs of energy.

Improvement of the scientific applications.

Sustainable development ethos is adopted as the guide of development to humankind started already in Stockholm in 1972 and confirms in Rio in 1993 and will be put into practice during the next fifty years. New renewal energy sources be developed ( it takes fifty year from a new energy source to become a major source in the world market). It is not however sufficient alone , but a more scientific thinking of energy utilization - exergy concept of the second law of thermodynamics - is needed to be fully applied in technology , and in addition entropy transformation and transportation to the ultimate environment - space - needed.

Benchmarks

After a 100 years, most fossil fuels will be near exhaustion, and thus the development of alternatives will have become very urgent. By 500 and 1000 years, the energy problem should have been solved.

Supply volume and prices of currently dominant energy sources.

Willingness to Pay Introduction / Adoption Rates of New Energy Technologies Discovery Rate of New Sources.

For solar: Cheap access to space. Mining the Moon, Mars and asteroids. For fusion: Breakeven.

1) The "Hypsithermal Limit". The first important benchmark, almost certainly to be reached in the next 100 years, will be the release of ~10^15 watts due to human technological activities, at the Earth's surface. This is ~1% of all solar insulation and has been termed the maximum "hypsithermal limit", the limit at which anthropogenic energy releases will almost certainly seriously alter Earth's climate. At this point, all growth in the rate of energy release at Earth's surface must cease, or else the global ecosphere will be permanently and dramatically disrupted; some people who have thought about this are even more conservative and believe that the true limit may lie at 10^14 watts, or even as low as today's 10^13 watts. Of course, further energy growth may proceed largely unimpeded in circumsolar space, for many more centuries to come.

2) The "Solar Question". The second key benchmark occurs when the energy consumption of human civilization rises to an appreciable fraction of natural solar luminosity, perhaps ~2% or ~10^25 watts, which might occur by the year ~2800, following the "liberal" extrapolation above. This is a key benchmark because it will by then be quite clear that either: (A) all further energy growth soon must halt, which will allow the existing civilization to survive at then-current levels of energy consumption almost indefinitely (e.g. for several billions of years, after which the Sun would die a natural death); or (B) further energy growth may continue, but at the cost of extinguishing and dismantling the Sun for fuel and raw materials, and beginning a ceaseless wandering among the stars in constant search of new sources of fuel. This will be the first time humanity has faced such a dramatic and irreversible choice of futures, and it will be a difficult choice because there are strong arguments on both sides. As a species, we may well reach this choice-point sometime near or before the year 3000, and it may become one of our defining moments as a species. Succinctly stated, the Solar Question is this: Shall we huddle around our slowly dying natural star, forever consuming only ~10^26 watts, or shall we perpetually travel through interstellar space at ~1%c, stopping periodically at other star systems to refuel, forever consuming ~10^34 watts? By today's standards, both of these power numbers seem almost impossibly huge. But the difference between the two choices is significant and immense: the mobile civilization can utilize 100 million times more energy than the sessile civilization. This is a huge disparity -- comparable to the difference in the capabilities of a single, smallish 130-horsepower automobile (~10^5 watts) and the capabilities of the entire human civilization on Earth in the year 2000 (~10^13 watts)! Even if humanity manages to procrastinate until the last possible moment, the Solar Question must arise as soon as our technological energy consumption approximates the total solar luminosity (e.g. a ~100% efficient Dyson Sphere). To grow from today's 10^13 watts to ~4 x 10^26 watts (solar luminosity) over the next 1000 years (e.g. by the year 3000) requires an annual power-consumption growth rate of +3.2%/yr, which is only slightly higher than the current trendline. Even assuming the historical +2.8%/year growth rate of human energy consumption (that has been solidly in place since the Industrial Revolution began, ca. 1800 AD, ~200 years ago), we would still reach ~10^25 watts (~3% solar luminosity) by the year 3000. All things considered, and assuming we stay on our current technological track, I conclude that the major energy-resource policy issue in the Year 3000 may well be the Solar Question.

2025 renewable energy sources dominate. 2050 energy consumption has been reduced to 50% of the present level. 2400 non-renewable energy sources are not used at all.

Large-scale demonstrations of various options for new renewable energy sources during the next 50 years.

Negative Benchmark: uncontrolled nuclear experiments. Positive Benchmark: use of hydrogen.

Environmental and societal concerns.

Solar and/or hydrogen powered buildings, factories, homes, cars, etc. Prior to this there will be hybrid energy sources with fossil fuels such as Fuel Cells.

Positive: hybrid energy supply system of renewable energy combining solar, electricity, gasoline, bio-energy etc. will be developed and popularized (in 100 years), New energy such as hydrogen will be put into use (in 500 years) and energy transforming system from universe will be available and put into daily use (in 1000 years); Negative: some intensive regions will gradually become un-habitable and huge amount of migrants or refugees will have to leave their home town.

Oil and gas will probably run out in 100 years’ time.

Mentioned transition will occur in next 100 - 200 years, longer-term futures are probably beyond our fantasy (imagine people in 11th or 16th centuries thinking about nuclear energy, Internet etc.).

New autoprototypes, intelligent energy saving homes, houses and traffic systems , special project dealing the global level in order to save energy in air traffic on long term.

The gradual achievement of this goal will have many benchmarks along the way.

Oil/nuclear power and other developments.

Funding for new fuels (hydrogen); improved methods of combustion; phase out atomic energy (not safe).

Widening of current development gaps among countries/societies.
 
 

100
 
 

2020 controlled fusion (based on mononuclear ocean hydrogen). 2300 controlled tidal conversion.

Declining fossil fuels force different relationship between humans and energy.

If energy-efficient dwellings of dwelling self-sufficient in energy become widespread, this will indicate a trend towards a "conserver" society in other ways, too.

Oil is slowly getting disappeared.

Still pockets of energy hoarding. Fossil fuels lasted longer than anyone dreamed they would. Only recently (c. 2085) have they become untenable as the major fuel source.

development new technology based on using solar energy, substitution of present forms of energy by solar energy.
 
 

500
 
 

Hydrogen energy developed.

Far less reliance on fossil fuels.

Using new sources of energy _ artificial, chemical and space energy.

More energy available to anyone than we know what to do with. Everybody's intoxicated with the fantastic power they yield, thanks in large part to essentially limitless energy.

Creation of global human organization based on solar energy economy.
 
 

1000
 
 

Safe nuclear energy possible.

Great reduction in human-derived contribution to global climate change.

Using new sources natural that till this time stayed undiscovered how simple it is.

No longer an issue. In 1999, the power grid was the problem. In 2999, the space-time grid is the problem. The propulsion issues we are facing would not be significantly altered if we increased what the 20^th century called "energy output" by a dozen orders of magnitude. It's just not "about that" any more.
 
 

Low Probability Consequences
 
 

Major war could prevent significant progress in new technology, or foster more rapid development of such technology. Radical breakthrough in harnessing or nuclear energy.

Restricted sea-channel ; the end of the " high seas " entity in law.

The discovery of large additional reserves of fossil fuels would postpone the day when the switch to more efficient technologies is made, and this is likely to make things worse rather than better. A more positive surprise would be the discovery of a very simple technique to produce unlimited energy (e.g. cold fusion) which as yet cannot be predicted given our present scientific knowledge.

I’ve read that use of barrages for the production of energy from tides may slow down the rotation of the earth a bit. Not a good idea, I reckon.

Mostly in the first few decades in the new millenium there will be wars of fuel resources and economic capital. These wars will be explained for public as needed due to probably breaking the human's rights some kind of public's pinafore.

Cold fusion or its ilk.

That despite abundant energy, we will for some reason abandon our current technological track. However, there is scant historical precedent for this.

Unexpected disturbances in biosphere by a large scale nuclear hazard or the unskilled use of renewable energy sources.

Energy wars.

Technological breakthrough in nuclear energy (fusion).

Stagnating with one particular source.

The general economic impact on society of such a major transition including on infrastructure, jobs, how we live, etc.

Same as today. Until we transcend the energy acquisition – utilization paradigm (which won't happen for around 800 years) we stand the risk of self-annihilation – quickly or slowly.

The global self-destruction of mankind either by a global war or by an inevitable ecological catastrophe.

Some intensive energy will be inappropriately used by a few gangs to destroy humankind locally or globally.

New scientific discoveries/insights no less revolutionary that Einstein’s theory of relativity offers hope On the other hand, failure to invest adequately in the search for scientific and technological solutions may lead to an energy crisis that plunges human civilization into a second dark age.

Nuclear fusion; non polluting but no breakthrough so far.

No energy is "absolutely" safe. What cost is justified.

Global thermal effects.

Possible spread of radioactivity.

Violent competition between the mineral energy produces and producer countries to defend their economies, and the developer of the new energy sources when it will takes a good share of the business.
 
 

5. Nanotechnology

 Trajectory
 
 

Nanotechnology already on the drawing boards but appears mostly aimed at "convenience technology" rather than bringing about fundamental change between people and resources.

Likely to happen over the longer term. Watch the development of this in medicine.

Nanoengineers will gain " life and death " rights over replicable molecules and will be able to engineer living parts.

Technology will undergo further miniaturization, but the real hurdle will not be the creation of nanoscale objects, but their effective use e.g. in rebuilding organs. This will require methods for the self-organization/control of systems consisting of billions of microscopic implements. Without extensive information-processing and novel theoretical insights, such control will be very limited and therefore nanotechnology will add little to the power of more conventional technologies.

Foreseeable trajectory by proponents is exponential growth; however could be a non-starter at least in medical applications for increasing longevity. Main problem I see here is the disjunction between claims made by engineers about medical breakthroughs and the practical knowledge of medical practitioners of the present-day human body and its frailties.

Likely developed by 2050 or earlier; many problems are thus solved but new ones created; after 2150 it is extremely hard to anticipate the trajectory because "anything is possible" when a civilization has mastered nanotechnology.

Trajectory: I would guess that major new technologies will be required before major advances will be achieved in this area. More-or-less continuous efforts along those lines will be made in universities and in companies that might profit from exploiting nanotechnology. When techniques mature enough that nanotechnology begins to look like a near-term prospect, related activity should spurt. Nanotechnology could have biological as well as manufacturing implications in ways that can only be dimly seen at this point. I have no estimates of when and how this might materialize.

To some extent it works just know. But more closer we are to atoms more harder it is to work with. It is hard to work with energy.

"Social" backlash like that now evident for nuclear and genetically modified products will alter seriously.

