• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

How much of this is really going to happen?

Make a list of the 15 things. I'm not interested in watching a 15 minute video when I could read a list in a couple minutes or less.
 
I stopped watching after they predicted a 'colony' on Mars.

But I'll make my own prediction. In 2050 I won't be around to check if any of their predictions came true.
 
This is 99942 Apophis.

And no, it's not going to hit the earth in 2029 or in 2036.

About 15 years ago there was a considerable scare, as it was impossible to rule out (although the odds were slim) an impact. The the astronomers acquired more data, fixed the orbit more precisely, and the chances dropped to zero.

At present, the uncertainties are large enough that a 2068 collision is still possible, although at something like the level of 1 chance in 150,000.

As to the other question, at present we don't have a good technique to destroy Apophis. The 1998 clunker "Armageddon" had the right idea, and is just in the range where we might actually deflect Apophis. The biggest objection is that turning a single object into a cloud of debris does not materially reduce the damage done by an impact. While this is true as far as it goes, the objection falls apart if the explosion occurs early enough that the debris cloud is significantly larger than the Earth at the time of impact, since then much of the cloud will not impact Earth at all, or at least not all at once.
 
My paternal grandfather lived 'til age 92. My maternal grandfather is 88 right now.

So I'd say there's a good chance I live a long life without serous complications.

I'll report back here whenever I get my time machine up and running.
 
9. Colonization of Mars

Before 2050? No. I think there's a good chance of a manned mission to Mars before 2050, but "colonization"? No. A very optimistic possibility is having a permanent scientific base there, similar to the ISS or what exists in Antarctica. Anything beyond that is crazy.
My prediction: 0.001% chance.

8. Nuclear Fusion

I think it's a reasonable possibility that we'll have viable, economical, nuclear fusion reactors by 2050. By no means certain, but I'll put my predication at 70%.

7. Interstellar Exploration

I am a fan of the breakthrough Starshot idea that is referenced here, but honestly the technology necessary for it to work hasn't been developed yet, the funding to do it on the scale necessary doesn't exist. So I don't find it likely at all that this will be done by 2050. 0.05%.

6. Ice Free Arctic. This seems the most likely so far, but I don't know enough about the science of climate change to know when this is predicted to happen. Not going to venture a probability estimate for this one.

5. Apophis hitting earth. As I understand it the orbit of Apophis is well enough known that we know it's not going to hit the earth (in the near future), so no, not going to happen. 0%.

4. Chocolate extinction. Very unlikely. Chocolate is so valuable that people will find solutions to the problems discussed. They mention genetic engineering. Greenhouses seem like another solution. 0.01%.

3. Antibiotic resistance. I think this is a very important problem, though I won't venture a guess as to how severe it will become by 2050.

2. AI Apocalypse. Some consider worries along these lines to be completely unfounded, others think this is our most dangerous existential risk. I think there are some valid concerns about the dangers of AI, though I'm relatively optimistic, and also think 2050 is pretty soon: 1%.

1. New Countries. It's likely that the map of the world will change by 2050 in some ways. I doubt anyone can make an accurate prediction about what those changes will be.
 
shemp said:
I predict that by 2050 the world will be drowning in craft beers, mostly IPAs.
Click to expand...

Hasn't that already happened? ;)

I predict that in 2050 it will have been a fad from an earlier era. Craft beers and IPAs will still exist, but they will be something that old people drink. The young, hip, fashionable people of 2050 haven't been born yet, for the most part.

Gen Z'ers will be middle-aged and older Millenials will be approaching 70.
 
shemp said:
I predict that by 2050 the world will be drowning in craft beers, mostly IPAs.
Click to expand...
Some years ago I read a prediction that some time before then the world will have tipped over on its axis from the weight of saved National Geographic magazines. But I like your disaster better, as we have a hope of drinking our way out of it.
 
I do say it like it's a bad thing. I'm sick of the competition to see who can jam the most hops into a pint of IPA. I'm sick of IPAs that strip off several layers of your lips like they were paint thinner.

I had a very nice local craft amber ale with lunch. I was able to taste my food.
 
shemp said:
I do say it like it's a bad thing. I'm sick of the competition to see who can jam the most hops into a pint of IPA. I'm sick of IPAs that strip off several layers of your lips like they were paint thinner.

I had a very nice local craft amber ale with lunch. I was able to taste my food.
Click to expand...

Genesee tastes like pee too, but I think it would be a mistake to blame beer in general for that.
 
WhatRoughBeast said:
As to the other question, at present we don't have a good technique to destroy Apophis. The 1998 clunker "Armageddon" had the right idea, and is just in the range where we might actually deflect Apophis. The biggest objection is that turning a single object into a cloud of debris does not materially reduce the damage done by an impact. While this is true as far as it goes, the objection falls apart if the explosion occurs early enough that the debris cloud is significantly larger than the Earth at the time of impact, since then much of the cloud will not impact Earth at all, or at least not all at once.
Click to expand...


I'm a big fan of DE-STAR. No idea if anyone will ever actually deploy it, but the technology and science seems sound, and it has uses beyond just asteroid defence.
 
Nuclear fusion and Ice free arctic seem mutually exclusive. Once nuclear fusion becomes viable, we would have a virtually unlimited energy supply forever. There would be no need to generate a single atom greenhouse gases (alternatively, we would have the energy to suck out the excess greenhouse gasses from our atmosphere and convert them to raw fuel).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom