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 many more than the errant dictator, zillionaire or schizophrenic.

Ideological wars of the militant fights for the cultural dominance.

Information exchange is vital but national cultural boundaries prevent this.

Bit storms of conscious entities of internet and chaos in internet.
 
 
 
 

9. Collective Future
 
 

Trajectory
 
 

Efforts to reach a shared vision of the collective future increase, but fundamental differences of opinion prevent the vision from ever being reached. Instead, different human groups have different and localized visions of the collective future. However, certain aspects of the collective future may be globally appropriate.

Over the very long term (500+ years) this is likely to emerge as most differences which divide humanity are eliminated.

I do not see a collective future.

agreement on using extra spaces to have extra common frames of references: http://www.ceptualinstitute.com/genre/benking/melbourne.htm as was "the" mandate from Rio Earth Summit 92.

The trajectory is a balloon that floats in the sky born. along by unpredictable winds, but still managing despite all, to stay aloft.

I would make essentially the same comments here as for point 8.

The emergence will stay low, it won’t change rapidly. Only in case of some strike from the surroundings (space catastrophe, 3rd world war, contact with extraterrestrials).

I could try to construct such a system. Rule One: Thou shalt not attempt to impose a global ethic system of "values" (whatever that means) and principles.

The idea of comprehensive and shared vision is an idea based on monolithic worldview, which is yielding. In fifty years time it is replaced by acceptance of multiplicity of cultures, which are in fruitful interaction with each other without losing their special traits. Cultural diversity and multiplicity of worldviews will be a highly respected value as part of the sustainable development ideas. There will, though be a minimum agreement on the most crucial subjects to enable global moral code.

The visions bear psychic energy for life, but their impact to optimal conscious behavior is far less possible, because of noise and uncertainty at all. The most impact goes towards philosophy and religion.

It can slowly growth starting from school or from small companies. Changes of educational system might alter it.

Unlikely to occur because of cultural differences.

Activism, Conscientization.

Won't happen for close to 1000 years. Assuming it does, public policy won't be responsible. Individual decisions will.

emergence of new common shared of humankind based on the holistic view of the world and using emerging network intelligence of Internet.

The strategy of sustainable living in a global dimension – the new authentic spiritual movements especially the anthroposophy.

Like previous comment. Comprehensive and shared philosophy and visions. It’ll start in next decades and continue till approach of the nexus.

Given the diversity of the world population and the increasing rates of change and innovation, it is very unlikely that a single shared vision of the future will emerge naturally. A shared vision might be constructed and enunciated by governments, but historically such things are out of date before they are published. More often governments end up documenting what they think the shared vision was two years ago. (Which does have value) Having said that, there are events which could precipitate a shared vision naturally. Such as, the opening of the space frontier to colonization, an encounter with an ET civilization, a near extinction event (such that those humans remaining are pressed to work together).

We are a long, long, way off. Perhaps, a crisis of global proportions may yet bring humankind to its senses, but then, how long did that last , since the two great wars of this century?.

I do not believe much to "comprehensive, shared vision of the collective future". It resembles me communist (unrealizable) ideals. I believe in diversity of life, cultures, ideas,... which are in symbiotic interaction (which is desirable scenario again).

The political and intellectual elites do their best to develop some vision of that kind, but most of mankind is influenced by future visions of religious and ideologies characterized with special, particular interests and views sometimes distant from the reality. This trend should be changed through open political discussion and education.

As apart of consciousness evolution it is important to make both evolutionary and planned/ conscious steps for the higher and "better-than-now" collective consciousness/ awareness/ knowledge. Many meditative movements/ traditions and approaches etc. works continuously for this development and trends. I’ll estimate for my part, that in the future also in the brain research, the collective phenomena / factors will be taken in the considering much better /wider than nowadays.

New disasters might begin to change attitudes – so far the process is too slow.

The concept of H.G. Wells "The open conspiracy" is vital. This is being reprinted in December with an introduction by Warren Wagar.

Increasing of mutual knowledge and interdependence.
 
 

Benchmarks
 
 

Ability to se potential of imagination and modern communication technologies.

2020 multiplicity of scientific worldviews accepted widely. 2050 a minimum of global shared visions enable the global moral code acceptance widely. 2100 cultural diversity protection programs guarantee the multiplicity of worldviews. 2200 feminine worldviews have become dominant. 2300 the human thinking takes over feminine/masculine separatism.

Positive Benchmarks: participative budget in city management.

Environmental awareness, human security awareness, higher consciousness.

The advent of the Web has enabled shared visions of the collective future to be a possibility for the first time in human history. It is highly likely that such shared scenarios will be increasingly developed by individuals, groups and communities transcending cultural and national boundaries well into the 21^st century.

Wells suggested a small elite to challenge out of date views with new ideas.

Not easy to measure.

Occasional emergence of relatively strong fundamentalist regimes.
 
 

100
 
 

Distribution of wealth starts to become more equitable.

Recognition of necessity for human solidarity across different belief systems on the necessity for international aid; the recipient countries varying according to the impact of climate and other change.

None.

New common vision of mankind as one whole with respecting own individual trajectory for each individual person.
 
 

500
 
 

By this time, mechanisms for effective solidarity could well be in place.

the view of Man to his life will be changed by new discoveries in the field of probably physic science.

Clearly needed, no agreement on anything but the desire for collective survival.

New global social order based on common vision of humankind as one whole and respecting right for own trajectory for each individual person.
 
 

1000
 
 

Change in global rate.

We have, we are, one vision. Now, the question is how we do it, not what we do.
 
 

Low Probability Consequences
 
 

Misuse of "virtual worlds which create dream and fear worlds.

The question could be read as implying that comprehensive and shared visions are identical visions. I do not see the quest converging on one answer, but the low probability consequence may be that it does.

An enhanced sense of meaning and purpose at the individual and societal level.

Increasing communication problems because of the cultural diversity.

Collaborative and partecipative institutions at all levels.

"Infotainmnet", multi-media productions presenting future scenarios on the Web and other new media formats. This would eventually have a major influence on traditional media such as film and television in terms of "visioning" of the human future not just in space but on Planet Earth as well.

Failure.

Much more effort needed to make progress in this area.

Failure to influence decision makers and the public.
 
 
 
 

10. Global Ethical System Of Values
 
 

Trajectory
 
 

The only hope here is through religious leadership, which does not happen through funding. Research may enhance understanding of how religious movements get started, but are unlikely to lead to the new religion.

Yes, but it will be ethics tied to market and marker forces.

What is the foreseeable trajectory for this factor and what might alter it? Globalization of the economy and of ecological effects will force nations to agree on a number of standards of behavior. At the same time, increased intercultural communication will decrease the differences in point of view while the emergence of a shared philosophy will provide a basis for a shared set of values.

See "Panetics" (Ralph Siu) and other extra to economic frameworks ordering and decision support systems.

The question about a global ethical system implies a trajectory of convergence from present different systems towards a point of general acceptance. As with the question on philosophy, I doubt such a convergence towards one point of view will happen in the thousand-year future, and doubt its ultimate possibility, given the nature of knowledge. I selected one issue, trying to imagine an outcome, within a thousand years, of acceptance of the idea that war is wrong. What might assist in the global acceptance of the view that war is wrong is work on perceiving the causes of violence - changing the way people perceive the world so that wars about identity politics cease?

Trajectory: low level, ongoing, inconclusive efforts for the indefinite future. So far as I know, many of the same values and principles underlie the world's major religions and democratic governmental systems. To that extent, they're already generally accepted. However, they find expression in divergent beliefs, religions, dogmas, rituals, cultural norms, laws, etc., that often divide rather than unite. Emergence of a single religion or outlook with broad enough acceptance to become dominant seems increasingly unlikely. The Internet, etc., provide means for propagating endless alternatives. I don't see forces strong enough to generate consensus out of chaos. That was easier when kings and potentates could force their subjects to adopt particular views on pain of death or worse.

The similar as in the preceding factor’s trajectory. Only faith can bring back ethic values in front of man’s interest.

A minimum global code of ethics, dealing only with major problems will develop on next century. Commercial totalitarianism and new populist tribalism try to obstacle it and manages some time to resist the demand of global morals.

A bottom-up process, but it will not reach State international relations. An global economic collapse might alter it.

There is currently a major movement in many areas of society toward a generally accepted system of global values and principles which would be a broad and fundamental ethical foundation for individual and group behavior. Such documents as the Earth Charter and various Declarations of Human Rights and Responsibilities are evidence of this attempt. This impetus will increase as the threats to humanity mount in the 21^st century.

Outlook good.

Emergence of global ethical system based on the holistic view of the world and respecting individual rights.

As in Question 9, given the diversity of the world population and the increasing rates of change and innovation, it is very unlikely that a global ethic will emerge naturally.

I believe in basic set of (human) values which are explicitly or implicitly present in all cultures and can be accepted by people of all cultures (perhaps not by dictators in some regions but by people living in this region). Problem is how to define this basic values and how to implement (or even enforce them) globally. This can be challenge for next several (2 - 3?) centuries.

The all mankind tends to accept the Western idea of human rights, the dialogue among world religions is developing rapidly, the tolerant attitude toward the cultural diversity is emerging in the process of universalization. But on the other hand there is problematic come-back toward the traditional values - for example the system of Islamic law (sharia) is accepted in the growing number of Asian and African countries. The dialogue among religions is great challenge for coming century, because the common values are inherited in the most of world religions.

Even though there is a urgent need to develop ethical consciousness in very wide scale I am quite pessimistic whether this will happen in reality itself( see. my a.8). his is the reason , way I’ll give to this question the probability3. ( Obviously 2. should have been even better estimation!).

More commitment to the need to make progress in this area.

Wells is correct in that a small elite should explain this approach. This is Wells word and brain using the internet.

Shared prioritization of positive common values present in all major cultures and philosophies.

A difficult one stoned by conflicts of values and interests.
 
 

Benchmarks
 
 

Accept Panetics for one country a.s.a.p.

2050 the acceptance of global moral code causes a problem of it having potential to become a new totalitarian religion. 2100 the difficulties are won and the minimum global ethical system is continuous development process in multicultural dialogue. 2200 new worldviews have been invented and enrich the global heritage.

