Are You Optimistic That We Near a Coming Technological Utopia?

[Delta4Embassy]

Electric cars are hundred year old tech. But only just now becomming affordable and mass produced.

Optimistic? Uh, no.

Well, there must be a *need* for a technology for it to become adopted and part of everyday life. I think the commute of most major cities is so hellacious that a demand for flying cars has grown, and the smog and CO2 are issues that have increased demand for electric vehicles. I think a flying car that incorporates electric engines is the perfect fix for most of our need right now. Even if only half the population ever could afford them it would cut pollution and traffic by that same percentage and would be a boon to those who still bump along on the surface..

No one needed cellphones. Getting lost in the wild and dying was Nature's way of killing off those who couldn't navigate.

Well, mortality issues aside, apparently a lot of people these days see texting as a critical necessity for modern life.

Ya, like pagers were. What's a pager? Exactly.

 

[G.T.]

We are seeing a number of technologies coming along that seem to suggest that by 2050 we will have all the energy we will need as small communities or individual households, will be able to manufacture via 3D printing and nano-manufacturing anything we want or need, and we will have technology enhanced life, vigor and indefinite life spans.

How do you feel about where we will be in the year 2100 AD?

We will be at the stage where we decide do we all stay living and stop reproducing? Or do we forego immortality to continue to breed.

Why do you see a dichotomy between reproducing/breeding and indefinite life spans? I think we will need both. Given the freedom to choose, I think we still need a maintenance level of breeding, but where that number would be, I am not sure.

"Psychological consequences aside, Leonid Gavrilov, in "Demographic consequences of defeating aging," (presented at the Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence Conference, Queens' College, Cambridge, England, September, 2009) asks: "Is it possible to have a sustainable population dynamics in a future hypothetical non-aging society?"

In computer simulations, Gavrilov concluded that "population changes are surprisingly slow in their response to a dramatic life extension. For example, we applied the cohort-component method of population projections to 2005 Swedish population for several scenarios of life extension and a fertility schedule observed in 2005. Even for very long 50-year projection horizon, with the most radical life extension scenario (assuming no aging at all after age 50), the total population increases by 35 percent only (from 9.1 to 13.3 million)."

Paradoxically, the population might even decline "if some members of the society reject to use new anti-aging technologies for some religious or any other reasons (inconvenience, non-compliance, fear of side effects, costs, etc.)."

Immortal parents, if they had only one child per couple, would double the population over time. The population would not grow infinitely."

Would Immortality Become An Overpopulation Nightmare Psychology Today

It would grow infinitely if the life of even one, one single reproducer, is actually immortal and so are his offspring and they reproduce indefinitely down the chain.

Thats what immortality means. So reproduction is certainly going to take contemplating and dealing with, with certain restrictions as the "immortal" popularion grows. Rate of reproduction doesnt matter either so im not sure why he mentioned 50 years when immortal means infinity. Its not rocket science.

 

[JoshuaZ]

We are seeing a number of technologies coming along that seem to suggest that by 2050 we will have all the energy we will need as small communities or individual households, will be able to manufacture via 3D printing and nano-manufacturing anything we want or need, and we will have technology enhanced life, vigor and indefinite life spans.

How do you feel about where we will be in the year 2100 AD?

This vastly overestimates how soon these technologies will come online. 3D printing is only really good for making objects with nearly uniform composition. I don't know why you think we'll get lots of energy- as oil reserves run out, we'll need to focus on solar and wind which have lower EROEI. And it isn't at all clear that nano-manufacturing is even possible. And the Great Filter is looming. There are steps we can take to deal with that but right now almost none of them are happening (disclaimer: I'm the author of that last piece).

 

[JimBowie1958]

Electric cars are hundred year old tech. But only just now becomming affordable and mass produced.

Optimistic? Uh, no.

Well, there must be a *need* for a technology for it to become adopted and part of everyday life. I think the commute of most major cities is so hellacious that a demand for flying cars has grown, and the smog and CO2 are issues that have increased demand for electric vehicles. I think a flying car that incorporates electric engines is the perfect fix for most of our need right now. Even if only half the population ever could afford them it would cut pollution and traffic by that same percentage and would be a boon to those who still bump along on the surface..

No one needed cellphones. Getting lost in the wild and dying was Nature's way of killing off those who couldn't navigate.

Well, mortality issues aside, apparently a lot of people these days see texting as a critical necessity for modern life.

Ya, like pagers were. What's a pager? Exactly.

they were replaced by smart phones, and even so, some people still use them.

 

[JimBowie1958]

We are seeing a number of technologies coming along that seem to suggest that by 2050 we will have all the energy we will need as small communities or individual households, will be able to manufacture via 3D printing and nano-manufacturing anything we want or need, and we will have technology enhanced life, vigor and indefinite life spans.

How do you feel about where we will be in the year 2100 AD?

We will be at the stage where we decide do we all stay living and stop reproducing? Or do we forego immortality to continue to breed.

Why do you see a dichotomy between reproducing/breeding and indefinite life spans? I think we will need both. Given the freedom to choose, I think we still need a maintenance level of breeding, but where that number would be, I am not sure.

