Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Vox)   760 more years of this crap   (vox.com) divider line
    More: Fail, Doomsday argument, J. Richard Gott, J. Richard Gott III, Copernican principle, doomsday argument, percent chance, human race, Berlin Wall  
•       •       •

1610 clicks; posted to Fandom » and STEM » on 24 Sep 2020 at 12:39 PM (9 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

 
2020-09-24 1:15:01 PM  
8 votes:
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-09-24 10:45:19 AM  
8 votes:
That's dumb, and believing in it is dumb.

By the same argument as the wall, you could say that the timespan of humanity is 200,000 years, so we have between 132,000 years and 600,000 at 50% confidence.

On the flip side, for people, at every point in history you'd claim you're more likely to be in the second half of all people ever. So 10,000 years ago you'd say there's a fifty percent chance of humanity dying in 1500 years. Then 5,000 years ago you'd say 1200 years. Then 2,000 years ago you'd say 1000 years. And so forth. You'd be very wrong each and every time, but the argument would be the same each and every time.
 
2020-09-24 1:03:23 PM  
5 votes:
If humanity survives another 700 years i see no reason why it wouldn't survive far past that. Within 700 years we should have fusion and the ability to build O'Neil cylinders if not outright upload brains. The only way humanity dies out then is through artificial evolution making it so the humans at the time are to genetically or cybernetically different to be classified as homo sapiens.
 
2020-09-24 2:58:39 PM  
4 votes:
This 'extrapolation' reminds me of scientists categorically denying there is no other life in the universe, when there is zero proof one way or the other because the universe is too darn big and unknowable.
 
2020-09-24 1:21:48 PM  
4 votes:
Plus, barring some calamity like an asteroid melting the surface of the Earth, a nearby gamma ray burst, or killer robots wanting to exterminate us, there's just so many damn people spread to every corner of the globe that it small pockets of humanity would likely persist most disasters.

For example, a nuclear exchange between Russia and the US would really fark up the Norther Hemisphere, but chances are places like New Zealand and would still be able to survive because they are so far away from the destruction and fallout. Civilization would fall, sure, but even in the affected areas you'd probably see small pockets of humanity survive with a Theads-like quality of life. After a few hundred years of Mad Max style life some sort of human civilization would eventually come back.
 
2020-09-24 3:55:15 PM  
3 votes:
I'll put this article with the ones that claim it's possible that our reality is a holographic simulation in a system built by an incredibly advanced species.
 
2020-09-24 3:49:29 PM  
3 votes:

dittybopper: Anenu: dittybopper: Anenu: Within 700 years we should have fusion

Clean Fusion,
Clean Fusion,
I love ya,
Clean Fusion,
You're always a decade away!

Maybe if we actually funded fusion research that wouldn't be true.
[upload.wikimedia.org image 850x637]

So why haven't the Soviets/Russians done it?   Or the Chinese?    Or the Euro-peon Union?


Because they haven't actually funded it?

I think it doesn't matter though. We don't have the theory required so all the money in the world would still just result in banging rocks together with more expensive rock bangers and tinier smidgens of rock.
 
2020-09-24 1:42:54 PM  
3 votes:

Mad_Radhu: After a few hundred years of Mad Max style life some sort of human civilization would eventually come back.


That idea was never very credible to me.

We've got a vast store of knowledge.  They're called "books".   The people who survive could read them without any technology.    In them, especially things like physics and chemistry textbooks, you'd find the information to rebuild civilization *VERY* rapidly.  Especially since you've got examples all around you.

So it would maybe take decades to get to a technological society, but not centuries.

I mean, consider this:  With the knowledge of what is in high school physics books, you can build a telegraph, a telephone, and radio equipment.

Hell, I've got a 100+ year old Boy Scout handbook that shows you precisely how to  build a spark-gap radio transmitter and receiver, capable of transmitting a signal dozens of miles.   And you can scavenge/loot (depending on your skin color) the materials you need from the local hardware store, or maybe just from your own house.  Here is the Project Gutenberg version:  https://www.gutenberg.org/f​iles/29558/​29558-h/29558-h.htm It's on page 210.   It was expected that teen boys could build something like that.
 
2020-09-24 2:59:02 PM  
2 votes:

Anenu: dittybopper: Anenu: Within 700 years we should have fusion

Clean Fusion,
Clean Fusion,
I love ya,
Clean Fusion,
You're always a decade away!

Maybe if we actually funded fusion research that wouldn't be true.
[upload.wikimedia.org image 850x637]


So why haven't the Soviets/Russians done it?   Or the Chinese?    Or the Euro-peon Union?
 
2020-09-24 1:51:59 PM  
2 votes:

dittybopper: Anenu: Within 700 years we should have fusion

Clean Fusion,
Clean Fusion,
I love ya,
Clean Fusion,
You're always a decade away!


Maybe if we actually funded fusion research that wouldn't be true.
upload.wikimedia.orgView Full Size
 
2020-09-24 1:22:56 PM  
2 votes:
Is this an expiration for civilization or extinction of the human race?

The end of civilization is likely much sooner while extinction may require many millenia for humans that devolved back to the stone age to get wiped out.
 
2020-09-24 1:09:57 PM  
2 votes:

Anenu: Within 700 years we should have fusion


Clean Fusion,
Clean Fusion,
I love ya,
Clean Fusion,
You're always a decade away!
 
2020-09-24 1:02:09 PM  
2 votes:

SansNeural: nmrsnr: so we have between 132,000 years and 600,000 at 50% confidence.

...and whoever may be around 600,000 years from now will have that same 1/3 or 3x probability, right?


And whosoever shall be found
Without the soul for getting down
Must stand and face the hounds of hell
And rot inside a corpse's shell
 
2020-09-24 12:57:59 PM  
2 votes:

nmrsnr: so we have between 132,000 years and 600,000 at 50% confidence.


...and whoever may be around 600,000 years from now will have that same 1/3 or 3x probability, right?
 
2020-09-24 10:33:41 PM  
1 vote:

Anenu: If humanity survives another 700 years i see no reason why it wouldn't survive far past that. Within 700 years we should have fusion and the ability to build O'Neil cylinders if not outright upload brains. The only way humanity dies out then is through artificial evolution making it so the humans at the time are to genetically or cybernetically different to be classified as homo sapiens.


Classification has historically been based on the distance of other animals from us today. Thus the humans of the future, if they are differentiated enough to be a "new" species, should retain the same self-referential name and draw a line between themselves and us and rename us. Maybe Homo boomius or something.

At least, theoretically. Cladistics changes over time. Genome analysis has completely changed the modern approach and it is causing scientists to rearrange all the furniture in the tree of life. And some things that theoretically should be moved (like the Pan genus) isn't because the very foundation of the system is that we stand alone in our genus.

Which is why predicting anything relating to humans becomes such a bother. We can only go off of our present day knowledge and then say that the prediction is most likely to be wrong, because we don't do what we are supposed to do. We'll take what seems counterintuitive and force the world to conform as best it can with our demands. So I'm going on about TFA more than I am about your post, using the latter to show why the former is unlikely to hold true.

I gotta wonder how many predictions this guy made that turned out incorrect. Nobody talks about that in these articles about him. Just as with all prognosticators, he was right a half dozen documented times but they didn't tally up the others. If he is right he should be batting in the vicinity of 50% on these predictions. Statistical predictions can't actually be applied to specific events, they are only valid to groups with a particular number of samples depending on what the focus is. So he could actually be correct about us going extinct in the next generation and still be wrong about how he arrived at that prediction. Even a few successes don't validate it nor do failures invalidate it if the sample size is too small.

So this is purely a philosophical statement and nothing actually rooted in valid statistics.
 
2020-09-24 10:31:10 PM  
1 vote:

SansNeural: OlderGuy: Unscratchable_Itch: I'll put this article with the ones that claim it's possible that our reality is a holographic simulation in a system built by an incredibly advanced species.

If so, they are laughing their asses off...

How about not a simulation but a forgettably small subset of a larger reality.

Say like quarks comprise all matter here and bacteria wander about inside us without our explicit awareness of them, so we blunder around in the shadows of the True Reality unaware of it and it hardly noticing us or our Universe.

Perhaps black holes are merely cellular pores through which respiration and low level signaling occur.


All things are possible...  we might actually be an experiment in a test lab... make a self-sustaining planet, and introduce different species and observe how the planet reacts to them... dinosaurs were fun, but they didn't advance... scrap that, lets try mammals... LOL !
 
2020-09-24 9:05:26 PM  
1 vote:

OlderGuy: Unscratchable_Itch: I'll put this article with the ones that claim it's possible that our reality is a holographic simulation in a system built by an incredibly advanced species.

If so, they are laughing their asses off...


How about not a simulation but a forgettably small subset of a larger reality.

Say like quarks comprise all matter here and bacteria wander about inside us without our explicit awareness of them, so we blunder around in the shadows of the True Reality unaware of it and it hardly noticing us or our Universe.

Perhaps black holes are merely cellular pores through which respiration and low level signaling occur.
 
2020-09-24 8:05:26 PM  
1 vote:

dittybopper: Bennie Crabtree: dittybopper: Anenu: dittybopper: Anenu: Within 700 years we should have fusion

Clean Fusion,
Clean Fusion,
I love ya,
Clean Fusion,
You're always a decade away!

Maybe if we actually funded fusion research that wouldn't be true.
[upload.wikimedia.org image 850x637]

So why haven't the Soviets/Russians done it?   Or the Chinese?    Or the Euro-peon Union?

Because they haven't actually funded it?

I think it doesn't matter though. We don't have the theory required so all the money in the world would still just result in banging rocks together with more expensive rock bangers and tinier smidgens of rock.

The Russians *DID* fund it.  Does "Tokamak" ring any bells?


It can't just work, it has to work well enough, and have what comes out exceed what goes in by a sufficient amount that it's actually practical to build the thing for real-world use.

We've had working fusion for decades. Practical fusion remains the challenge. There was one experiment being planned to combine the two main reactor types, there's been suggestions for alternate fuels, with He3 being a particularly common suggestion, and it's generally agreed that it CAN be done, but we're simply not there yet, and there's going to be a whole lot of trial and error involved.

So, while I definitely think there needs to be WAY more funding into stuff like this (and way less into funding new ways to bomb people), it's not as simple as "we know how it'll work, we just need to a refine a prototype and we're good to go". We don't actually have the model for the practical reactor, and we're going to have to just keep trying ideas until something works, barring a breakthrough elsewhere in physics that makes the solution obvious.
 
2020-09-24 7:44:58 PM  
1 vote:

Bennie Crabtree: dittybopper: Anenu: dittybopper: Anenu: Within 700 years we should have fusion

Clean Fusion,
Clean Fusion,
I love ya,
Clean Fusion,
You're always a decade away!

Maybe if we actually funded fusion research that wouldn't be true.
[upload.wikimedia.org image 850x637]

So why haven't the Soviets/Russians done it?   Or the Chinese?    Or the Euro-peon Union?

Because they haven't actually funded it?

I think it doesn't matter though. We don't have the theory required so all the money in the world would still just result in banging rocks together with more expensive rock bangers and tinier smidgens of rock.


The Russians *DID* fund it.  Does "Tokamak" ring any bells?
 
2020-09-24 2:34:26 PM  
1 vote:

dittybopper: I mean, consider this:  With the knowledge of what is in high school physics books, you can build a telegraph, a telephone, and radio equipment.


And chunks of those devices lying around.
 
2020-09-24 1:43:49 PM  
1 vote:
I'd pencil that in on my calendar but I don't think I'll be around in 760 years. But that's a pretty handy way to make a safe 'end of the world' prediction.

Nuclear Armageddon, human exacerbated climate change, a supervolcano eruption that cools the Earth into an ice age and compromises food growth, and global war(s) {Or a combination of any of them} may make 760 more years a rosy prediction.

The main problem with predictions about the future is that we/they have nothing but guesses, some are educated guesses and some are wild loon calls but they all suffer from the fact that people have exactly zero ability to see into the future.
 
2020-09-24 12:55:47 PM  
1 vote:
nmrsnr:

Yeah, you needn't bother with "you could say" analogies.  His own projection of "12 to 18,000 years" is silly and meaningless enough. He should have at least put the low end of his range past his own lifetime so we'd be less likely to laugh in his face.

It's not that he's wrong.  Just that his prediction is meaningless.  I'm not even fully discounting the accuracy of his statistical jackoffery.  But to it's utility, my analogy is it's like "today I could have a nice day or I could have a not-so nice day."
 
Displayed 22 of 22 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.