Normative revolution for ethical international assessment of governs and companies.

Domination, authoritarianism.

Implementation and enforcement at an international level of such documents as the Earth Charter and adoption at every level of numerous societies.

No easy measures or benchmarks.

Promote the world brain concept. Failure of the public to understand this.

Increasing role of international organizations and agreements.
 
 

100
 
 

Religious wars between Muslims and Christians, Muslims and Hindus, and other religious conflicts.

2050 - The end of face value money.

Groups such as Global Action to Prevent War work on a variety of fronts: political and scientific/technical in order 1) to change the path of hatred and 2) the technology of disarmament.

We know we need it, but we constantly fight over what it is.

Emergence of global ethical system, list of human rights and obligations, space for development for each individual person.
 
 

500
 
 

Destructiveness of wars leads to greater tolerance, especially as different religions become geographically separated.

We know what it is, if we could just consistently do it (we're awfully self absorbed, you see.
 
 

1000
 
 

We do it, we don't even think about it anymore.
 
 

Low Probability Consequences
 
 

A convincing messianic leader emerges.

If agreement cannot be reached, there is the danger of a splitting up of the world in 2 or more opposing blocks with incompatible systems of values.

The possibility of success, in the words of Immanuel Kant a right violated in one part of the world is felt everywhere by the year 1000.

Because of too little worldwide dialogue the global moral code has been made too extensive, too tight, and too rigid. This causes rebels against it and deviance from it.

Eradication of poverty.

A clash between secularly defined global ethical values and principles and traditional religious values.

Failure. Biggest risk area: next 250 years.

Failure to move to a world view which must happen.

Tension in wide social sectors due to concentration of economical power in forces with non-humanitarian ethic.
 
 
 
 

11. Human Genetic Engineering
 
 

Trajectory
 
 

Human genetic engineering is already reasonably well developed and continuing investment will significantly increase the applications of the technology. One result will be an aging population, requiring a reduction in the reproductive rate in order to maintain balance between people and resources. Conflict between age groups may increase, as younger people may not have opportunities to realize their potential; but cultural means of controlling such competition may develop.

It does not matter if it is genetic engineering or some other control mechanisms, this is almost assuredly going to happened over the next 100-200 years.

The temptation (already) is too high. We will be swept into a genetically engineered future.

Increased understanding of biology and the role of genes will make it possible to change almost any aspect of our body and brain. In the short term this will trigger a number of deep discussions about what should be done or not done with this almost limitless power. These discussions are likely to be resolved with the emergence of a shared philosophy/system of values.

A spike trajectory at least for medical implications for control of some medical conditions, but not all. Spike itself gets spiked as new diseases emerge as old ones conquered.

Trajectory: significant activity already underway which is likely to increase rapidly over the next 10-20 years and maintain steady growth until most of the issues have been addressed. That could occur within the next several hundred years or not until well after the end of the third millennium. Evolution of this subject will pose a large number of issues with moral, ethical, and survival implications. Polarization of opinions on, for example, birth control and Dr. Kevorkian's ministrations show how difficult it will be to hammer out consensus and collective responses. Genetic engineering will create big trouble in River City.

The use of HGE is getting increased. Funds and public agreements or disagreements with this kind of influencing of human could influence the speed of development.

"Disease" (at least the 20th century conception of it) will be eradicated during the 21st century.

Involuntary aging will also be eradicated, in the same time frame, since aging is really just another disease. Human characteristics will be readily modifiable by individuals on a timescale of at most days, and perhaps only hours or minutes, via nanotechnology. Classical genetic engineering and biotechnology will be obsolete once nanomedicine becomes widely available -- possibly in the next 20 years but almost certainly no later than the mid-21st century.

For a few decades efforts are made to develop human engineering an instrument. It though appears to be too expensive and too dangerous a tool and its use gradually restricted to a minimum of cases. Mind over Matter! Humankind will find new ways to control its corpses because it seeks freedom from all binds. The use of human genetic engineering might cause conflicts between cultures accepting its use and cultures banning its use. Restrictions wont prevent its emergence in a form or another, although large scale use might be prevented.

There may be a conflict between rich users of genetics and poor naturalists. The mankind uses genetics in some way the whole history, without problems. The main paradigm today is to construct better species inside of given environmental conditions and tomorrow perhaps comes an attempt to construct better environment for/using-the existing species. Perhaps in the future the scientists will not create better potatoes, but they will chose appropriate potato from genetic database plus appropriate bacteria, insects, etc. to live together. This method is today more complicated, as we compare results from Project Biosphere and Dolly. In practice: if you want to construct new appropriate computer or a build new business company, there is no need (in general) to begin with development of electronic parts or training teenagers - the reality is full of completed species and it is a question who is the right one for what.

It will grow not so rapidly because of the control of Pharmaceutical companies.

The 21^st century will see huge advances in genetic engineering and in all its potential consequences - both positive and negative on society. It is highly likely that "Super Humans" will be created in a test tube by 2025. A human clone by 2005. Misuse of these powerful abilities may cause a societal backlash.

Fast. Incredibly fast. Thermonuclear war.

The life span of human being will be largely extended and main diseases nowadays will be controlled or completely cured.

The application of human genetic engineering or prenatal gene therapy is certain to occur within the next century. We already could do this to change some genetically transmitted diseases, it is just a matter of time before we begin to apply these techniques in the womb. And as our knowledge increases the number of things that we can alter will increase. What parent wouldn't want gene therapy to repair incipient diabetes in their unborn child? Funding is not required, this technology is so desirable it will happen regardless. The ethical issue arises when this technology is used to make 'improvements', in the immune system functioning, intelligence, body type, hair color, etc. As I state in Question 14, I believe that this technology will be used in this fashion almost as soon as it is available.

The successful mapping of the human genome will open doors for greater human self-intervention, including biological self-design.

Opportunities emerging from these developments are overwhelming but we should be very much aware of "darkite" (abuses) of this development. Genetic engineering can become "timing biological bomb", perhaps much worse than nuclear weapons. We should not try to "play God", we should consider life always as miracle and gift, not product of our activities.

The evident progress of genetic research could be slowed down by growing opposition of ecological or religious fundamentalists. Consequences: The real danger of misuse - "programming" people or creating "new people" for the purpose of army, economy, totalitarian ideology and political power.

More resources – less focus on risks and more benefits.

As new technology becomes more powerful it can be used for good or for ill.

Rapid pace of sciences and technology.
 
 

Benchmarks
 
 

2020 human engineering has become an instrument of commercial interests. 2050 global code tightly restricting the use of human engineering is accepted widely. 2100 human engineering has become a tool with low importance in global scale. 2100 exclusive products. 2400 made available for all. 2900 considered self-evident tradition.

Control on typical elderly diseases (eyes, ears, etc.).

Controlling diseases may happen; however, we all should die!

Human lifespan extended to 150 to 200 years. The conquering of numerous genetic diseases. Humans born with genetically enhanced intelligence, physical prowess or both. We would likely not recognize the genetically altered human being of the Year 3000.

Positive: the disease of Hart and Hypertension, cancers, and main infectious diseases will not be the dominance disease to human being (in 100 years), new born infants will be genetically healthy and intelligent, human memory capacities will be greatly expanded (in 500 years) and human brain could restore all information of their ancestors and therefore to completely change the meaning and tasks of education (in 1000 years); Negative: some ethical, moral and legal problems will be caused and new kinds of crime will be emerged.

See Wall Street Journal 9/9/99 re: Genetically Engineered super-intelligent mouse.

Possible to establish some index of "progress"?

Cure for cancer and other diseases. Links with nanotechnology if could make germ warfare much more effective. Also GM food could destroy organic farming.

Control disease.
 
 

100
 
 

reasonably complete understanding of the human genome. Average human longevity increases to 150 years. Biotechnology develops capacity to grow new human organs on demand.

Same as Q5 above: 2020 - first replicating man-made life. 2040 - first thinking non man made intelligence (using above).

Understanding and some therapies for diseases caused by genetic mutations, with new vaccines against infectious illness. Understanding of what it means to be human embraces the notion of a genetic identity.

Recognizing the human DNA, recognizing genetic reasons of many illnesses, problems with cloning and human rights, ethic war against changing the human characteristics and cloning.

By 2012, everybody knew this was the age of biology. Third graders recite the engineering pyramid: Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry, Biology.
 
 

500
 
 

Technology to control human characteristics fully developed, but causes backlash by those who value freedom (perhaps led by messianic religious figure).

Some progress on the topic of the causes of aging, some success, but not to the stage of immortality.

Commonly genetically solving some of illnesses, cloning is usual technique.

It's done. Humans can become anything they like, live for all intents as long as they like, behave any way they would like. Science has given us the raw materials. Biomedical engineering has provided the craftsmanship. The absolutely huge field generally still called "neuroscience"--linguistics, philosophy, systems modeling, organization of "consciousness", post-synaptic cascades, artificial life (which necessarily has a quasi-neural architecture), etc--has remained the hottest and most rewarding (and reviled, by some) human endeavor. Even today (2500 AD) when genetic engineering has triumphed on the quantum level, the field wistfully called "neuroscience" holds sway over the question of whether we survive another 500 years.
 
 

1000
 
 

Immortality.

Humanity will have powerful tools that may be used to fight disease, but that may also be used for new forms of unwelcome biological control of human life.

Rebuilding "lost" parts of body genetically.

Finally, we can put this one to bed. The end of dissention came just in time. This ringing in our ears has been replaced by the passionate need to rejoin the cosmos - to traverse the gap between "everything" and "one thing" from which individual life has always sprung. The ancient prophets might have said we want to die so that we may live, or be last so we may be first, or some such dualistic euphemism.
 
 

Low Probability Consequences
 
 

Different strains of humans are cultivated for different kinds of tasks, with different levels of intelligence assigned to them; leads to speciation within our genus.

The emergence of dictators with desires for social control though biological control.

Misuse of technology leads to creation of ‘slave classes’, i.e., Huxley’s Brave New World.

Eugenics.

Misuse of the production of the new weapons.

Clone technology might be wrongly used on man himself and cause severe social disorder or even goes out of control and therefore destroy the whole world.