In 100 years, nanotechnology should become at least as ubiquitous as electricity is today. Beyond then, nanotech should blend quietly into the background, becoming part of the foundations of future human civilization -- a technology that is very mature and is taken for granted by everyone. By the year 3000, all of the novelties of nanotechnology will have long since been exhausted -- everyone will know exactly what nanotech can and cannot do, much like clocks, compasses, and calligraphy today. By then, people (or their evolutionary descendants) will be utterly dependent upon nanotechnology for their very existence -- much as 99% of humanity alive today, who would perish in short order if all the modern inventions such as gasoline engines, electricity, computers, etc. were suddenly to vanish. As a result, we can surmise that by the year 3000, nanotech will be an extremely reliable, if almost invisible, technology.

Nanotechnology will be developed as instrument of present economic systems. The major change of principles of global economy decrease radically the need of the technology.

These advances are taking place rapidly with substantial funding in place and likely to continue; the changes will be incremental, but in aggregate revolutionary in potential.

Nanotechnology & biotechnology are able to develop a life without giant energy sources. They need the great intelligence source only.

It will fail in many of its commitments, but in long-term trajectory there will be real gains.

Huge developments.

Recent scientific research in nanotechnology indicates that it is certain to be introduced in the early 21^st century. Billions of research dollars are now being in many countries. Self-manufacturing at the molecular level can obviously have a revolutionary impact on all aspects of human society including regarding space exploration and settlement.

Nothing can stand in the way of this one, even public policy blundering. There is simply too much money to be made. The technology is right around the corner. Conventional applications (super durable materials, self-replicating machines, superconductivity, etc.) will be passe in 100 years. Biological applications, however—that'll scare the shit out of people.

Development of nanotechnology as the core of extropic technology.

Probability is high. But it’s very important who and how will use it. The proper usage of knife is to slice bread, but in the hands of a killer the same knife could be very dangerous.

Nanotechnology is virtually certain to be developed to commercial levels within the next 20 years. Long before the year 3000, we will be manufacturing entire finished goods by programming a replicator. That combined with the cheap, safe energy of question 4 will yield the "Star Trek" economy… Leaving humanity with the tough questions of re-defining money, re-defining work and a defining a purpose beyond reproduction and infinite growth. This technology benefits from current funding encouragement, but the current policy does not yet envision the consequences of its own success. This, combined with question 3, will perhaps be the key issue of the second half of the next millennium: 'After succeeding so well technologically that our survival as individuals and as a species is no longer in doubt, what shall we do?

Progress in nanotechnogy seems inevitable and unstoppable.

In the development of nanotechnogy, the main question will be: How to develop this "small scale" technology on long term bases in the ethical way? What is right what wrong in nanotechnology?

Less or equal to 2300 AD.

Considerable movement in this direction but it depends on the research efforts and risk assessment.

Science frontiers enlargement.

Trajectory: with nanotechnology and with all its hybrid technology applications (combination of all kinds of conventional technologies in same device or creatures) a new species of artifacts will come about being in 500 years or so (see attachment 9).
 
 

Benchmarks
 
 

In medical applications, look for opposition from fundamental religious groups.

1) Digitalization of the material goods upon which human society depends -- food, clothing, shelter, toys, the instruments of manufacturing, etc. These goods become as freely available as music on the radio.... 2) Digitalization of the human body and mind, allowing people to rationally choose, and then actively design, their personal physical structure. The distribution of "human" phenotypes in attribute-space broadens almost exponentially.... 3) The physical dispersal or raw numbers of this diversifying human family expands so fast that the family encounters some limits to its further expansion - perhaps energy limits, or the speed of light, or even the sphere of expansion of another intelligent race that has also discovered nanotech. With resources now becoming more scarce, natural selection will begin to operate in earnest, to distribute available resources most efficiently to those entities that are best able to exploit them.

2020 nanotechnology is used widely by big multinational companies. 2050 nanotechnology has reached applications, which serve ordinary people. 2100 nanotechnology has become old-fashioned compared with new innovations in the field of technology.

Positive benchmarks: microchips in surgical application.

God complex, arrogant science, disasters, Brave New World!

Positive: use to improve life and the environment. Also increase wealth. Some new methods could be harmful.

Molecular transmutation.
 
 

100
 
 

Technology well developed, but used in ways that restrict human freedom (e.g., invasion of privacy or in weapons systems).

2020 - first replicating man-made life.2040 - first thinking non man made intelligence (using above).

Nanotechnology products that work, first perhaps in manufacturing industry before medical breakthroughs which might take up to 500 years, for some of the present claims to be realized, if then.

Common using of nanotechnology in computer industry.

The first nanomachine by 2008.

Nanotechnology is as ubiquitous as cathode ray devices were in the late 20^th century.
 
 

500
 
 

Technology basically makes virtually all knowledge available to everyone.

new style of work with energy.

Biological applications are so prevalent that everybody's somewhat scared. We can become virtually anything we want to. Only religious fanatics are unaltered humans. These are dangerous, heady times.

First synthetic life forms in 200 years.
 
 

1000
 
 

Humans have reached the limit of nanotechnology.

Positioning and may be creating the molecules with better control.

People (if you want to call us that) are absorbed by the phenomenon of existing. The mode is not much more important than the particular venue of a sporting event 1000 years ago.
 
 

Low Probability Consequences
 
 

Human race becomes functionally immortal.

New medical technologies have unintended consequences, e.g. ultrasound as an aid to selective abortion of (mostly) females. Nanotechnology could lead to surveillance of individuals through nanotech implants and a frightening level of social control. Food produced by nanotechnology could be quite awful, e.g. all food tasting like glop. This is more of a high probability now I think of it.

Horrendous new weapons (made possible by nanotechnology) bring an end to human civilization.

Danger is to use NT in biologic sense it could be a good medicine, but a strong poison, too.

Inability to contain and constrain the "dispersal" of such products to where they are neither wanted nor needed.

Whether it will turn out to be possible to go beyond nanotechnology to picotechnology (i.e. manipulating the atomic nucleus, perhaps to achieve the reversible controlled transmutation of elements and freeing nanotechnology from the restriction of having to use whatever atomic elements are at hand), or to femtotechnology (i.e. manipulating quarks or other subnuclear components, perhaps to create new forms of matter or to obtain new sources of energy) is at present unknown -- and is believed by many not to be possible -- but if possible could significantly improve human technological capabilities.

Totalitarian control of people with the help of nanotechnology.

The risks of from nano-scale systems, including "bio-hazards", encroachments on personal liberties, etc., should be as carefully considered for these technologies as they are being considered for bio-engineering (e.g., cloning).

Neuronal-connection communications.

Accidents, uncontrollable technology, loss of human role/jobs in manufacturing process.

Same as before. Domination. Oligarchy. Also, mechanical viruses. Richard Dawkins will be celebrated for his concept of meme. A stray thought, a stray photon -danger comes in small packages. Quantized packages, actually.

Misuse of the production of new weapons

Possible development of self-replicating machines.

Uncontrolled access to the technological developments potentially dangerous.

The new life forms, new kind of self conscious creatures of the new species, the high-tech, will start to wonder what is the purpose of humans , and they may either be able to find any answere to the question which so long bordered us humans. May be the high-tech then just put us to a human-zoo to await if they one day may be able to learn to know the answer, because they also believe in progress. And mean while they come on Sundays to see us with their offspring.
 

6. Forms of Governance

Trajectory

Conflict, disorder, terrorism, and war likely to continue and become even worse as destructive technology becomes more freely available (including biotechnology). Effort to develop enforceable protocols for beneficial relations likely to be misused. Poverty continues because it is a relative term and some will always be worse off than others. Conflict continues to be an essential part of the human behavioral repertoire for adapting to changing conditions and maintaining evolutionary change in society. Efforts to promote peace may paradoxically prevent conflicts from being resolved.

Decisions will be so short-lived that life itself will be back to force relationships.

Global integration through institutions such as UNO, IMF, WHO, EU, in part stimulated by the emerging global market, will continue, albeit with ups and downs, while global communication between nations and cultures supported by the new information technologies will lead to better understanding and agreement about shared objectives and ways to implement them. New, more effective methods of governance are likely to be developed, aided by novel insights in complex, social systems. The danger is that individual states or organizations will reject the agreed-upon policies because they curtail their own expansion or seem to impose foreign values upon them.

Going to participatory co-creative processes which manage time and content and filter quality: see Dialogue at: http://haven.net/haven/faq.htm.

A wave-form trajectory. It is good to talk about such forms of governance as an ideal, but hard to imagine anything happening in 1000 years on the equity, order, and peace front globally, though different places at different times see their relevance, and others will not or do not. (Try talking gender and racial equity to fundamentalists of all varieties.

Trajectory: very slowly increasing activity for the next 50-100 years. Recent history offers some encouragement in this area: for example creation of the U.N., collapse of colonialism and the Soviet regime, creation of some new governments with enlightened bases or prospects, etc. However, there have been other developments and trends that make it clear that mankind, in the aggregate, doesn't necessarily have what it takes to act in its own survival interest. Rationality may eventually prevail, but it will be slow a tortuous.

Maybe economically rich countries will try to create something similar, but the reason will not be equality but economic power, nobody will want to give up its economic power.

Lithium in the world water supply would effect a positive trajectory.

The gradual acceptance of global morals will happen as part of the globalization process. Turbulence of unfavorable economic processes. North-South and East-West relationships after the phase when China and India have gained their full might in world affairs but before the phase when whites and blacks have been exhausted. Possible World War 3. The importance of local cultural factors diminishing and replaced by heterogeneous group of global sub-cultures. This kind of development does not necessarily cause positive affects. Large global catastrophes and threats might hasten the acceptance of homogeneous global values.

There are numerous factors in the world today – particularly ethnic/regional nationalism that threaten to continue to reduce the cohesion of larger nations during the coming 100 years; if they dissolve, then the opportunity will be significant for one or more states to undertake acts of aggression (of various forms) to achieve their ends – this scenario has played out repeatedly during the past millennium.

Appropriate form of governance must correspond to the factor 10. (A global ethical system of values).

Just little groups of people will promote better form of governance. Economic interests will be even stronger in human relations.

I do believe that governability of the world, of regions and of nation states will decrease and remain by consequences a major issue for the future. And a chance for local solutions. The development of governance systems which would ensure these goals is a high priority for all humanity as we enter the Year 2000. However, at present we are far from achieving such systems. It is likely that for humanity to survive and prosper in the new millennium such forms of governance are a necessity. Whether we will reach this stage of societal maturity in time is at present an open question.

Great destruction of present forms of human social organization and governance and creation of global governance based on principles of holistic view of the world, network organization and redefining the role of governance in human life and human social organization.

The advancement of economical and political democracy / national egoism and imperialism of the richest.

IMHO this is the key factor. The only one that is truly important and able to change the trajectory of the other ones. In the next 100 years we’ll face the nexus – to change the way of our lives (to eradicate racism, ignorance, egoism and establish the society based on equal rights, peace, love and understanding within humanity and the whole Universe) or to extinct. I presume that majority of humans will understand this. They’ll change and achieve the higher level of being while the rest will stay unchanged on the polluted Earth with frustration and deprivation, because their eyes have opened too late.

Unlimited Democracy only works when citizens restrain themselves. It only takes one Hitler to render it moot the first one to cheat wins. However a variation of current world diplomacy designed around one of the solutions to the Prisoner's Dilemma has the potential to yield peace-based world government. But that would require those in power to abdicate that very power (like the Founding Fathers did) and so is very unlikely, but is well within our control.

The biggest challenge is new distribution of power: from strong national states to global >governance as well as to stronger subnational regions (subsidiarity principle). These new forms of governance will happen in next 100 years I suppose. Above mentioned trend I see as "desirable scenario". But the world can be threatened by chaos caused by organized crime, religious wars, failed transformation of Russia, China and other former communist states to democracy. Following "dark ages" could last of decades of even centuries.

The world as a whole tends to the global governance, but on the other hand there is real danger of world order disintegration. There are two sources of potential conflict: a) the growing difference between poor South and rich North b) emerging new coalitions: NATO versus Russia, China (maybe India), what became evident in the time of Kosovo conflict Consequences: Potential conflicts or arms races at least. Such process could lead toward the social decay on a global scale, because the solution of urgent social and environmental problems would be neglected or delayed.

The main social question in this connection will be: what is ethical, effective and global enough way to develop the current democracy? It is obvious, that the current global trend is at the moment towards oligarchy concentrated power structure/ and dictatorship of expertise.

We will not achieve this highly desirable goal – even in 1000 years – except in special enclaves.

More conflicts but greater pressure for global intervention, with risks.

A move to a higher level of consciousness. Short term thinking and materialist life style.

Non lineal trajectory altered by different types of conflicts.

Human groups of special interests of their own - whether legal or non-legal, humanistic or criminal - don’t give up their pursues in the near future but conflicts are emerging and spreading their turmoil around the world. This is also an area of double-unknown problems.

At the moment some kind of direct communicative democracy seems most promising to manage conflicting interests. However, it must be constraint in order to prevent totalitarian interest of any groups to get foot hold and prosper. And awakening to a more sensitive ethical consciousness and awareness is need to become spread among human beings and accepted as a common value.
 
 

Benchmarks
 
 

Test alternatives, play and empower.

Rate of establishment of "democracies" (of varied forms) worldwide. Rate of regional / local conflicts.

2050 even larger cultural diversity than today.

Positive benchmarks: Community organizations in urban slums.

Politicization, struggle for justice.

Global or supra-national governance on all issues that cross national borders, i.e., environment, global commons, communications, movement of people, etc.

On of the main element of the future development should/ would be the "glob parliament" and it’s organization, which should cover whole the globe!

More conflicts unless new attitudes are developed (Northern Ireland classic horror story).

Positive: beyond the nation state world view. Negative: narrow nationalism, tribalism and realism.

Negative: overpopulation, racial conflicts, continued increase in state power.

Deepening of globalization and Integration processes.
 
 

100
 
 

2050 the end of Nation States.

The next 100 years are likely to see the equivalent of a "world government" albeit much more decentralized than present governments, and the permanent eradication of war. The concept of a nation state is likely to have completely disappeared in 500 years, while global management of society, economy and ecology will have become self-evident.

As before, the task is to first make explicit the political nature of inequality, then work on ways to ameliorate it. 100 years wish-list would include inequality tackled by a combination of legal change, change in business practices, and education, wider media access for all.

Similar situation like today.

Molecular-scale computers. Atomic-scale materials; arbitrary length/diameter/twist carbon nanotubes in particular. "Mechanosysnthesis" or "assisted mechanosynthesis": spatially selective chemical reactions. Replicating robots (fka Santa Claus machines). Can be a biotechadvance.

Destruction of present forms of human social order and governance, design of holistic, quantum and extropic economic theory as a base for new human social and economic order and new forms of governance.
 
 

500
 
 

The task is to secure the existence of human groups so that they are able to act in the face of a perceived environmental threat. Systematic analysis of various forms of governance to see which institutional arrangements have proved effective, which have proved vulnerable, with choice of better rather than worse ways of governance. As conditions change, need perceived for flexibility in forms of governance.

A few world groups with different kind of vision but using the similar technology, lower population, lower poverty.

Creation of new system of global governance with central mind based emerging network intelligence and deep decentralization of power, control and resources, new type of human culture.
 
 

1000
 
 

Either Utopia with various forms of local governance all working or, as now, some work for the General good of their constituents, and some don’t.

Changing the world order due to out space, extraterrestrial contacts.
 
 

Low Probability Consequences
 
 

Messianic religious leader brings about profound change in human nature.

That the world would be split up into two or more blocks with opposing ideologies, making global governance impossible.

It is unlikely nor necessarily desirable that there will be one world government.

New colonization of the world not by people but economically and politically.

Grey goo- an artificial replicating system that converts many classes of compounds into more subunits of itself. Artificial virus-like machines used as bioweapons.

Exhaustion of the black and white populations as result of low fertility and epidemies. Global threat caused by for example approaching meteor.

Agreements between cities for social equity program beyond economic interest.

Political obsessive compulsiveness.

Increased terrorism, conflict spurred by groups who are against increasing ‘globalism’.

The global self-destruction of mankind either by a global war or by an inevitable ecological catastrophe.

Important to explore more inclusive democracy policies plus power/responsibility issues.

Increase some exploration will help to challenge narrow nationalism.

Global crisis generated by ideological, social, racial and or religious conflicts.

Civil War in China, India-Pakistan War, World War, criminal take over of more states than today (Colombia), fragmentation of Russia, corruption spread.
 
 

7. Forces That Have The Ability To Destroy Humanity

Trajectory

Some forces being controlled. Other forces, such as astrophysical phenomena remain beyond the ability of humans to influence. Impact of known diseases likely to decline, but new disease organisms will continue to evolve. The basics of human nature seemingly impossible to change.

The technology will proceed faster than our ability to control it, although we will certainly try.

One or two misuses (Pakistan, Formosa, ...) of nuclear power.

Forces capable of destroying humanity are asteroid impact, nuclear war, and a new type of epidemic through extremely virulent, antibiotic resistant organisms. Neither of those is very likely, and each of them can be controlled to some extent, respectively by changing the asteroid trajectory at an early stage through nuclear explosions, stringent arms control, and careful monitoring and on-going research into all old and especially new infectious diseases.

Depends which particular force that has the ability to destroy humanity. The trajectory is a straight line terminated by a Kerpow! e.g. if nuclear arsenal grows unchecked and gets used. Trajectory altered if all bombs defused. Or it may be that natural forces, e.g. with the natural end of solar system, could be forestalled, as some believe, through planning for humans and/or their non-human creations to settle elsewhere in the solar system and beyond, this task commencing sometime in the next 1000 years.

Trajectories: with respect to man-made and moderate biological threats, continuing activity at moderate but sub-optimal levels; with respect to powerful natural phenomena, nothing significant during the next 1000 years. It is plausible to expect that enough of humanity might develop the motivation and methods to exert reasonable control over man-made threats such as widespread nuclear destruction. However, it is far less likely that humanity will ever have capacity to control forces of the types addressed in questions 1 and 2 or even biological epidemics that might be orders of magnitude more devastating than, say, AIDS.

The man itself has tendency to destroy humanity. When he can control over himself he can control the processes which could lead to destroying Humanity. But this kind of human "intervention" will not be possible forever. Processes of destroying the humanity are working behind the scene. May be just now it is late to stop it.

An all-out nuclear exchange would accomplish all of the above. Disorder, conflict, inequity- these are part and parcel of the natural order. I don't they will be going away anytime soon, nor should they. These are prerequisites of growth and complexity.

The critical period will last about 50 years from now, during this period the destructive forces are running wild with decreasing capacity. Development of global moral codes is a contraceptive, which influences gradually. Control over large scale forces will improve, meanwhile the probability of unexpected emergence of this kind of forces (by small, technically skilled groups) will slightly grow.

There is a question: is the Humanity itself sustainable? I think so. We have never been here.

The interest in this topic will go up and down, without deep changes.

Regional nuclear and biological wars in developing countries.

As human technological ability increases so does the possibility of controlling both the natural and man-made forces that could destroy humanity. It is in the development of such technological means and the wise application of same that we could avoid a cosmic impact or counter global warming, etc.

It just won't happen. Not in the next 1000 years, anyway. Each danger will be replaced by a new one.

Control over destructive forces of human mind and technology, Nature, but emergence of destruction of Humanity from the Universe e.g. from extraterrestrial intelligence.

The same thing like the previous question.

If this question refers to external forces (earthquakes, asteroids, global climate change) then, as in Question 2, our technology can protect us somewhat. However, it is extremely unlikely that we will have the raw energy to deflect or control any truly global phenomena...even after 1000 years. If, on the other hand, this question refers to problems of our own making (pollution, loss of species, nuclear war., etc.) then the likelihood is good that governments will be able to control those events. The probability rests on the likelihood that we will develop the will to do so (see Question 3).

That we may self-destruct (e.g., nuclear holocaust) is an ever present possibility. Cataclysmic events such as asteroid collision occurring within next 1000 years is not unimaginable, and less controllable.

a) The growing, uncontrolled of: power of transnational companies and the flow of capital is the great; threat for stability of world economy and natural resources. b) The loss of control in the military area - growing number of nuclear states, unsatisfied control of arms (also nuclear) transports, possible misuse of such arms by terrorist groups of oppressive regimes. Consequences: the danger of local nuclear wars or terrorists attacks and the loss of natural and cultural diversity.

What forces are being considered here? 5 (for human intervention priority) for those that are humanity related.

These issues will be beyond our control.

Eliminate weapons of mass destruction from control of nation states. Should be controlled by an international police force.

Worldwide awareness of risks (increase of controls) and research and technology development.

UN forces, EU in Europe, non-corruptive governments, NATO. Civil societies against any totalitarian and fundamentalist movements and forces against peoples' freedom of life under the constraints maintaining this freedom.
 
 

Benchmarks
 
 

A major use of a new weapon (probably biological) which gets out of control. A world government is formed.