"Psychological consequences aside, Leonid Gavrilov, in "Demographic consequences of defeating aging," (presented at the Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence Conference, Queens' College, Cambridge, England, September, 2009) asks: "Is it possible to have a sustainable population dynamics in a future hypothetical non-aging society?"

In computer simulations, Gavrilov concluded that "population changes are surprisingly slow in their response to a dramatic life extension. For example, we applied the cohort-component method of population projections to 2005 Swedish population for several scenarios of life extension and a fertility schedule observed in 2005. Even for very long 50-year projection horizon, with the most radical life extension scenario (assuming no aging at all after age 50), the total population increases by 35 percent only (from 9.1 to 13.3 million)."

Paradoxically, the population might even decline "if some members of the society reject to use new anti-aging technologies for some religious or any other reasons (inconvenience, non-compliance, fear of side effects, costs, etc.)."

Immortal parents, if they had only one child per couple, would double the population over time. The population would not grow infinitely."

Would Immortality Become An Overpopulation Nightmare Psychology Today

It would grow infinitely if the life of even one, one single reproducer, is actually immortal and so are his offspring and they reproduce indefinitely down the chain.

Thats what immortality means. So reproduction is certainly going to take contemplating and dealing with, with certain restrictions as the "immortal" popularion grows. Rate of reproduction doesnt matter either so im not sure why he mentioned 50 years when immortal means infinity. Its not rocket science.

Well, true immortality is not going to happen. People will still die in accidents, due to rare disease, homicide and suicide, etc. But barring unnatural causes we will have no expiration date in and of itself. And also, the model contradicts intuitive thinking here. Apparently people do NOT have kids till they drop.

 

[G.T.]

We are seeing a number of technologies coming along that seem to suggest that by 2050 we will have all the energy we will need as small communities or individual households, will be able to manufacture via 3D printing and nano-manufacturing anything we want or need, and we will have technology enhanced life, vigor and indefinite life spans.

How do you feel about where we will be in the year 2100 AD?

We will be at the stage where we decide do we all stay living and stop reproducing? Or do we forego immortality to continue to breed.

Why do you see a dichotomy between reproducing/breeding and indefinite life spans? I think we will need both. Given the freedom to choose, I think we still need a maintenance level of breeding, but where that number would be, I am not sure.

"Psychological consequences aside, Leonid Gavrilov, in "Demographic consequences of defeating aging," (presented at the Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence Conference, Queens' College, Cambridge, England, September, 2009) asks: "Is it possible to have a sustainable population dynamics in a future hypothetical non-aging society?"

In computer simulations, Gavrilov concluded that "population changes are surprisingly slow in their response to a dramatic life extension. For example, we applied the cohort-component method of population projections to 2005 Swedish population for several scenarios of life extension and a fertility schedule observed in 2005. Even for very long 50-year projection horizon, with the most radical life extension scenario (assuming no aging at all after age 50), the total population increases by 35 percent only (from 9.1 to 13.3 million)."

Paradoxically, the population might even decline "if some members of the society reject to use new anti-aging technologies for some religious or any other reasons (inconvenience, non-compliance, fear of side effects, costs, etc.)."

Immortal parents, if they had only one child per couple, would double the population over time. The population would not grow infinitely."

Would Immortality Become An Overpopulation Nightmare Psychology Today

It would grow infinitely if the life of even one, one single reproducer, is actually immortal and so are his offspring and they reproduce indefinitely down the chain.

Thats what immortality means. So reproduction is certainly going to take contemplating and dealing with, with certain restrictions as the "immortal" popularion grows. Rate of reproduction doesnt matter either so im not sure why he mentioned 50 years when immortal means infinity. Its not rocket science.

Well, true immortality is not going to happen. People will still die in accidents, due to rare disease, homicide and suicide, etc. But barring unnatural causes we will have no expiration date in and of itself. And also, the model contradicts intuitive thinking here. Apparently people do NOT have kids till they drop.

Theres a reason for that: their bodies can no longer reproduce because of age.

Take that away, and you could get bored each 30-40 years and wanna pop more out.

There would definitely need to be limitations assuming we still cant live on another planet viably.

 

[JimBowie1958]

We are seeing a number of technologies coming along that seem to suggest that by 2050 we will have all the energy we will need as small communities or individual households, will be able to manufacture via 3D printing and nano-manufacturing anything we want or need, and we will have technology enhanced life, vigor and indefinite life spans.

How do you feel about where we will be in the year 2100 AD?

This vastly overestimates how soon these technologies will come online. 3D printing is only really good for making objects with nearly uniform composition. I don't know why you think we'll get lots of energy- as oil reserves run out, we'll need to focus on solar and wind which have lower EROEI. And it isn't at all clear that nano-manufacturing is even possible. And the Great Filter is looming. There are steps we can take to deal with that but right now almost none of them are happening (disclaimer: I'm the author of that last piece).

"A game-changer for product design, engineering and manufacturing processes, the Objet500 Connex3 features a unique triple-jetting technology. This combines droplets of three base materials to produce parts with virtually unlimited combinations of rigid, flexible, and transparent colour materials as well as colour digital materials – all in a single print run.

This ability to achieve the characteristics of an assembled part without assembly or painting is a significant time-saver, helping manufacturers to validate designs and make decisions earlier before committing to manufacturing, and bringing products to market 50% faster.
World s first multi-material full-colour 3D printer"

Here is a one medium at a time 3D printer for $340
"The printer offers an enclosed printing area and non-heated bed. It needs no calibration and has an auto-loading filaments system that notifies the user when the filament gets low. The extruder is a one-click fast release unit to make it easier to remove for cleaning or replacement. Da Vinci Junior 1.0 is also green needing only 75 watts of power to operate and uses biodegradable PLA filaments."
da Vinci Junior 1.0 3D printer brings 3D printing to the masses - SlashGear

And there is literally no project toolarge for 3D printing today.
Shanghai-based WinSun 3D Prints 6-Story Apartment Building and an Incredible Home - 3DPrint.com

Other topics about 3D are here, and I think you might be surprised what we can *already* make with 3D printing.

Tomorrow s Technological Utopia Future Tech LENR Indefinite Life Spans

 

[JimBowie1958]

We are seeing a number of technologies coming along that seem to suggest that by 2050 we will have all the energy we will need as small communities or individual households, will be able to manufacture via 3D printing and nano-manufacturing anything we want or need, and we will have technology enhanced life, vigor and indefinite life spans.

How do you feel about where we will be in the year 2100 AD?

We will be at the stage where we decide do we all stay living and stop reproducing? Or do we forego immortality to continue to breed.

Why do you see a dichotomy between reproducing/breeding and indefinite life spans? I think we will need both. Given the freedom to choose, I think we still need a maintenance level of breeding, but where that number would be, I am not sure.

"Psychological consequences aside, Leonid Gavrilov, in "Demographic consequences of defeating aging," (presented at the Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence Conference, Queens' College, Cambridge, England, September, 2009) asks: "Is it possible to have a sustainable population dynamics in a future hypothetical non-aging society?"

In computer simulations, Gavrilov concluded that "population changes are surprisingly slow in their response to a dramatic life extension. For example, we applied the cohort-component method of population projections to 2005 Swedish population for several scenarios of life extension and a fertility schedule observed in 2005. Even for very long 50-year projection horizon, with the most radical life extension scenario (assuming no aging at all after age 50), the total population increases by 35 percent only (from 9.1 to 13.3 million)."

Paradoxically, the population might even decline "if some members of the society reject to use new anti-aging technologies for some religious or any other reasons (inconvenience, non-compliance, fear of side effects, costs, etc.)."

Immortal parents, if they had only one child per couple, would double the population over time. The population would not grow infinitely."

Would Immortality Become An Overpopulation Nightmare Psychology Today

It would grow infinitely if the life of even one, one single reproducer, is actually immortal and so are his offspring and they reproduce indefinitely down the chain.

Thats what immortality means. So reproduction is certainly going to take contemplating and dealing with, with certain restrictions as the "immortal" popularion grows. Rate of reproduction doesnt matter either so im not sure why he mentioned 50 years when immortal means infinity. Its not rocket science.

Well, true immortality is not going to happen. People will still die in accidents, due to rare disease, homicide and suicide, etc. But barring unnatural causes we will have no expiration date in and of itself. And also, the model contradicts intuitive thinking here. Apparently people do NOT have kids till they drop.

Theres a reason for that: their bodies can no longer reproduce because of age.

Take that away, and you could get bored each 30-40 years and wanna pop more out.

There would definitely need to be limitations assuming we still cant live on another planet viably.

I agree that need to be some limits and I think that those limits will be emplaced by economics. While people will enjoy sex, they wont necessarily have to have kids. Even Catholics have an out by simply not doing anything to reverse nature's normal course.

I think the biggest cause of death will be people simply refusing to be physically rejuvenated because they are tired of life and want to move on. to a better life beyond the veil.

 

[G.T.]

We will be at the stage where we decide do we all stay living and stop reproducing? Or do we forego immortality to continue to breed.

Why do you see a dichotomy between reproducing/breeding and indefinite life spans? I think we will need both. Given the freedom to choose, I think we still need a maintenance level of breeding, but where that number would be, I am not sure.

"Psychological consequences aside, Leonid Gavrilov, in "Demographic consequences of defeating aging," (presented at the Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence Conference, Queens' College, Cambridge, England, September, 2009) asks: "Is it possible to have a sustainable population dynamics in a future hypothetical non-aging society?"

In computer simulations, Gavrilov concluded that "population changes are surprisingly slow in their response to a dramatic life extension. For example, we applied the cohort-component method of population projections to 2005 Swedish population for several scenarios of life extension and a fertility schedule observed in 2005. Even for very long 50-year projection horizon, with the most radical life extension scenario (assuming no aging at all after age 50), the total population increases by 35 percent only (from 9.1 to 13.3 million)."

Paradoxically, the population might even decline "if some members of the society reject to use new anti-aging technologies for some religious or any other reasons (inconvenience, non-compliance, fear of side effects, costs, etc.)."

Immortal parents, if they had only one child per couple, would double the population over time. The population would not grow infinitely."

Would Immortality Become An Overpopulation Nightmare Psychology Today

It would grow infinitely if the life of even one, one single reproducer, is actually immortal and so are his offspring and they reproduce indefinitely down the chain.

Thats what immortality means. So reproduction is certainly going to take contemplating and dealing with, with certain restrictions as the "immortal" popularion grows. Rate of reproduction doesnt matter either so im not sure why he mentioned 50 years when immortal means infinity. Its not rocket science.

Well, true immortality is not going to happen. People will still die in accidents, due to rare disease, homicide and suicide, etc. But barring unnatural causes we will have no expiration date in and of itself. And also, the model contradicts intuitive thinking here. Apparently people do NOT have kids till they drop.

Theres a reason for that: their bodies can no longer reproduce because of age.

Take that away, and you could get bored each 30-40 years and wanna pop more out.

There would definitely need to be limitations assuming we still cant live on another planet viably.

I agree that need to be some limits and I think that those limits will be emplaced by economics. While people will enjoy sex, they wont necessarily have to have kids. Even Catholics have an out by simply not doing anything to reverse nature's normal course.

I think the biggest cause of death will be people simply refusing to be physically rejuvenated because they are tired of life and want to move on. to a better life beyond the veil.

The more religious nuts that leave the merrier, i say!

 

[JimBowie1958]

Why do you see a dichotomy between reproducing/breeding and indefinite life spans? I think we will need both. Given the freedom to choose, I think we still need a maintenance level of breeding, but where that number would be, I am not sure.

"Psychological consequences aside, Leonid Gavrilov, in "Demographic consequences of defeating aging," (presented at the Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence Conference, Queens' College, Cambridge, England, September, 2009) asks: "Is it possible to have a sustainable population dynamics in a future hypothetical non-aging society?"

In computer simulations, Gavrilov concluded that "population changes are surprisingly slow in their response to a dramatic life extension. For example, we applied the cohort-component method of population projections to 2005 Swedish population for several scenarios of life extension and a fertility schedule observed in 2005. Even for very long 50-year projection horizon, with the most radical life extension scenario (assuming no aging at all after age 50), the total population increases by 35 percent only (from 9.1 to 13.3 million)."

Paradoxically, the population might even decline "if some members of the society reject to use new anti-aging technologies for some religious or any other reasons (inconvenience, non-compliance, fear of side effects, costs, etc.)."

Immortal parents, if they had only one child per couple, would double the population over time. The population would not grow infinitely."

Would Immortality Become An Overpopulation Nightmare Psychology Today

It would grow infinitely if the life of even one, one single reproducer, is actually immortal and so are his offspring and they reproduce indefinitely down the chain.

Thats what immortality means. So reproduction is certainly going to take contemplating and dealing with, with certain restrictions as the "immortal" popularion grows. Rate of reproduction doesnt matter either so im not sure why he mentioned 50 years when immortal means infinity. Its not rocket science.

Well, true immortality is not going to happen. People will still die in accidents, due to rare disease, homicide and suicide, etc. But barring unnatural causes we will have no expiration date in and of itself. And also, the model contradicts intuitive thinking here. Apparently people do NOT have kids till they drop.

Theres a reason for that: their bodies can no longer reproduce because of age.

Take that away, and you could get bored each 30-40 years and wanna pop more out.

There would definitely need to be limitations assuming we still cant live on another planet viably.

I agree that need to be some limits and I think that those limits will be emplaced by economics. While people will enjoy sex, they wont necessarily have to have kids. Even Catholics have an out by simply not doing anything to reverse nature's normal course.

I think the biggest cause of death will be people simply refusing to be physically rejuvenated because they are tired of life and want to move on. to a better life beyond the veil.

The more religious nuts that leave the merrier, i say!

That is a fairly bigoted statement. So you think the world could have done without all of its Christians, Jews and Muslims who have been scientists, researchers, engineers, and doctors?

lol, whatever.

 

[JoshuaZ]

We are seeing a number of technologies coming along that seem to suggest that by 2050 we will have all the energy we will need as small communities or individual households, will be able to manufacture via 3D printing and nano-manufacturing anything we want or need, and we will have technology enhanced life, vigor and indefinite life spans.

How do you feel about where we will be in the year 2100 AD?

This vastly overestimates how soon these technologies will come online. 3D printing is only really good for making objects with nearly uniform composition. I don't know why you think we'll get lots of energy- as oil reserves run out, we'll need to focus on solar and wind which have lower EROEI. And it isn't at all clear that nano-manufacturing is even possible. And the Great Filter is looming. There are steps we can take to deal with that but right now almost none of them are happening (disclaimer: I'm the author of that last piece).

"A game-changer for product design, engineering and manufacturing processes, the Objet500 Connex3 features a unique triple-jetting technology. This combines droplets of three base materials to produce parts with virtually unlimited combinations of rigid, flexible, and transparent colour materials as well as colour digital materials – all in a single print run.

This ability to achieve the characteristics of an assembled part without assembly or painting is a significant time-saver, helping manufacturers to validate designs and make decisions earlier before committing to manufacturing, and bringing products to market 50% faster.
World s first multi-material full-colour 3D printer"

Here is a one medium at a time 3D printer for $340
"The printer offers an enclosed printing area and non-heated bed. It needs no calibration and has an auto-loading filaments system that notifies the user when the filament gets low. The extruder is a one-click fast release unit to make it easier to remove for cleaning or replacement. Da Vinci Junior 1.0 is also green needing only 75 watts of power to operate and uses biodegradable PLA filaments."
da Vinci Junior 1.0 3D printer brings 3D printing to the masses - SlashGear

And there is literally no project toolarge for 3D printing today.
Shanghai-based WinSun 3D Prints 6-Story Apartment Building and an Incredible Home - 3DPrint.com

Other topics about 3D are here, and I think you might be surprised what we can *already* make with 3D printing.

Tomorrow s Technological Utopia Future Tech LENR Indefinite Life Spans

That 3D printing can work with multiple materials is not in dispute. The question is how well it works, and right now the answer is not amazingly well. How much that will change is tough to say. Even restricted to single materials, 3D printing is going to do some very impressive stuff. For example how many home goods are currently stored at say a store. Instead of having 10 colanders on hand, you could send the store an email and they'd print one on site for you read when you get there. There are a lot of things one can do even with just single material printing. But cost and other issues make it unlikely that multi-material systems will be a household device for the foreseeable future.

As for the last link, I'm not sure why you linked to it- I didn't comment about lifespans for a reason: that's one of the more plausible parts. I don't know if they'll be indefinite, but extended life expectancies seem likely at this point.

 

[JimBowie1958]

We are seeing a number of technologies coming along that seem to suggest that by 2050 we will have all the energy we will need as small communities or individual households, will be able to manufacture via 3D printing and nano-manufacturing anything we want or need, and we will have technology enhanced life, vigor and indefinite life spans.

How do you feel about where we will be in the year 2100 AD?

This vastly overestimates how soon these technologies will come online. 3D printing is only really good for making objects with nearly uniform composition. I don't know why you think we'll get lots of energy- as oil reserves run out, we'll need to focus on solar and wind which have lower EROEI. And it isn't at all clear that nano-manufacturing is even possible. And the Great Filter is looming. There are steps we can take to deal with that but right now almost none of them are happening (disclaimer: I'm the author of that last piece).

"A game-changer for product design, engineering and manufacturing processes, the Objet500 Connex3 features a unique triple-jetting technology. This combines droplets of three base materials to produce parts with virtually unlimited combinations of rigid, flexible, and transparent colour materials as well as colour digital materials – all in a single print run.

This ability to achieve the characteristics of an assembled part without assembly or painting is a significant time-saver, helping manufacturers to validate designs and make decisions earlier before committing to manufacturing, and bringing products to market 50% faster.
World s first multi-material full-colour 3D printer"

Here is a one medium at a time 3D printer for $340
"The printer offers an enclosed printing area and non-heated bed. It needs no calibration and has an auto-loading filaments system that notifies the user when the filament gets low. The extruder is a one-click fast release unit to make it easier to remove for cleaning or replacement. Da Vinci Junior 1.0 is also green needing only 75 watts of power to operate and uses biodegradable PLA filaments."
da Vinci Junior 1.0 3D printer brings 3D printing to the masses - SlashGear

And there is literally no project toolarge for 3D printing today.
Shanghai-based WinSun 3D Prints 6-Story Apartment Building and an Incredible Home - 3DPrint.com

Other topics about 3D are here, and I think you might be surprised what we can *already* make with 3D printing.

Tomorrow s Technological Utopia Future Tech LENR Indefinite Life Spans

That 3D printing can work with multiple materials is not in dispute. The question is how well it works, and right now the answer is not amazingly well. How much that will change is tough to say. Even restricted to single materials, 3D printing is going to do some very impressive stuff. For example how many home goods are currently stored at say a store. Instead of having 10 colanders on hand, you could send the store an email and they'd print one on site for you read when you get there. There are a lot of things one can do even with just single material printing. But cost and other issues make it unlikely that multi-material systems will be a household device for the foreseeable future.

As for the last link, I'm not sure why you linked to it- I didn't comment about lifespans for a reason: that's one of the more plausible parts. I don't know if they'll be indefinite, but extended life expectancies seem likely at this point.

I agree with most of that, but I think the development is about to speed up quite a bit.

This is the link I meant to post, sorry.

Tomorrow s Technological Utopia Future Tech LENR Indefinite Life Spans

 

[JoshuaZ]

We are seeing a number of technologies coming along that seem to suggest that by 2050 we will have all the energy we will need as small communities or individual households, will be able to manufacture via 3D printing and nano-manufacturing anything we want or need, and we will have technology enhanced life, vigor and indefinite life spans.

How do you feel about where we will be in the year 2100 AD?

This vastly overestimates how soon these technologies will come online. 3D printing is only really good for making objects with nearly uniform composition. I don't know why you think we'll get lots of energy- as oil reserves run out, we'll need to focus on solar and wind which have lower EROEI. And it isn't at all clear that nano-manufacturing is even possible. And the Great Filter is looming. There are steps we can take to deal with that but right now almost none of them are happening (disclaimer: I'm the author of that last piece).

"A game-changer for product design, engineering and manufacturing processes, the Objet500 Connex3 features a unique triple-jetting technology. This combines droplets of three base materials to produce parts with virtually unlimited combinations of rigid, flexible, and transparent colour materials as well as colour digital materials – all in a single print run.

This ability to achieve the characteristics of an assembled part without assembly or painting is a significant time-saver, helping manufacturers to validate designs and make decisions earlier before committing to manufacturing, and bringing products to market 50% faster.
World s first multi-material full-colour 3D printer"

Here is a one medium at a time 3D printer for $340
"The printer offers an enclosed printing area and non-heated bed. It needs no calibration and has an auto-loading filaments system that notifies the user when the filament gets low. The extruder is a one-click fast release unit to make it easier to remove for cleaning or replacement. Da Vinci Junior 1.0 is also green needing only 75 watts of power to operate and uses biodegradable PLA filaments."
da Vinci Junior 1.0 3D printer brings 3D printing to the masses - SlashGear

And there is literally no project toolarge for 3D printing today.
Shanghai-based WinSun 3D Prints 6-Story Apartment Building and an Incredible Home - 3DPrint.com

Other topics about 3D are here, and I think you might be surprised what we can *already* make with 3D printing.

Tomorrow s Technological Utopia Future Tech LENR Indefinite Life Spans

That 3D printing can work with multiple materials is not in dispute. The question is how well it works, and right now the answer is not amazingly well. How much that will change is tough to say. Even restricted to single materials, 3D printing is going to do some very impressive stuff. For example how many home goods are currently stored at say a store. Instead of having 10 colanders on hand, you could send the store an email and they'd print one on site for you read when you get there. There are a lot of things one can do even with just single material printing. But cost and other issues make it unlikely that multi-material systems will be a household device for the foreseeable future.

As for the last link, I'm not sure why you linked to it- I didn't comment about lifespans for a reason: that's one of the more plausible parts. I don't know if they'll be indefinite, but extended life expectancies seem likely at this point.

I agree with most of that, but I think the development is about to speed up quite a bit.

This is the link I meant to post, sorry.

Tomorrow s Technological Utopia Future Tech LENR Indefinite Life Spans

Can you clarify or make specific what you mean by speeding up quite a bit? I agree that 3D printing is going to have a large impact but I'm not sure it will have an impact on the scale you are imagining for a long time. The high cost of the devices themselves mean they will likely remain not home appliances for the foreseeable future. The real cost saving and improvement will be for businesses and maybe result in new businesses. The combination with self-driving cars may be very interesting.

 

[Darkwind]

No matter the absolute amount of money or how narrow the income differential the lower 1/3 of society feels put upon.

Productivity increases are deflationary by definition so the free spending will manage to screw themselves anyway.

Compared to 1915, much less 1900, we are already in a technological utopia and people ain't happy with it.

Hmmm, by 'utopia' I mean a society where there is no compelling reason to work or 'labor by the sweat of one's brow', we suffer from very few diseases, see little death or poverty any more and we have in effect a return to Eden of Biblical fame.

Society can, as you observe in your third point, have a utopian environment according to many and a large minority still not 'feel it'. But in this final stage of human social evolution, there wont be any basis for it at all other than the need to incarcerate violent criminals.

As to the free spending, yes, this is true as one cannot manufacture discipline, but also there wont need to be any monetary discipline. People will not need money, much like the subsistence farmers of the 18th century did not. They occasionally sold some things for some ' pocket cash' or to buy 'store bought clothing' and it will largely return to that kind of thing plus barter for more complex self-made items like cars and houses. You and your friends can make for yourselves anything you need, why the need for cash?

But what about the Morlocks?

 

[JimBowie1958]

No matter the absolute amount of money or how narrow the income differential the lower 1/3 of society feels put upon.

Productivity increases are deflationary by definition so the free spending will manage to screw themselves anyway.

Compared to 1915, much less 1900, we are already in a technological utopia and people ain't happy with it.

Hmmm, by 'utopia' I mean a society where there is no compelling reason to work or 'labor by the sweat of one's brow', we suffer from very few diseases, see little death or poverty any more and we have in effect a return to Eden of Biblical fame.

Society can, as you observe in your third point, have a utopian environment according to many and a large minority still not 'feel it'. But in this final stage of human social evolution, there wont be any basis for it at all other than the need to incarcerate violent criminals.

As to the free spending, yes, this is true as one cannot manufacture discipline, but also there wont need to be any monetary discipline. People will not need money, much like the subsistence farmers of the 18th century did not. They occasionally sold some things for some ' pocket cash' or to buy 'store bought clothing' and it will largely return to that kind of thing plus barter for more complex self-made items like cars and houses. You and your friends can make for yourselves anything you need, why the need for cash?

But what about the Morlocks?

Morlocks are just another Doom and Gloom Brigade fantasy. The ratio of food source to predator is exactly the opposite of what the Morlocks have with the Eloi, according to Wells the Eloi are few in number while the Morlocks are multitudinous. Wells scenario could never have developed in real life because it could not be sustained by a predator-prey food chain due to its inverse ratio of what such a thing requires.

 

[JimBowie1958]

We are seeing a number of technologies coming along that seem to suggest that by 2050 we will have all the energy we will need as small communities or individual households, will be able to manufacture via 3D printing and nano-manufacturing anything we want or need, and we will have technology enhanced life, vigor and indefinite life spans.

How do you feel about where we will be in the year 2100 AD?

This vastly overestimates how soon these technologies will come online. 3D printing is only really good for making objects with nearly uniform composition. I don't know why you think we'll get lots of energy- as oil reserves run out, we'll need to focus on solar and wind which have lower EROEI. And it isn't at all clear that nano-manufacturing is even possible. And the Great Filter is looming. There are steps we can take to deal with that but right now almost none of them are happening (disclaimer: I'm the author of that last piece).

"A game-changer for product design, engineering and manufacturing processes, the Objet500 Connex3 features a unique triple-jetting technology. This combines droplets of three base materials to produce parts with virtually unlimited combinations of rigid, flexible, and transparent colour materials as well as colour digital materials – all in a single print run.

This ability to achieve the characteristics of an assembled part without assembly or painting is a significant time-saver, helping manufacturers to validate designs and make decisions earlier before committing to manufacturing, and bringing products to market 50% faster.
World s first multi-material full-colour 3D printer"

Here is a one medium at a time 3D printer for $340
"The printer offers an enclosed printing area and non-heated bed. It needs no calibration and has an auto-loading filaments system that notifies the user when the filament gets low. The extruder is a one-click fast release unit to make it easier to remove for cleaning or replacement. Da Vinci Junior 1.0 is also green needing only 75 watts of power to operate and uses biodegradable PLA filaments."
da Vinci Junior 1.0 3D printer brings 3D printing to the masses - SlashGear

And there is literally no project toolarge for 3D printing today.
Shanghai-based WinSun 3D Prints 6-Story Apartment Building and an Incredible Home - 3DPrint.com

Other topics about 3D are here, and I think you might be surprised what we can *already* make with 3D printing.

Tomorrow s Technological Utopia Future Tech LENR Indefinite Life Spans

That 3D printing can work with multiple materials is not in dispute. The question is how well it works, and right now the answer is not amazingly well. How much that will change is tough to say. Even restricted to single materials, 3D printing is going to do some very impressive stuff. For example how many home goods are currently stored at say a store. Instead of having 10 colanders on hand, you could send the store an email and they'd print one on site for you read when you get there. There are a lot of things one can do even with just single material printing. But cost and other issues make it unlikely that multi-material systems will be a household device for the foreseeable future.

As for the last link, I'm not sure why you linked to it- I didn't comment about lifespans for a reason: that's one of the more plausible parts. I don't know if they'll be indefinite, but extended life expectancies seem likely at this point.

I agree with most of that, but I think the development is about to speed up quite a bit.

This is the link I meant to post, sorry.

Tomorrow s Technological Utopia Future Tech LENR Indefinite Life Spans

Can you clarify or make specific what you mean by speeding up quite a bit? I agree that 3D printing is going to have a large impact but I'm not sure it will have an impact on the scale you are imagining for a long time. The high cost of the devices themselves mean they will likely remain not home appliances for the foreseeable future. The real cost saving and improvement will be for businesses and maybe result in new businesses. The combination with self-driving cars may be very interesting.

Sure Josh, what I mean is that the factors that have increased technological progress will only be enhanced further as we increase the number of participating minds in specific technology development and they have faster communications that enable quicker evaluation and testing of ideas. Increased leisure time, cyborg enhancement of human minds, and the availability of a immense database of sorted testing data will move things along ever faster in every field of technology.

The cost of these machines is also coming way down as the tech becomes more mature. Look at computers for an example. When they were first invented they required many man hours to construct and maintain and were not nearly as powerful as the smart phone you forgot on your desk a few days ago. As time mozied on along, the speed with which computer advances happened was increasingly faster as more and more people got into the industry and advanced it till now computers are ubiquitous. Already with 3D printing tech, the Leonardo only costs about $340 today and will likely be much cheaper by 2020. The 3D printers of today can already make other 3D printers, so its kind of outside the bounds of any economic restrictions.

Yeah, what I can do with my self-driving flying car, and a battalion of robots is kind of a fantasy right now. Imagining all the things I could build and do is just exhilarating!

 

[Old Rocks]

We are seeing a number of technologies coming along that seem to suggest that by 2050 we will have all the energy we will need as small communities or individual households, will be able to manufacture via 3D printing and nano-manufacturing anything we want or need, and we will have technology enhanced life, vigor and indefinite life spans.

How do you feel about where we will be in the year 2100 AD?

We will be at the stage where we decide do we all stay living and stop reproducing? Or do we forego immortality to continue to breed.

Why do you see a dichotomy between reproducing/breeding and indefinite life spans? I think we will need both. Given the freedom to choose, I think we still need a maintenance level of breeding, but where that number would be, I am not sure.

"Psychological consequences aside, Leonid Gavrilov, in "Demographic consequences of defeating aging," (presented at the Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence Conference, Queens' College, Cambridge, England, September, 2009) asks: "Is it possible to have a sustainable population dynamics in a future hypothetical non-aging society?"