"Genetic sabotage" -proliferation and spread of genetic errors by those with minds no less devious than manufacturers of computer viruses could be a powerful weapon of the future.

The negative effects are high not low.

Risks of damaging side effects likely to outweigh potential benefits.

Extended use of genetic engineering in non-ethical applications.

New disastrous creatures developed in labs. Lost information which is now stores for us in genetic diseases and "abnormalities".
 
 
 
 

12. Conscious-Technology
 
 

Trajectory
 
 

Development in these fields makes it feasible to develop new types of technologically augmented human-beings, but this is so profoundly in opposition to the religious and ethical standards of people that it leads to a backlash against such technology. The technology has no particular benefit for our species.

This is one of those "fast will eat the slow" things, with all the usual consequences for the rich getting even richer.

Machines levered human power; on-chip technology or imbedded intelligence will unburden mind.

With ever more efficient technologies for communicating and processing information, the boundary between brain and external aids for thinking will practically disappear, so that computers and communication interfaces will feel as if they are an integral part of our personality. In the longer term, the effacing of borders between brain and computer are likely to also lead to an effacing of the border between individual, computer-supported brains, leading to the emergence of a collective mind or "global brain", an integrated thinking, conscious being with an overall world view and sense of purpose.

See frameworks shared realties and references above.

Continuation of a trend already in train, with new ways of augmenting humans and helping those with disabilities. Still a disjunction between technology and human consciousness, if not between technology and machine intelligence. Trend is for augmentation, but with discontinuities still.

Occurring of new illnesses due to change of genetic code _ not previously predicted by scientists.

Totalitarian global control of people by the rich with the help of human engineering.

Transplant of brain.

Brave New World!

Man and machine will likely merge by the mid 20^th century. The ‘cyborgs’ of 20^th century science fiction become a reality. Brain ‘chip’ implants, enhanced body parts and senses, etc.

This is the agenda in a nutshell.

Great Technology Synthesis - design and emergence of new extropic /syntropic/ technology including technology of mind, cyberspace, human social and economic organization and harmonization of role of technology with humankind and nature.

This technology is in its infancy. We still have no direct evidence that major changes are even possible. However if it is possible then it would be extremely high impact. Technology applied to consciousness has the potential to change all the rules by changing how we think, what we perceive and what we want. Funding of this technology has leverage and could expedite its development. However, this technology is intrinsically low-energy, low-cost. It could be developed with very limited resources at any university. Consequently, if current early explorations prove fruitful, it is likely that the technology will progress even in the absence of funding. However, it is also likely that if that were to happen the first applications of the technology would be chaotic, rebellious, and anti-authoritarian ( like the Internet or "designer drug" culture). An early policy position and funding could allow more control of the future results.

More likely achievable towards end, than beginning of the next millennium.

My crystal ball is too cloudy here.

All of these will happen but must be controlled when they are ready to be marketed.

Could have four reaching effects but these are unlikely to be beneficial unless people everywhere get on better together.

It belongs to the idea of "Life Beyond Information Society" , and human made non-human life (Jim Dator).
 
 

Benchmarks
 
 

accept and test more (CONDORCET) we should try and test everything when in danger - definitely with control and check and balances.

Establishment of Negative Cultural "Ideologies".

2050 the anarchistic experiments on this field are tightly restricted, and the emphasis turn towards full development of existing human resources. 2100 new dimensions of human resources have been discovered and taken is use. 2400 the people consider, that last 5000 years, except the two latest centuries, have been a vast degeneration of human species and create museums to conserve the contradictory good-bad dimensions of those ancient dominant cultures.

Thinking PC. Intelligent robot in dangerous works.

Control, domination, racism.

Much of this technology already exist so it will be the widespread appearance and acceptance of technologically altered humans that will be the first benchmark which may occur by 2020. After this it may become the norm rather than the exception. The human being of the Year 3000 may be primarily machine.

Possible to establish a benchmark – but what would it mean? What use are they?

Could form the basis of a world civilization with a high standard of living but must be shared world wide so no information rich and poor.
 
 

100
 
 

Fast here. In fifty years we shall have undergone several quantum intelligence jumps.

Technologies that aid those with severe disabilities to gain more control, with some restoration of function.

Especially development of robotic systems, diagnosing methods, moving robotic technologies, etc.

It is a turbulent reality; policy issues center around it. This is the key time for policy makers and ethicists.

Age of Great Technology Synthesis

Misuse of the production of the new weapons

Information technology from 2000 to 2050 and then the conscious -technology period starts emerging.
 
 

500
 
 

Perhaps some form of implant for young men who seek thrills through augmenting the healthy body.

Computer mind is reality new kind of "being" android.

Policy effectiveness is well and truly dead. What's done is done.

Emergence of singularity and harmonization of impacts of technology on humankind and Nature.

The rise and development of a new civilization of humankind based on these continuum of technology and consciousness.
 
 

1000
 
 

Unimaginable change.

Hardly to strictly differ human beings from artificial-humans.

Technology for expansion to the Universe and other Spaces.
 
 

Low Probability Consequences
 
 

Loss of identity.

Some individuals may not wish to be integrated with the technological-social web, and continue to live in a more traditional way, making them unable to comprehend the complexity of the actions and decisions of the global mind that surrounds them.

Over-control and leaving individual right and variety behind.

What if knowledge lost about how to fix machines?

What we today consider the core of "being human" may seem quaint to the augmented beings of the year 3000.

The computer mind can begin to control the human beings, and may be, eliminate them.

Criminals with affluent resources control people with the help of the humanoids.

Humanity controlled by "future Bill Gates".

Brave New World!

A race of technologically enhanced "humans" dominating those not so enhanced.

Avarice. Hate to keep referring to this, but if anything gets us in this respect, it'll be our old nemesis, greed.

E.g. the concept of a global warrior.

"Cyborgs" taking over the earth – will they count as "humanity"?

Side effects – largely associated with abuse of power.

Neural networking challenge brain work.

People’s fear of "grand pa" internet - a conscious internet network.
 
 
 
 

13. Increasing Intelligence
 
 

Trajectory
 
 

Increased understanding of the various factors that affect the relationship between people and the rest of nature leads to greater adaptability. This may be the most optimistic and positive trend over the coming millennium.

Not us; but controlling increased intelligence, yes.

Individual intelligence will continue to increase, as it has over the past 100 years (the Flynn effect), thanks to better education, health care, genetic manipulation and computer support. Collective intelligence will require the development of new scientific insights and technologies, as well as the afore-mentioned shared philosophy and values. The main issue is whether intelligence increases will be able to keep up pace with the increased capacity for information-processing and problem-solving demanded by a world that gets ever more complex ever more quickly.

I see this as a slight trend, but 1000 years is a short time to alter humans to this extent by some kind of mechanical or biological means.

Scientific advances concerning intelligence-controlling genes, brain processes and chemistry, etc., should be a significant accomplishment over the near term (5-20 years) and accelerate continuously for a long time. Positive effects, with the practical result of actually having people deal more effectively with unexpected problems, will lag the scientific advances by many generations. What people do with their capacities is profoundly influenced by cultural forces, economic and other imperatives. There is little reason to expect that enlightened self-interest will dominate over less constructive forces during the next several hundred years.

It differentiates according the kind of intelligence. But as a whole I suppose the intelligence will remain the same. Only some new discoveries in the field of psychology and parapsychology could change it.

The concept of intelligence is dramatically changed in the dialogue of multiple cultures and worldviews. The new intelligence concepts allow development of new forms of intelligence, and more full use of human resources in the long run. Also: The training of human potential is dramatically enhanced.

Increasing individual intelligence is not important, but the collective intelligence is small. Seems that many people refuse to increase their intelligence - it might be the result of their life conditions plus genetic and cultural programming. To increase collective intelligence, the collective consciousness must precede it (I mean)! For example the totalitarian communities seem to be collective unconscious.

There will be very slow changes. Education and practical training might alter it.

Knowledge at the scientific and technological levels continues to increase exponentially in the 21^st century – doubling every few years. When brain implants are available to enhance human intelligence (possibly by 2010) the ability of human beings (if this is still the right term) to deal with complex and unexpected problems will greatly increase.

Unstoppable, and as I have said, going from the collective to the individual (fiercely) and back to the collective. Bad policy in the next 100 years will haunt us like a deformed cuticle.

Emergence of network intelligence of Internet, human economy and society, emergence of singularity in networks.

As in Question 11, this technology has already reached the "point of no return" and once realized has high potential impact. And while this technology is much less open to cultural/recreational use or abuse than cyborg technology, it is still not an unmitigated good. Intelligence does not imply wisdom or morality (recall that a great many of Hitler's SS were PhDs) And there are the social structural issues... This could easily result in a real Permanent class system or, in the extreme, the construction of an artificial species Early funding and policy could provide guidance.

Genetic manipulation to increase intelligence is certainly conceivable.

Perhaps even "steered" evolution" is in front of us - not just biological evolution through genes mutations but conscious and steered social evolution (which is much faster than biological evolution).

There is enough intelligence in the human kind, the problem is its use. Most of people have no or very limited chance to use and perform their intelligence for good purpose. In the industrial countries the human intelligence is sometimes misused for military research or sophisticated (but from the perspective of future quite senseless) economical transactions or advertisement brainwashing, in the third world it the human potential quite neglected, not appreciated. Consequences: This trend could be changed through reorientation of values and worldwide free access to education (and creating new job opportunities, of course). The growing unemployment is great danger for human intelligence in general.

This is reasonable in theory but what is really important is the trend in the Emotional Quotient – this is highly problematic.

Neural networks will not replace the brain but will challenge and improve decisionmaking.

Failure of "survival of the fittest" will lead to decreased intelligence on the whole.

Increasing knowledge of worldwide scales processes and associated threats (natural, antropogenic and still universal).
 
 

Benchmarks
 
 

It’s really improvements in foresight vs. reaction time (which includes time to reach and implement a consensus).

2050 the concept of intelligence has got new content and the development of new forms of human intelligence starts. 2100 human intelligence resources have doubled because aforementioned process. 2200 the present intelligence concept ha very limited applications.

Control, domination, racism.

Increased networking of individuals and groups working together on joint problems. The first brain ‘chip’ I.Q. implant available.

No benchmark – just a slow deterioration.

Intelligence trends could be monitored but this is of limited value without it being integrated into a context.

Use of worldwide communications could result in a shared world culture.
 
 

100
 
 

Better understanding of the factors that affect human intelligence enable all humans to increase their overall intelligence (though of course the normal distribution of intelligence will remain, with the mean IQ being 100). The problem is that no particular relationship between intelligence and ability to deal with unexpected problems necessarily exists, nor with high ethical standards, nor with "happiness". Greater intelligence can lead to over-specialization.

Autonomous, self-repairing, self replicating intelligence devices. 2030 in homes. 2050 on the battlefield.

Greater understanding of brain function and structure, with perhaps new brain expanding drugs of more use initially for people with brain disfunction e.g. Alzheimer disease. I see this a bit like the steroid story; some people who are ill benefit, and are prepared to suffer the side effects. Those who are healthy ultimately lose their health through wrongful use.

The same like now.

Emergence of network intelligence of human networks, human organization and society.
 
 

500
 
 

Better understanding of processes in brain, but without special increase of intelligence.

Emergence of singularity in human networks.
 
 

1000
 
 

perhaps by now the drug technology may be able to augment the healthy as well as treat the ill.

Not increase of intelligence, but its new understanding thanks to contact with extraterrestrial or parapsychologic and physical discoveries.
 
 

Low Probability Consequences
 
 

Expanded intelligence isn’t everything. Some problems have social solutions where the will to succeed matters more than the intelligence of the actors. An over-emphasis on intelligence above other factors can lead to terrible distortions in social policy, as with Nazi ideology.

Fact and fiction are mixed in the new intelligence concept, and as result of it the intelligence begins its degeneration.

Increasing general sense of responsibility on the future of Humanity.

God-complex.

Widening gap between the intelligent ‘haves’ and the less intelligent ‘have nots’.

Probable but not important like previous Q. Consequences – rise of new "race". The augmented human beings could account themselves better than "ordinary" humans with all the consequences the racism brings.

Today the problem is not so much one of intelligence and emotional stability.

Fear of change and new developments.

Unscrupulous utilization of this factor.
 
 
 
 

14 Conscious Evolution
 
 

14. Trajectory
 
 

Some attempts to profoundly change human nature will continue to be made, both by the well-meaning and the control-oriented. No evidence that a more spiritual holistic-centered consciousness would necessarily indicate an improved human condition.

A more holistic consciousness is likely to be the automatic side-effect of the previous factors (shared values and philosophy, increased intelligence, conscious technology, etc.), whether it is consciously attempted or not.

Awareness Education about scales, proportions, consequences, and patterns.

I prefer to interpret this more as the attempt to develop a concept of the ecological self, i.e. the individual conceived as the individual, the self perceived in relation to the environment and the community. (The environment may include the cosmic environment.) I see the trajectory here as a herky-jerky process, one step forward, one and a half steps back.

Artificial (machine) intelligence will probably be the key factor.

Some attempts to profoundly change human nature will continue to be made, both by the well-meaning and the control-oriented. No evidence that a more spiritual holistic-centered consciousness would necessarily indicate an improved human condition.

Trajectory: there will undoubtedly be attempts (as there have been), but results will be inconclusive for the indefinite future. Consciousness-raising and subordination of self-centered orientations in favor of the common good have been around for a while. Substantial reduction in slavery, air and water pollution, mistreatment of animals are examples of some beneficial results. I am skeptical that real spiritualism, as differentiated from growth of cults and sects with claims of spirituality and minimal delivery of it, is likely to prosper over the next 1000 years. Underlying human behavior is a strong constant.

I do not believe this could happen in global to this civilization we are living in. Only war, extraterrestrial, scientific discoveries could change it.

The new scientific worldviews show, that the question is wrongly set. The demolition of economic and political structures, which have created the self-centered consciousness liberates other, more humane and more relevant traits. Accumulation of totalitarian tendencies both outside and inside democracies can obstacle this development for some time.

It is likely enough that there will be various efforts in the next 1000 years toward conscious evolution, but they are unlikely to seek a uniform goal for the "perfect" human type such as is suggested in the question. More likely, humanity will risk fracturing into even more sharply distinguished subgroupings than is happening now.

See previous factor, the 13. and 14. are bounded from my scope of view.

It can evolve just at individual level.

Awareness, socialization, collective efforts.

The evolution of consciousness from individual ego-centric to a holistic universe-centric would be a key factor for the future of humanity over the next 1,000 years. The advent of the Web will greatly enhance this process.

Public policy can have a great impact on what is taught and what is perceived to be important, but the actual attempt to evolve human consciousness is simply too big a job for any centralized authority. Human consciousness is a collective point of view. From start to finish, point of view is at the center of being an individual life-form. Policy is important, but let's face it—politicians—and I'm talking about the good ones—are society's executive secretaries.

Transition from entropic stage of human evolution to syntropic stage of human evolution, design of quantum and holistic economics, control over economic and social power of human organization, redirection social organization from profit to anti-entropic /syntropic/ activities.

The holistic approach / the mutual acceptability between science and mystique.

Technology applied to human evolution has the potential to change all the rules by changing us. And clearly such technology is immanent. Given that capability, it is a virtual certainty that someone will attempt eugenic control during the next millennia. However, it is unlikely (in my opinion) that the direction that control would take would be spiritual... far more likely that it would be Orwellian...or worse. This is because the exercise of this control implies power, those with power rarely engineer systems that will diminish that power. Even on an individual level, what parent would elect a humanity-centered attitude for their child, if they knew that they would then be easy victims of those who had not so elected. Given that dynamic; policy is required in this area to ensure that the concept of liberty remains valid.

Development in this area will be extremely gradual – not likely to be achieved in a thousand years. The major religions have taken a few thousand years to evolve to present state.

I see this more as threat than opportunity. We would try again to "play God". People should be responsible for their lives but not to take responsibility to end their lives, even if this is technically possible.

There are lots of trends dealing with the question of such kind, for example psychology (Jungian psychology, the research of Stanislav Grof, the humanistic psychology of Abraham Maslow), new religious movements (New Age), deep ecology, the renaissance of shamanism, deep interest in esoteric (and -essentially - holistic) teachings of world religions and their mystical traditions, interest in nature nations traditions etc. The universalisation of world community through new communication technologies (especially computers and television) and free access to information (Internet) also represent the important step in this process. The deeper understanding and exploration of parapsychological experiences should be also taken in account. Consequences: The profound change (spiritualization) of human civilization, interpersonal relations, social institutions and society as a whole.

See the answer 8, and9! ( If you want to get more information concerning my theory of human conscious evolution, I would be happy to send 2-3 p. summary later, based more than 10 years theory work.).

Wells word brain and moving to a higher intellectual level.

Very possible – at least in some parts of the world for some period.

Wishful thinking!

It doesn't seen to be the kind of conscious evolution foreseeable.

Then it might no longer be called evolution but co-evolution because evolution is blind to any conscious pursue. It comes slowly and only with smaller ensembles of concerned people. There are two main positive stream of views: that of Christianity with its personal god his salvation and mercy, (Islam in some forms alike) and the other one the Tibetan Buddhism (or others like) with satory and nirvana. Both may have a strong impact on how a person is living his life on earth with positive results for the other peoples life as well. But there are also spiritual and religious lines not so positive either from individual or collective point of view, but still influential among people. Fundamentalist directions from what ever the base of it, fighting atheism ,and some self-made movement ( scientology, Satanist etc) are misleading people to struggles and deepening suffer without any purpose.
 
 

Benchmarks
 
 

100,500,1000 staying the same if some of above mentioned factors do not occur.

2010 the overestimation of the importance of present concept of consciousness begins to be widely questioned. 2050 humaniora, based of multiple worldviews have developed new, different views on human psychology and the role of consciousness. 2050 a minimum global moral code acceptance.

Acceptance/practice of human cloning; acceptance/practice of human genetic manipulation for other than medical necessity (e.g., cosmetic purposes), etc.

Spiritual holistic associations.

Growing societal awareness of the Universe around us, its nature, our place in evolutionary time, the miracle of life, etc. By the Year 3000, a ‘Cosmic Humanity’.

Surveys that measure the materialistic/spiritual trade-off.

Vital for our survival on this planet. Failure to release this.
 
 

100
 
 

The concept of the individual gets somewhere.

Design of quantum and holistic economic science, design of information theory of value, transition toward syntropic stage of human evolution, new holistic view of human evolution.
 
 

500
 
 

Back where we started again.

Emergence of new global social order and system of global governance.
 
 

1000
 
 

A few steps further on in recognizing the self in relation to the local, regional, planetary and cosmic universes that sustain and make possible all life.
 
 

Low Probability Consequences
 
 

Loss of heart and hand - becoming to egg –headed.

If a major change in the way people perceive the world happens very quickly, what would happen to institutions based on human avarice and aggression? Might social chaos emerge as an outcome of altruistic ideas?

Creating new society based on equality, destroying of economic system.

Worship of consciousness becomes a new universal religion.

Family-centered society again.

Changes in lifestyle from primarily individually centered to communal.

Move towards a self-contained communities (will this trend develop?).

Considerable problems if the highly competitive/materialistic society continues without powerful ethical constraints.
 
 
 
 

15 Immortality
 
 

15. Trajectory
 
 

Longevity will certainly increase for those with access to the necessary technology. This trajectory could be profoundly influenced by the unwillingness of the young to suffer the old, who are not able to adapt to the rapidly-changing technology.

Mind is timeless, so we wish for more; for nanoengineers it makes no difference if their activities relate to living (replicating) or inert (non replicating) materials.

Although biological immortality of the body is unlikely, given the practically infinite number of causes of aging and accidents, it is likely that "cybernetic immortality" will be achieved: the survival of our mental organization independently of the body (e.g. by "uploading" the mind into a computer or network, or transferring it to an new body). The question is whether survival of the individual mind will still be considered meaningful if different individual are merged into a super-mind or global brain. See common shared realities above in combination with a community of subjects not objects

Trajectory is the damp squib, a Phutt trajectory.

It will likely be possible technically. So the debate about whether it is a good idea will determine whether it actually occurs.

Given recent experience, it is entirely plausible that during the next 20-50 years it may become possible to extend an organism's life indefinitely and/or to transfer memory and consciousness from one individual to another (possibly a young clone). If immortality is achieved, it will cease to be valued, just like every other abundant commodity. Significant steps in this realm will utterly conflict with traditional assumptions about life that form the basis of major religions, moral codes, and laws. Changes in religions, moral codes, and laws will lag greatly behind the scientific disruptions that demand the changes. They will be a source of major societal unrest and criminal behavior. It will probably take longer than a millennium for humanity at large to absorb and deal constructively with major extensions of lifespans and consciousness, absent some huge calamity that will force mankind into unprecedented behavior.

I do not think something similar will be possible. The destiny has the last word.

By the end of the 21st century, the above-stated situation will almost certainly exist. I've always believed that suicide would probably be the leading cause of death in the year 2100. By the year 3000, it is possible that resource competition or some other form of scarcity-driven conflict may replace suicide as the leading cause of death (see Q#4 and Q#5 benchmarks answers).

During a few decades ahead it is a fashion among the wealthy to strive towards immortality. When the real costs to the individuals themselves, and to the humankind become visible and the consequences of immortality are experienced, the fashion fades gradually. Immortality wont be reached in the near future.

The discussion about euthanasia is today a preparation for the future discussions about immortality. A question: has our death a value within the range of our (positive) values, or does it get value in future? Is there some relation between the value of our children and the value of our death? => Immortality may lead to lower value of children in our life.(?)

People prefer not to know the time at which to end their lives. Invention on how not to grow old might alter it.

Human life spans will likely be extended to 150 to 200 years by the first quarter or half of the 21^st century. Physical existence beyond that span, however, is much harder to forecast with as the technologies are not yet foreseen. The immortality of consciousness, though, may conceivably be achieved by the downloading of the human brain onto a computer system sometime in the next millennium. This has been posited by a number of scientists recently.

The key word here is "effective". The fate of the universe(s) will not be securely nailed down even in the next 1000 years. And life won't "end". It will morph, or merge, or as my music professor used to say "transish". Effective immortality will be a reality within 250 years, perhaps much sooner. What a can of worms that will be!

Development of extropic thinking and extropic technologies.

There are powers much more potent than intelligence hidden deep inside the human being.

Immortality? Very unlikely within the next thousand years, not even with the marvels of genetic engineering. It seems to me that nature’s version of immortality – expressed in generation after generation of descendants – is more robust and enduring, and unlikely to be mimicked, much less bested by human technology.

The legalization of euthanasia in few states of the world, the vehement discussion about its ethical and religious consequences. The trend could be stopped by opposition of religious groups. Consequences to be considered: The great danger of misuse.

Greatly extended life spans (are more probable than immortality).

Can no longer afford to keep aging population also when there is no quality of life there is no point in living.

Can easily go both ways – more young suicides in Japan?

Euthanasia will be officially accepted with fifty years all over the world.
 
 

Benchmarks
 
 

Increase of life expectancy with 1 to 3 years per decade because of medical advances is likely to continue for the next 100 years, but "cybernetic" immortality will probably only be achieved later.

2020 immortality becomes theoretically possible. 2100 immortality has lost its relevance.

The average human life span increasing in the 21^st century as it has in the 20^th due to increased nutrition, healthcare, education, etc. reaching 100 by the first quarter of the new century. Then, new discoveries re: aging lead to a ‘quantum leap" nearly doubling life spans by 2050.

Extreme life extension is virtually certain. A combination of bio-chemistry, gene therapy, and nano-surgery will allow some people alive today to live for hundreds of years. This will obviously change the structure and nature of society. What will be the attitude of someone who has been an adult for 25 times the length of his childhood versus the current 2 or 3? Also, will this technology be universally available or will only the rich live forever? And what will the masses of poor people think of that? The technological imperative has already taken this pursuit beyond the control of governments; it will happen and much sooner than 3000. A ethical/moral position on this and policy to deal with the result is required.

Strong move towards quality of life. Medical profession most in favor of this move.

Life span trends. Some signs are going down, not up.
 
 

100
 
 

2025 the first grafted head (or body) depending how you view the problem ! 2030 the neural code is cracked. 2040 cell death inhibition drugs are put on the market. You then buy immortality.

Utter confusion over the role of senior seniors. Yes, they are "productive, contributing members of society" but they are often morbidly confused as to their emotional role. And they're not the only ones. "Pre-centurions" are alternately worshiping and spurning them.

Design extropic view of the world as social science, extropic technologies.
 
 

500
 
 

Prolonging of life in average, but individually immortality could hardly appear.

This confusion will not be short lived. It will persist well past 2500 – ironically, even though everyone but the recently born is hundreds of years old. The utter power of the individual gives rise to innumerable pretexts to question the efficacy of life itself—in general, of course. Not my life. As a policy question, you see. (As if "policy" really mattered at this point.).

Partial immortality of human mind.
 
 

1000
 
 

Watch for serious backlash if this occurs before there is social equity is achieved.

Prolonging of life in average, but individually immortality could hardly appear.

No longer an issue. Finally. Funny: immortality was the easy part.

Partial immortality of human body.
 
 

Low Probability Consequences
 
 

Becomes available only to the selected few.

That effective immortality happens, as the question frames it. We are the last mortal generation we miss out.

The ultimate altruistic act for an individual may be suicide in order to make room for a new human being.

If immortality succeeds question of elders, which will have probably nothing new to bring to society, will come.

A minority of humankind, the wealthy immortal criminals, take over totalitarian control of the globe.

Never-ending working life.

Conflict between those who can afford ‘age treatments’ and those who can’t.

Misguided "benevolent" genocide.

Quality of life issues critical, rather than unsatisfying materialism.

Fundamentalists opposed this approach.

Committed murders and euthanasia for other purposes than that of the dying people.
 
 
 
 

16. Family And Gender Relationships
 
 

Trajectory
 
 

These relationships will continue to be driven by enlightened self-interest; these relationships will vary between populations that are stable and those that are rapidly changing (either growing or shrinking).

Family roles will be changed almost beyond recognition as most reproductive functions will be taken over technology: the extension of in vitro fertilization ("test tube babies") will make reproduction possible with practically no human intervention. The general movement towards equality between men and women and different roles will continue, until such roles are merely a question of personal choice, rather than a biologically or socially imposed constraint.

Come to communion as above.

Trajectory a herky-jerky affair. One step forward, half a step back, except for places in world where women go three steps back into a very constraining purdah. Use of sex-determination technology for selective abortion of females in areas of high population density has potential to alter sex-ratio towards new kinds of gender inequality. Human intervention in policy area or at least in a change of world-view has greatest potential here, not necessarily requiring funding, but something harder to obtain, a change in values. With fewer children in the world, children may be valued differently, more for themselves, less for their earning capacity.

Family and gender relationships will change as long as humanity exists. Over the next several hundred years, I would expect continuing high birth rates in underdeveloped countries, strains on the food supply/environment/energy-availability, and ever-growing appetites for material goods/education/entertainment/leisure to force a greater percentage of the world's population into out-of-home employment. Continued erosion of traditional values will provide a fertile context for further changes in all forms of interpersonal relationships.

The importance of family will stay the same like today. May be a new education system will lead to sooner leaving the parents wings of protection.

Gender is relevant primarily in relation to sexual reproduction. With the obsolescence of classical sexual reproduction in the 21st century, the rationale for differentiated genders disappears. This factor, combined with the ability to alter gender (or any other normal human characteristic) right down to the cellular/genetic level means that by the end of the next 100-200 years, there may well be no distinctive human genders, but only eclectic individualized collections of desired characteristics - which will undoubtedly include mixtures of traditionally male and female attributes. In this environment, gender equity issues are obviously totally irrelevant. They simply cease to exist. With sexual reproduction obsolete, and with personal semi-immortality virtually assured via nanomedicine, the impetus for parenting (and thus family formation) will be vastly reduced. Parenting may become an extremely rare cultural role, possibly indulged in almost purely for reasons of self-actualization rather than for seeking indirect immortality of ones own genes or memes, or for other social or economic reasons.

Ethical social capital (including new solutions to the mentioned questions) becomes gradually a focal part of the sustainable development strategy. Commercial totalitarianism.

See previous factor, there is some relationship between parenting and immortality. The notions of family and gender seems to be stable in range of million years. The changes of it are possible, but perhaps they bear not so much long-term stability for any living community.

In a long term view people won’t be satisfied with nothing but the family and there will be a family reorganization.

Awareness, socialization, collective efforts.

The current trend toward gender equality, shared parenting responsibilities, etc. in society will continue strongly into the foreseeable future in the developed countries. The possibility exists that in these countries, the first true male/female "partnership societies" may emerge.

I don't understand the question. What about Family relationships? Just how will they change? Probably the reason the question is so vague is that at this point we don't even know what to ask. These issues are the most delicate and fragile of all that we currently face. Who the hell knows what they'll look like even 100 years from now? Might as well try to predict hemlines. Maybe Godot has something to do with it.

Emergence of new global social organization based on the holistic view of the world.

Probability = 100%. This is happening constantly and there's no reason to think that the next millennium will be more stable than past ones. One has only to remember that 1000 years ago among our Frankish ancestors marriage was contractually arranged. The contract specified the duties and rewards of each...how many children would be born, who would raise them, how long the marriage would last, and how the property would be split afterward. I would suggest that the next 1000 years would see equally radical changes in social roles from the current norm. Perhaps even more so, if some of the other things on this questionnaire come to pass (cyborg technology, extreme longevity, control of evolution, etc.).

Changes will be evolutionary, not revolutionary. Economics will dictate pace and nature of change for the majority of the world’s population

Of course men and women are equal but our roles concerning parenting are different and should stay different even in long term future. (For example in the Czech Republic there is three years maternity leave for women when they can stay with children and it is supported by state (financially). This I see as more positive than three months maternity leave in some western states and system of au-pairs and baby sitters.

The great change is evident: emancipation of women - employment, access to education, the change of typical "man" and "woman" social roles, incomplete families, the legalization of homosexual relationships etc. Positive consequences: emancipation of women and sexual minorities. Negative consequences: the disturbance of traditional family structure, no new functioning model of family structure is evident now.