2050 the wide acceptance of global moral codes will influence deeply in the world politics and the accumulation of global social capital will properly catalyze the positive developments. 2200 major conflicts are no longer possible because the cooperative culture is dominant over the competitive culture. Minor conflicts will become as dangerous as today's major ones.

Proliferation of nuclear weapons.

Natural disasters.

The ability to track and intercept threatening comets and asteroids. The ability to counter the impact and severity of man-made climate change.

The strategy of sustainable living in a global dimension.

Positive: nation states can no longer control their own economy or pollution over national borders. Negative: exploit fear of mass destruction by the public.

Non lethal weapons, preventive and control systems and measures.
 
 

100
 
 

Understanding of disease factors increases dramatically.

Within which nuclear disarmament happens, with luck. Space exploration continues if USA still dominant world power. Hard to see other nations emerging with pressing space desires.

The man is seeing the danger, but makes nothing, cannot believe.

Control over destructive forces of human mind.

Disarmament.
 
 

500
 
 

New religions arise to control some of the human factors that could destroy humanity.

It is late to stop destroying possibility _ one more factor accedes _ two many artificial power around.

Control over destructive forces of human technology, control over destructive forces of Nature.

Radical spiritual change or renaissance of mankind.
 
 

1000
 
 

We may not necessarily have powers to control, but would expect we might have greater knowledge of at least human psychology, if not knowledge of how to circumvent the natural end of the planet sometime in the remote future.

The question has no sense.
 
 

Low Probability Consequences
 
 

Asteroid impact; significant change in solar behavior.

Willful or accidental creation of dangerous viruses through genetic manipulation.

Increased understanding leading to control (the control aspect makes this low probability) of human aggression by means of knowledge of brain function.

High technology allows even small destructive groups endanger the whole of global system. Perhaps not even a low probability consequence!

Demographic boom.

Our level of technology or the use of it may make matters worse rather then better.

The suicide / self-destruction / of civilization.

Nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists.

More focused conflicts in asymmetric threats environment.
 
 
 
 

8. Mental Maps Of Reality
 
 

Trajectory
 
 

This implies that "common ideals" are achievable, when humanity more appropriately requires multiple sets of ideals to enable adaptation to changing conditions. Effort to develop common philosophy for all of mankind likely to be extremely brittle and unable to adapt.

I think we have parallel ideals, not common ideals ; therefore N/A After the religious philosophy of the Middle Ages, and 19th century Newtonian mechanism, it is likely that a new consensual picture of reality will emerge, integrating the ideas of the different branches of science and culture, and based on the concepts of evolution, complexity and systems. New scientific and philosophical developments might again push this development off course, just like quantum mechanics or relativity theory questioned the foundations of Newtonian mechanics.

Implementation of models for shared realities (like PANORAMA): http://www.ceptualinstitute.com/genre/benking/m-p/meta-paradigm.htmhttp://www.ceptualinstitute.com/genre/benking/ifsr/IFSRnov98pp.htm.

Philosophy is not about seeking general agreement. The task of philosophy is to critique and to seek flaws in arguments, especially those with globalizing tendencies. Trajectory therefore is the arrow fired vertically upward, returning directly to hit the archer on the head.

Trajectory: ongoing, low level activity through the indefinite future. Plenty of admirable philosophies have already been created. The main issue is the extent to which they are adopted by major population segments and acquire influential roles in human affairs. Blandishments of wealth and power, differences based on ethnicity, race, religion, nationality, etc., have long-demonstrated capacity to motivate human actions totally at variance with the common interest. Self-interested coalitions of powerful, relatively enlightened nations with shared interests strike me as a more likely source of concerted, constructive behavior than emergence of some philosophy that will animate the bulk of mankind. There are too many people with too many sources of division.

The philosophy will sure appear, not only one, but will not have the potential to influence above mentioned. It is not a question of philosophy. It is a question of connecting and collaborating of philosophy, psychology and science, may be some different science, that we do not know today).

At the risk of sounding like a PC jingoist, diversity is much more robust, malleable, and adaptable than is a monoculture, whether it is wheat crops or philosophy.

The high tide of crude materialism is already breaking down, though the process will take long. The emerging feminine worldviews will gradually infiltrate the present dominant masculine worldview. The mass population becoming more and more aware of reality makes everything easier. Although the research of cognition is improving rapidly, the fields of logic and epistemology are not improving as fast as they did earlier in this century. After all, it is very likely that "reality" in proper sense will never be reached.

Human thoughts will be more and more materialistic. Only individual tendency might alter it.

Any kind of brave new world even with positive goals has to be rejected.

Today there is a considerable worldwide movement to emphasis unity and commonalties over divisive differences. Evidence for this includes the drafting of the Earth Charter and various Declarations of Human Responsibilities, Global Citizenship, etc. This movement will likely gain strength throughout the early to mid 21^st century as the search for commonality continues.

Policy can expedite the trajectory or delay it. Epistemology will be the fourth "r" (along with reading riting & rithmatic).

Great Synthesis of Social Sciences / may be by Future Studies or Futurology /, design of new social science based on the theory of holomovement and implicate order /Bohm/, seeing without conditions /Krishnamurti/, social sciences as maps /Korzybski/, theory of dissipative structures /Prigogine/, theory of syntropic evolution /Fuller/, theory of morphogenetic fields /Sheldrake/, quantum economics, holistic economics, information theory of value.

The philosophy of communitarism, the postmodern principle of tolerance, the renaissance of the ideal of socialism.

Also important factor. I believe that one day new philosophy/religion will appear. It’ll prove all philosophy/religions are only branches of the one tree. Or the different pillars that hold the same roof of the Universal cathedral. It’ll be the start of the things described in my comment to answer no. 6.

Unifying philosophy is not only unlikely (see Questions 9 &10), it is also undesirable. If there is a unifying philosophy, history tells us that it is likely to Take on theocratic properties…it is likely to be forced on dissenters by a totalitarian regime (National Socialism, Holy Roman Empire, Imperial China, etc.) Diversity of opinions is stronger.

Progress in this area is extremely slow, if the last 5 to 6 thousand years are any indication. It will take more than the next 1000 years.

I do not suppose emergence of such quite new philosophy. But what I see as very promising is that science and religion will come much closer together and will help us to understand much better reality of life. I believe in next century (perhaps centuries) God will reveal himself more than in the past, will come closer to us.

I do not suppose emergence of such quite new philosophy. But what I see as very promising is that science and religion will come much closer together and will help us to understand much better reality of life. I believe in next century (perhaps centuries) God will reveal himself more than in the past, will come closer to us.

The mankind tends really toward the new world-view combining Western rationality and Eastern spirituality. But there are two traps on our way toward the universality: 1) the world as a whole could be overwhelmed by Western way of thinking and way of life in the process of globalization 2) the religious fundamentalism or ideology of nationalism could reverse all the process. Consequences to be considered: growing religious fundamentalism, clash of civilizations.

It is a urgent need for the new scientific approach concerning the reality, which would create/make the bridge, between now dominating natural science and so- called human sciences. I handle this approach with the term: evolution of human consciousness. E.g. Barbara Hubbard has developed this "new dimension" of science in her books almost same way as I have. My main "thesis" at the moment is: the "evolutionary task" of the ego- structure is already over! The evolution of consciousness continues towards ethical consciousness, which will be the necessary and important intermediate stage in the way to the so-called ecological consciousness. Ecological consciousness will be decisive factor in the evolutionary test for the sustainable development of the humanity.

Wishful thinking!

Needs major new initiatives in this area – urgently.

Use a systems approach leading to a holistic philosophy based on the overall environment.

Unlikely emergence of really new philosophies.

Sustainable development ethos, futures research, al cultural information systems and results from first ritual information systems to bit-internet.
 
 

8. Benchmarks
 
 

Willingness to stay real and concrete but in extra realms or scaffoldings (skin): http://www.thur.de/philo/Benking/extra_skin.html.

100, 500, 1000 – relatively the same like today. The rapid change and break could bring the contact with extra-terrestrials or new science discoveries.

2030 there will be a multiplicity of scientific worldviews and true dialogue between them. 2100 the feminine thinking has become widely accepted as basis of global morals. 2250 most of the people having totally different conception of personal identity and humanity than today. 2300 the human thinking takes over feminine/masculine separatism.

Centralization, authoritarianism.

The adoption of global charters of rights and responsibilities for humanity and with regard to the planet setting worldwide standards of behavior.

The renewal of the scowling and education system in the spirit of the higher consciousness is probably the main objective oh humanity in near future.

Much research done on this in the 1960/70 but ignored. Deter sense has developed this approach but ignored earlier work.

Understanding the human development from information system point of view where not only this time is based on knowledge and information but all the others in the past in two to tree million of years albeit they are different in some respects. Benchmark. Expressing the human past in internet and getting internet to become self conscious entity - a internet grandpa and grandma for humankind.
 
 

100
 
 

Very greatly increased understanding of the neurological basis of human behavior.

The next 100 years are likely to see the development of such an integrated philosophy, which is likely to be expanded and deepened in the next centuries

Great Synthesis of Social Sciences, quantum and holistic economic theory, information theory of value.

The unity of the dominant world religions.
 
 

500
 
 

Greatly increased understanding of human behavior enables humans to be controlled for purposes that today's society would consider inappropriate; freedom essentially becomes an irrelevant concept as government control over behavior becomes more complete.

How the epistemological dilemma is handled in public forums will determine whether we live or die as a species.

Radical spiritual change or renascence of mankind.
 
 

1000
 
 

Local human communities adapted to local systems of resources with relevant local mental adaptations.
 
 

Low Probability Consequences
 
 

Homo sapiens reaches a dead-end, but another species of Homo evolves as a more cooperative species that is global in its distribution.

Philosophers will have a great time up to about 2010, but humanity will be faced with much more mundane problems, precluding philosophy as such.

World goes into guruesque metaphysics and into sweet isolation and cocooning.. see dangers highlighted in: information war?: http://www.ceptualinstitute.com/genre/benking/humane-info.htm.

The emergence of systems of belief that must be taken on trust, systems that provide such mental maps of reality, epistemology, and symbol systems that may find global acceptance, and that may help humanity behave in accordance with common ideals.

New view on the man's life, may be forming new social system, end of economic tyranny, new sense of life.

The rebel of the macho men, and criminal conspiracies. Major breakthrough in cognitive science. Verification of paranormal phenomena (or phenomena that are nowadays considered as paranormal).

Neglecting of traditional religions.

Backlash against ‘globalism’.

Truth Is Whatever I Decide It Is. After All, I Am A God. (hear me roar…) Unfortunately, this error will be a fearsome reality for