Changing work patterns (i.e., working from home) could mean return of extended family.

Much of these issues depend on personal priorities – such as taking having/bringing up children more seriously.
 
 

Benchmarks
 
 

2050 a minimum Global moral code acceptance.

Co-parenting initiatives.

Increasing participation of women in traditional power structures such as business and politics. Trend to women as main bread-winner in many families becomes more prominent.

Extended family cares for young and old at one location. Will reduce travel and pollution. Could take several generations.

Birth trends – down in nearly all industrialized societies where female education becomes widespread.
 
 

100
 
 

Negative benchmark would be earth population of 66% males to 33% females. Decline in number of children

Same like now.
 
 

500
 
 

A positive benchmark might be a return to a 50-50 sex ratio, with increasing value placed on women, at least to the level of allowing them to be born.

Large changes in educational system, both family and school one.
 
 

1000
 
 

Large changes in educational system - both family and school one.
 

Low Probability Consequences
 
 

End of monogamy everywhere.

Going to an all equal but no variety fun and life "artificial" race of boredom and mechanical control.

Technological advances may greatly improve per-capita productivity, diminishing the pressures for increased work. More traditional behaviors may regain their influence if and when it emerges that changes of recent decades have had detrimental effects.

Bigger role of work in life of individuals.

Return to earlier patriarchal or matriarchal cultural modes.

New growth of birth rate.

Male backlash.

More alienation and breakdown in social stability.
 
 
 
 

17. Extraterrestrial Contact
 
 

Trajectory
 
 

Such extraterrestrial contact may be the only hope for some of the changes that are considered in points 1-16 above. The implied speciation -basically evolving from Homo sapiens into a different form of organism - maybe possible only when driven by an external force.

It will happen sometime, but it could be more than 1000 years. It is more likely that we leave the planet earth in search of other habitable planets, whether or not we make extraterrestrial contact.

We get a "once-off" clear signal; we have no idea where it came from since there is nothing on the angular vector, no time scale. We store it and wait.

This factor is basically impossible to foresee with our present knowledge. Recent scientific advances make it more likely that life exists elsewhere in the cosmos, but this does not imply that intelligent life would exist near to us, or that it would be willing/capable to communicate with us. In any case, there remain strong physical limitations (the speed of light) on the possibility of communication over interstellar distances.

I see the trajectory as the fizz of a fireworks display centered over America. What might alter it is if other nations start spending big on SETI research in a new kind of SETI space race, if it turns out there is money to be made from astro-biology.

Within 100 years contact will likely occur with at least one form of extraterrestrial intelligence, and possibly with several different ones. We may receive an encyclopedic message (by radio or pulsed laser) from many light-years away, or we may make contact with a super-smart probe that has reached our planet. After contact, humanity and the other "culture" will interact and evolve together. The outcome will be heavily affected by the knowledge and purposes of the alien intelligence, and by how open-minded and sensible and conflict-free the human reaction is.

Trajectory: explorations along these lines have already begun and will undoubtedly continue. When they might bear fruit is a shot in the dark. Communication with extraterrestrial intelligence is constrained (at least for now) by the speed of light and the vast distances involved. Two-way contacts during the next millennium will occur only if there is some major new advance in exploitation of physics, such as creation of time warps. Humanity may, however, find ways to receive, decode, and learn from intelligent emanations that originated on other worlds. That earth will be visited by extraterrestrials during the next millennium has a likelihood of approximately zero.

Probability to contact extraterrestrials is getting increased. In case of contact it will be contact with much more developed community, and will be peace. We will profit be new educational knowledge. Humans can very influence the time of contact, by funding, policy, but by solving its social problem, too.

Some resources are used to scan the universe to find extraterrestrial messages both in purpose of protection of the globe from attacks, and to get contact with potential aliens. Only a sudden appearance of extraterrestrial beings changes the situation dramatically. If it happens, it will change everything starting from the perception of ourselves in the cosmic relation.

We are trained every day to any extraterrestrial contact by contacting to other cultures, races and animals on the earth. The results are poor or moderate, so this is the picture of any future extraterrestrial contact. I think, that a knowledge itself about the real existence of foreign intelligence may have larger impact to us than any real star war.

No changes in research and in people interest.

The likelihood of such an event is 50/50 during the next 1,000 years. It is likely because we are more technologically advanced then ever before and will embark on exploring and settling our corner of the cosmos within this period. It is unlikely if no such other intelligence exists in the Universe that we can reach or who can reach us.

If we don't get our eyes the hell off our shoes, we Will blow it. This is very doable by policy makers. This isn't "human consciousness"—it's just common sense. Let's start by being a little less reluctant to consider the unusual just because it's unusual. Nothing could be more unusual to us humans than extra-terrestrial life, but what right-minded person could claim with authority that in all of space and time, it could only have happened here? Yes, Ptolemy, it's turtles all the way down. (re: Stephen Hawking's intro to A Brief History of Time.).

Transformation of human social organization and basic ethical principles after extraterrestrial contact.

The cultural shock.

Impossible in this form of human being.

Wild Card of high impact…but not effected by policy.

Quite possible within next 1000 years – if indeed we are not alone. New Science and technology may give us better means of signaling and communicating, which make SETI’s present day efforts appear primitive.

Extraterrestrial contact is quite unpredictable. But if this happens it will have overwhelming (let us hope more positive than negative) consequences. Not just technological and civilizational consequences, but also religious and theological. Do they (extraterrestrial beings) believe or know God? Do they believe in Jesus Christ? ... etc.

Completely change our view of our world and the universe.

Likely to be more dependent on what "they" do than what "we" do.

Not before we create it ourselves.
 
 

Benchmarks
 
 

Every 100 years we have to update the recording mechanisms so that we can still read the initial message, say 2002 (when we’ve all forgotten the millenium). In 2999, it decided to destroy the message, along with tons of other " unwanted " remnants of the past.

Nothing happens.

The key benchmarks are (1) the number of civilizations or intelligences that we are interacting with 100, 500, and 1000 years from now, and (2) how much knowledge we receive from them and how different that knowledge is from our own.

Actual physical contact.

It either happens or it doesn’t.

Positive: meeting of minds. Negative: mutual hostility.
 
 

100
 
 

Spatial communication.

No contact.

Math has proven "their" existence. We're all a little apprehensive that "they" haven't yet introduced themselves.

Extraterrestrial contact and new social end economic order of humankind.
 
 

500
 
 

Thanks to new technology and physical discoveries many marks of extraterrestrial life, finding new artificial non-Earth energy symbols.

Well, they didn't come to us, we came to them—via communication channels that in 20^th century parlance can only be described as being "on a quantum level". Many people reject the idea out of hand, but to deny that we can communicate with alien intelligence is the rough equivalent of the evolution/creationism "debate" in the late 20^th Century.

Knowledge and technological exchanges and cooperation with extraterrestrial civilizations.
 
 

1000
 
 

Whether or not we continue to explore space.

Contacts with outer civilizations.
 
 

Low Probability Consequences
 
 

The extraterrestrial contact proves to be malevolent, with humans suffering much like Native Americans did when Europeans arrived with Columbus. When civilizations at different levels of technology meet, that with the inferior technology inevitably suffers.

Will spoil the preparations for year 3000.

Intelligent extraterrestrials might already be aware of our existence but not consider us intelligent enough to be worth communicating with. Increasing our own intelligence may suddenly open up a whole new realm of other minds that are too complex for us to comprehend at this stage.

Contact is made!

It is unlikely but not impossible that the alien purposes will be hostile rather than beneficent.

Involving in space wars of giants, slaves of other much more developed community.

Only tolerance towards diversity and positive attitude towards communication can help even in case of friendly aliens (it is needed anyway). Attempts to hide such contacts by conspiracy can create much insecurity and turmoil in the global atmosphere.

Extraterrestrial and spatial tourism.

Impact on religion and human psyche.

Mass hysteria, a la "War of the Worlds"

The destruction of mankind.

Difficult to know who to plan for it? But the better we get on, the better the outcome is likely to be.
 
 
 
 

18. Space Migration
 
 

Trajectory
 
 

This possibility would require massive and fundamental changes in technology, and also assumes that our species is worthy of colonizing other planets. But it also assumes that other planets have conditions that would support human life, without harboring micro- or macro-predators.

I don’t think it makes sense.

At this moment, space migration seems to be less of an important development, given the enormous costs and the relatively small benefits that human life e.g. on Mars or the Moon would offer. In a later stage, with a wealthier and technologically more developed society, some permanent stations off the Earth are likely to be created, but it is unlikely that these will have a large impact, unless methods were developed to make e.g. Mars more amenable to life (terrafication) or more life-friendly planets were discovered on neighboring stars (say, in a radius of 20 light years from the Earth).

Trajectory a slow uphill slope, unless radical new technology such as molecular engineering, provides new fuels, foods, air and water supplies, etc.

Small-scale off-earth communities will undoubtedly be created. Within the next millennium it is entirely plausible that they may become capable of autonomous, independent operation. They will be valuable for astronomy, scientific research, and manufacturing under non-earthly conditions. However, such developments are unlikely to reach sufficient scale to provide destinations for migration of sizeable populations, even if the earth suffers a major catastrophe or individuals feel that the earth is no longer hospitable. Efforts in this area will be mainly worthwhile regardless of the size of any extraterrestrial communities created.

Together with exploration the space, developing technology, space migration is rather sure thing. It is only the question of time. Funding, policy and civilization threats could change this.

Commercialization of launch, communication and navigation services. Robotic development of asteroid mining. Robotic development of Martian infrastructure. Cyborg (and all astronauts have been proto-cyborgs) colonies on Mars, asteroids, free-orbit structures, etc. The type of structures we will build are very dependent on the state of developments in other fields such as AI, nanotech, biotech, etc. For a simple example, the type of greenhouses on Mars depends on how radically the plants are engineered. A so-called O'Neill free-orbit colony would not be built if cyborg technology creates people that do not need an O2 atmosphere and artificial gravity.

See earlier answers -- I've already addressed this at length in #3 and #4.

If the policy of sustainable development works as described in earlier answers, there will be no need to excessive migration out of our planet. Big natural or social catastrophes could change the situation suddenly. But even then it is an ethical question: are we willing to invest in some minorities escape, and for what reasons? It is always a harder life in extraterrestrial colonies, especially if they are spaceship-bound. People will be best of on this planet for much longer than 1000 years unless it is totally unsupportive for life, which is very unlikely in any situation.

There is a question, if the migrated communities may develop some ethics which is far different and resulting to conflicts. Or whether the ethics has the convergence to the same quality.

More and more people will be able to travel to space, but not to live there forever. Discover of a new energy might alter it.

Space stations, other planets.

Human communities living on the Moon by 2020 and Mars by 2070. Other solar systems by 3000.

This will happen while "public policy" is still very much alive. Maybe Jessie Helms can still screw it up.

Space colonization immunizes humanity against a multitude of physical and social extinction events, the technology is only a small extrapolation of current tech and is highly effected by policy". Scientists disagree on many things, everyone has their own theories, but one thing that all physical scientists agree on is that eventually the Sun will burn out. It may take 10,000 years, it may take a million, but eventually it will happen and the Earth will become uninhabitable. If, by that time, we have not learned space travel then Man will die. And Aristotle, Lao Tzu, Beethoven, Mozart, Emily Dickinson and all that we have been will be lost. It will be as if it had never been. So knowing that the death of the Earth is inevitable and that space travel is very, very difficult it is never too early to start." Joe Straczynski - creator of Babylon 5.

Humans are like yeast in a closed bottle – proliferating and battling over limited substrate. We will come round to realize, once our technology makes it more feasible, that the answer is to found new worlds off the earth.

Space migration is almost certain if technological and scientific trends will continue (extrapolation of current trends). Just some unpredictable factors which we do not know and perhaps cannot know ("wild card") could avoid this. But we shall be limited more or less to our solar system, unless qualitatively new breakthrough in physics is accomplished which will make it possible to travel faster than light speed, or to "modify" space of time.

Less or equal to 2400 AD.

In 1000 years this will become reality.

Not likely for a long while.

Will only happen if there is massive investment to make it happen.

Despite the foreseeable increasing in scientific knowledge in this matter it doesn't seen that human problems require such and effort in the next millennium.

Within a century or more.
 
 

Benchmarks
 
 

Building of huge exploradomes on North and South Poles Earth with massive regular flights to have yuppies enjoy 4 months’ summer no-stop for two months’ work, every semester.

See answers to #3 and #4.

Scientific institutions on the moon.

Human communities living on the Moon by 2020 and Mars by 2070. Other solar systems by 3000.

Monitor space developments.

Abundance of material resources available and prioritized for this purpose.
 
 

100
 
 

Space travel becomes practical and relatively cheap.

The next 100 years will see the exploration of the solar system, and probably some small scale stations on other planets. Settlements outside the solar system are likely to take a few centuries more.

Some Americans reach Mars, but come home.

Space travel becomes practical and relatively cheap.

First Earth’s and Moon’s orbital stations, mostly for scientific purposes.

Return on investment for private LEO launchers. ROI for extraterrestrial industry. Establishment of infrastructure (housing, transportation, power, water, phone, etc.) on Mars. Establishment of self-replicating systems off-Earth. Trade between two space-based entities. Establishment of quasi-national entities in space.

We still haven't done much—a few colonies on Mars, a huge shielded solar orbiter and dozens of long-term missions by the well heeled. But the rest of us aren't sitting on our heels. The requisite science is proceeding apace.
 
 

500
 
 

Technology for long-distance travel develops.

Perhaps one space colony, with people still returning after a stint on Mars.

Rather big quantity of people living in near space.

Perhaps in 500 years space migration will become an elite hobby. (That is, if there is an elite).

An outpost on the Moon in 200 years. An outpost on Mars in 500 years.
 
 

1000
 
 

If all goes well, space travel might be possible.

Could just be a Mars colony.

Improvement of space traffic, settlement and living in space.
 
 

Low Probability Consequences
 
 

Other species make a return visit to Earth, colonizing our planet.

The discovery of life forms on other planets, creating a complex set of opportunities (scientific discovery, agriculture, ...) and dangers (infections with extraterrestrial parasites).

What if it is only the USA that wants space colonization? What if people living on the rest of the globe prefer money to be spent preventing famine at home? What if adherence to some kind of global ethics means this voice is heard?

If human life is ever wiped off the face of the Earth, it may still continue in one of the space settlements.

Illnesses due to stay in space, new threat for humans.

Interference from terrestrial governments, both current and long-term. War with Earth.

First, that Earth should come to be regarded as unimportant in human affairs, because all but one in a million people live off-Earth. (See #3 above). Second, that Earth may come to be resented as a hazard to navigation to the billions or trillions of co-orbiting space habitats that may come to comprise a future Dyson-sphere-like orbiting collective.

The whole of Globe becomes a colony of the wealthy living elsewhere.

Space colonies of rich people and earth just for poor.

Militarization and desecration of space.

Abandonment of Earth by 3000.

None.

Local wars which could end as a global World War.

Contact with a more advanced extraterrestrial civilization may enable us to leap-frog technological constraints; on the other hand, we must have ready responses to hostile aliens which may threaten our very own survival.

If we cannot get together better on Earth, this shouldn’t be a priority.
 
 
 
 

19. Interspecies Communications
 
 

Trajectory
 
 

Better understanding of other species continues to develop, leading to improving communications. Whether other species have important messages for us remains to be seen.

Probable for primates, whales, dolphins.

Communication with species like dolphins or apes has already taken place to some degree and is likely to develop further in the next 1000 years, but seems unlikely to have a major impact on humanity as these species are much less developed than humans, and therefore are unlikely to teach us major lessons.

Research with chimpanzees and gorillas suggests that communication with those and other species is a reasonable prospect within the relatively near future, perhaps the next 10-20 years. How substantive such exchanges might become depends on the intellectual capacities of other species, which I strongly doubt come close to those of adult homo sapiens. A good deal of valuable learning could be accomplished without much in the way of substantive exchanges.

Beside of extraterrestrials I do see any important achievements in next millenium. Better understanding of other species life, understanding its behavior, but only a little understanding of their mind.

Gradually the understanding of other species increases catalyzed by sustainable development strategy. The better they are understood and valued, the more probable is an increasing and qualitatively different communication with them. Return to the doctrine of the superiority of man can obstacle this development. In 100 years the basic notion of such possibility will already make us more tolerant and less selfish.

At first, what could be the content (ideas) of such a communication? The interspecies communication may be important for the creation of sustainable life on earth. The species are communicating each to other, but the mankind is the only one problematic kind yet.

No real gains.

Such contact would likely come from an advanced species rather than from us. The key question of accessibility remains crucial. Can any such species reach us or us them?

If you mean with other (known) earth species, forget it. Plants and animals, protozoa and dolphins all deserve our profound respect, protection and yes, love. But beyond 1) a powerful empathy for their condition and 2) learning how they (and we) can do the amazing things they do, like regenerate limbs, not much happens.

Wild Card of unknown impact (I guess it depends on what they have to say). Perhaps I’m a cynic but I think most people will probably ignore it. After all we can read the "body language" of different species and eco-systems now…we can decipher their pain, but most people don’t care.

Not so much active exchanges, as in directly communicating in an intelligent way, but unraveling the secrets of nature for applicability in human living.

Identical as primates; whales and dolphins are another kind of very interesting mammals. Perhaps some kind of communication will be possible one day and we shall find new "brothers and sisters" or at least "relatives" very close to us. But to predict is perhaps impossible. Look at eyes of your dog. You know each other for many years, you can be very close to each other but what happens in brain of your dog is pure mystery.

Depends on effect/resources.

Negligible likelihood.

Will make us aware of our place in the universe.
 
 

Benchmarks
 
 

Nothing happens.

Fito-terapy.

Contact. Scientific exchange. People exchange.

N/A, unless we consider basic humane treatment a benchmark. How about considering it a baseline instead?

Computerization of language translation could help make this happen.
 
 

100
 
 

500
 
 

1000
 
 

Low Probability Consequences
 
 

Mass psychiatric sessions for frustrated baboons, lost whales.

They come. Whoops! Need for a major rethink.

The intelligence of other species in use of humans can be a disaster or it can extend human capabilities enormously. The intelligence of other species in use of humans can be a disaster or it can extend human capabilities enormously.

Effect on human psyche.

As resilient as this planet is, we'd better keep our eye on the eco-ball. We are just beginning to understand how complex this rock really is. I, for one, don't want to be to cavalier about which strand I cut.

The more progress, the more concern for "rights" of animals – but how to manage their responsibilities?
 
 
 
 

Additional Comments
 
 

Many of the suggestions that are implied in this questionnaire are based on the apparent assumption that our species is fundamentally different than any other species, being able to ignore Darwinian evolutionary forces. It also may imply the perfectibility of individual humans, despite religious teachings to the contrary. Backlashes from various religions are to be expected with the coming technological changes; the anti-scientific movement in at least some parts of the USA are indications of how challenging such changes might be. The questionnaire also indicates a fundamental dissatisfaction with humans the way they are, in all of their diversity. Many of the most important technological breakthroughs for our species have happened in wartime, and a major new war may drive some of the technologies that are alluded to the questionnaire. And of course the truly important breakthroughs are likely to be unpredictable, arguing for continued large investments in fundamental science.

An unspoken consensus will bring onto the market place a definitive, biological brain cell fix, that will eliminate all forms of worry about the future. The side effect of this being cleverly and socially acceptably into all forms of diet foods will be to considerably increase stupid accident rates. But there again even the undertakers will be smiling as they will not have to worry that unless the accidents were high, the immortality clause (see above) would ruin their business.

The disappearance of humanity as a biological life form and its transcendence/assimilation into a system of robots/computers/networks. The conscious control of the creation of new ideas and theories, so that cultural innovation or scientific discovery would no longer be the result of rare genius, lucky coincidences and/or hard, repetitious work, but an automated process that can produce new insights immediately on demand. The appearance of new "parasitic" processes (such as computer viruses, religious cults, fad, crazes and urban legends or addiction to virtual reality or new drugs) that reproduce and spread very quickly thanks to super-efficient transport and communication media, but at the expense of the human/technological systems that support them. Substantial increase in average happiness/quality-of-life for humanity as a whole.

Economic systems. Given that money was not a major factor in most people’s lives 1000 years ago, and also given that most of world’s money now seems to exist in some kind of virtual reality, what is the 1000 year future of money? We’ve had barter, and we’ve had money. What happens after money?

Global warming (if it is even occurring) is a very trivial issue- it is too easily remedied with current technologies to warrant much concern. Same applies to ozone layer depletion. Most probably, any global climate change that takes decades can be countered by us fairly cheaply. (on Q.2)

We already have this- the issues are more to do with its deployment and utilization. But of course this is a matter of definitions- nothing is completely "safe" and what exactly does "abundant" mean? The average American small business has more "safe", raw power at its beck than did the Roman Empire. It's never enough. (on Q4)

Nanotech is the cumulation of the Industrial Revolution. In that sense it is simply more of the same- better products, smaller computers, stronger materials, etc. More interesting is the synergetics of advances in biotech, nanotech, informatics, computer science and so on (Q5&12).

This is obviously most important, if we intend to have a future, and Is something nation-states can really help with- mostly by downsizing themselves. The Soviet Union has provided us an example. As an aside: It is a shame that the breakup (which appeared quite plausible to this observer by the early 1970's) was so uncontrolled- it could have been a lot less messy. A "Foundation"-style think tank may be able to draw up the maps of dissolution for such events in the future e.g. for China, US, perhaps India. It appears quite plausible to this observer that none of the countries listed above will exist fifty years hence; the notion that they will exist is no more or less fantastic than the notion that they will not. Perhaps there is such a unit in the US government, it was not in evidence during the USSR meltdown- quite the contrary. This brings up the notions of "lock-in" and of "blindsiding": an unforeseen, but not necessarily completely unforeseeable, cascade of events makes history appear to jump its tracks; to move in directions not previously thought of. This kind of mindset was in evidence after the fall of the Soviet Union: the absurd notion of "the end of history" was floating about in what appeared to be intellectual circles. Some futurists "lock in" to a certain "framework", or stage, in which they make their predictions. For example, many of the predictions at the 1939 World's Fair were built on a framework of assumptions that did not have coherency. A more current example is the stock market's infatuation with the internet. Perhaps a question or two could be built around the above. (on Q7)

This gets a '5' for probability because it already exists. (on Q11)

Not quite sure what "continuum" is supposed to mean. There already exists an "ecosystem" of (discrete) machine intelligence, with billions of 1, 4 and 8 bit microprocessors on the lowest level, up to the teraflop supercomputers at the top of the food chain. The lowliest machines directly and indirectly support the evolution, care and feeding of the highest machines. This trend will most probably continue to elaborate. This leads directly to the next question (13.). (on Q12)

This is the single most hopeful item in this list. We are a temporary actor, the first bumbling form of semi-consciousness on this world. A round of intelligence amps (along with amygdala/hippocampal/neurochemical hacking) would sweep away all these other problems at a stroke. Many of these problems are a result of self-delusion: religion, nationalism, egoism, etc. We are still animals at heart (or "transanimals" if you will); most of our behavior is driven by our animal needs. (on Q13)

Say what? I really do not know what this is supposed to mean, nor do I think the questioner does. (on Q14)

Or choose not to end their lives at all, or to differentiate/merge with others, make multiple versions of themselves, etc. (on Q15)

If "they" are out there nearby (within 1000 light years), they're awfully good at hiding. I do not think "they" will have much of scientific value for us, or us for them, that can't be learned by other means. It would certainly be interesting to know of their history and art. Of much greater importance and immediacy is the possibly imminent contact with a truly alien intelligence right here on Earth- AI. Boris Kasporov spoke of this. (on Q17)

This is one partial solution to question 7., although "people" may not be the right "framework". (on Q18)

I am not quite sure what is meant by this. We already have fairly "substantive" communication with other species, e.g. dogs. It will probably become possible to amplify the intelligence of a chimp or a dolphin to the point where it can understand language, math, philosophy, etc. This might be a very rewarding line of inquiry-to receive a non-human outlook. Another possibility is to mentally merge (or hack their sensory systems) with a lower animal, via mind-machine interface. (on Q19)

I have answered this question on the assumption that you are referring to the classical biological humanity -- and not to the highly-advanced, highly-augmented, possibly entirely non-biological creatures that we will undoubtedly become by the year 3000. Also, it is unclear whether "to destroy" refers to voluntary replacement by some descendant (non-human) physical form, or the physical eradication of humanity against our desires. If most of humanity decides voluntarily to "extinct" itself, in favor of some superior physical or mental form, is this "to destroy"? (on Q7)

Generally-accepted interaction protocols -- yes, I would buy that. But generally-accepted values, goals and principles? I don't see how this is possible in a world of near-infinite variation available to each technologically-augmented/altered individual. Imposing monoculture uniformity on a top-down basis would almost certainly fail. Most "nanophiles" of my acquaintance would not stand for it! (on Q10)

Please pardon me for not being Politically Correct, but "spiritual holistic-centered consciousness" sounds like irrational New-Age gobbledegook to me. Sorry! I buy the part about conscious evolution, but the option-space is so vast that it is difficult to know what to say about it of a specific nature. (on Q14)

I found this question confusing and unclear. In making the above answers, I've assumed that this question refers to native terrestrial naturally-evolved non-human species, and does NOT refer to extraterrestrial (i.e. alien) species, or to artificial intelligence species, or to modified human species, or the like. Also, what is meant by "substantive exchanges"? If instead we are talking about advanced alien or AI intelligences, then I suppose my rating would change to 3/3/2 for this factor. (on Q19)

Exhaustion of natural as well as human resources resulting from improper utilization policy.

An idea: I propose to get a complex factor named "Conflict with nature". The people have conflicts each to other and to the nature as well, this might be considered as to be the same, from some point of view. Motivation: Our contemporary lifestyle is about 200 years old. Within this period, there was far more conflicts with people then with nature. The result is a slight unbalanced mind and structure of economy, policy, army, etc. Often written in news, that the army "helps" in a case of some disaster. The change of mind should appear: not "help", but a natural business in it. The same for politics to know: there are not only a market disasters. Basic facts: The last-1000-years-climatic-record says that the frequency of great changes is about 3-5 times per millenium. The Greenland was really green not so long in past. Large cities might be about 200 years old, the disasters with millenium-frequency did not hurt yet. Possible methods: Changing the policy of all power structures: now the nature is coming to be another power, besides USA, Russia ,China ,Third World, etc... Change of philosophy and modification of religion should bear the ability of mankind to reduce/increase population level. Within range of 100-200 years it is possible to reduce population in case of long-term climatic change without social disasters (perhaps). (on Q2)

A comment: Today the control mechanisms towards short-term changes are economies and politics. Towards long-term changes it is religion and ideas. Inside of the low development communities, these mechanisms are joined together (old civilizations, totalitarian regimes), whereas in the communities of quick changes they are segregated in some way.

I sense a strong ‘science fiction’ flavor in this project. I would like to point out that the Huxleyan Brave New World is neither a desirable nor an acceptable future for humanity. The Western God-complex rooted in Enlightenment, fanned by the so-called objective, scientific and rational spirit, and aided by industrialization, science and technology, market, money, and species arrogance may appear to be big and indomitable. In the final analysis, however, one has to be practical and seek to build a better and just future for all of us and not a ‘Brave New White World’ for a bunch of Western scientists and tech-maniacs. It is human volition and politics (not nanotechnology, bionics and all the rest of it) that will decide human future. To give just one example, there is a growing worldwide opposition to genetically-engineered seeds and crops, and the Western farmers who enthusiastically took to this high-tech fad are sorry and quite eager to switch to traditional seeds and crops. In 3000, humans will still be humans and not ‘Gods’. Of course, our forebears will have their own share of morons!

As a lifelong musician preparing for medical school, my preoccupation is with the duality of nature and art. I tend to approach human behavior in terms of two fundamental drives: the drive to understand and the drive to express. If there is anything we can be doing now to set the course, it is to recognize and integrate these two fundamental aspects of being human.

It’s better to change the "abrupt climate change" in Item 1 into "abrupt environmental change". Because the climate is usually a longer process than decade-span. The "abrupt environmental change" might include earthquakes, pest outbreak, plague and fatal disease spread out, etc. Collapse of the world’s financial order. World-wide or regional war armed with modern electronic or biological weapons. Organized crimes destroy human civilization. Collapse of the computer technology killed by computer virus.

Increasing complexity of the globe? Creative balance of global driving forces? The balance of female jing- energy/ male jang- energy in the planetary development. Global long term construction- global super-projects in construction in period 2050-2100! Theory, frame and possible apparent solutions of the consciousness society consciousness societies (according the vision the society, which follows information society, can be called e.g. consciousness or conscious society, where the ethical values create the basis for social practice and development.

All these factors need to: a) focus on more effective learning; b) have greater emphasis on how people can get on better in their relations with each other; and c) most of these developments depend on what we want to make to happen.

Severe overpopulation and extreme totalitarian government.

If we are to survive we must develop a world view. Seeing the beauty of the planet from outer space may help. Factors not mentioned: possible world and water shortage; economic system must change which has a much wider approach which measures all work such as voluntary, child care and harm to the environment (see work of Halil Henderson); population control, this must be reduced. Major threats; Closed mind fundamentalist thinking which is growing; terrorist use of nuclear weapons.

My answer to this question is similar to my answer to many questions, in that I see many dimensions in some of these questions that complicate the numerical responses. For instance, it might be highly improbable that humanity will avoid fairly abrupt climate change from the greenhouse effect in the next century (more abrupt than question 2 suggests), but rather likely that by the end of millenium we would be able to head off some asteroids/comets. Overall, however, I am very impressed by the questionnaire. (on Q1)

I didn’t quite catch the idea. But family forms will become multiple from all kinds of the present forms not as yet recognized as families. Single households, lesbo/homo families, extended families of different marriages or parts of them, community life forms, satellite families of young ones related to their parents any way, etc. The nuclear family function of the present is quite a new one from 1800s and it will loose its dominant role as the family form but still stay as one of the multiple forms. Family will be a network family living nodes of which are spread around the world at the largest or a local node of a person in connection to other people or even isolate at will. (on Q16)