In computer simulations, Gavrilov concluded that "population changes are surprisingly slow in their response to a dramatic life extension. For example, we applied the cohort-component method of population projections to 2005 Swedish population for several scenarios of life extension and a fertility schedule observed in 2005. Even for very long 50-year projection horizon, with the most radical life extension scenario (assuming no aging at all after age 50), the total population increases by 35 percent only (from 9.1 to 13.3 million)."

Paradoxically, the population might even decline "if some members of the society reject to use new anti-aging technologies for some religious or any other reasons (inconvenience, non-compliance, fear of side effects, costs, etc.)."

Immortal parents, if they had only one child per couple, would double the population over time. The population would not grow infinitely."

Would Immortality Become An Overpopulation Nightmare Psychology Today

It would grow infinitely if the life of even one, one single reproducer, is actually immortal and so are his offspring and they reproduce indefinitely down the chain.

Thats what immortality means. So reproduction is certainly going to take contemplating and dealing with, with certain restrictions as the "immortal" popularion grows. Rate of reproduction doesnt matter either so im not sure why he mentioned 50 years when immortal means infinity. Its not rocket science.

Well, true immortality is not going to happen. People will still die in accidents, due to rare disease, homicide and suicide, etc. But barring unnatural causes we will have no expiration date in and of itself. And also, the model contradicts intuitive thinking here. Apparently people do NOT have kids till they drop.

From a personal point of view, I have allready had my two. Even with an indefinate lifespan, I don't want anymore. Also, my own life is an example of the expanding options we are seeing. First, I am 71. Second, I am still working full time in a steel mill as a millwright. Also, I am attending a university to finish up a degree in Geology. When I was born, such a combination was unheard of. I have met many people at school that are in my age peer group that are doing the same. And all expect to have some working time in their second academic careers.

For me, the present is actually approaching utopia. Just the access to knowledge that we now have is amazing.

 

[JimBowie1958]

We are seeing a number of technologies coming along that seem to suggest that by 2050 we will have all the energy we will need as small communities or individual households, will be able to manufacture via 3D printing and nano-manufacturing anything we want or need, and we will have technology enhanced life, vigor and indefinite life spans.

How do you feel about where we will be in the year 2100 AD?

We will be at the stage where we decide do we all stay living and stop reproducing? Or do we forego immortality to continue to breed.

Why do you see a dichotomy between reproducing/breeding and indefinite life spans? I think we will need both. Given the freedom to choose, I think we still need a maintenance level of breeding, but where that number would be, I am not sure.

"Psychological consequences aside, Leonid Gavrilov, in "Demographic consequences of defeating aging," (presented at the Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence Conference, Queens' College, Cambridge, England, September, 2009) asks: "Is it possible to have a sustainable population dynamics in a future hypothetical non-aging society?"

In computer simulations, Gavrilov concluded that "population changes are surprisingly slow in their response to a dramatic life extension. For example, we applied the cohort-component method of population projections to 2005 Swedish population for several scenarios of life extension and a fertility schedule observed in 2005. Even for very long 50-year projection horizon, with the most radical life extension scenario (assuming no aging at all after age 50), the total population increases by 35 percent only (from 9.1 to 13.3 million)."

Paradoxically, the population might even decline "if some members of the society reject to use new anti-aging technologies for some religious or any other reasons (inconvenience, non-compliance, fear of side effects, costs, etc.)."

Immortal parents, if they had only one child per couple, would double the population over time. The population would not grow infinitely."

Would Immortality Become An Overpopulation Nightmare Psychology Today

It would grow infinitely if the life of even one, one single reproducer, is actually immortal and so are his offspring and they reproduce indefinitely down the chain.

Thats what immortality means. So reproduction is certainly going to take contemplating and dealing with, with certain restrictions as the "immortal" popularion grows. Rate of reproduction doesnt matter either so im not sure why he mentioned 50 years when immortal means infinity. Its not rocket science.

Well, true immortality is not going to happen. People will still die in accidents, due to rare disease, homicide and suicide, etc. But barring unnatural causes we will have no expiration date in and of itself. And also, the model contradicts intuitive thinking here. Apparently people do NOT have kids till they drop.

From a personal point of view, I have allready had my two. Even with an indefinate lifespan, I don't want anymore. Also, my own life is an example of the expanding options we are seeing. First, I am 71. Second, I am still working full time in a steel mill as a millwright. Also, I am attending a university to finish up a degree in Geology. When I was born, such a combination was unheard of. I have met many people at school that are in my age peer group that are doing the same. And all expect to have some working time in their second academic careers.

For me, the present is actually approaching utopia. Just the access to knowledge that we now have is amazing.

Cool, sedimentology or volcanology?

 

[Old Rocks]

Given that Oregon is mostly about tectonic accretion and volcanics, probably more volcanoes than sediments. We have two very large old calderas and numerous smaller ones, a history of bimodular volcanism, and two large ophiolite areas also. For those interested in sediments we have some really neat sediments layed down from a series of floods that flushed as much as 500 cubic milles of water across Washington and down the Columbia Gorge in a matter of a week.

 

[SharpArrowhead]

I think tech will bring us some good benefits in some areas, not all around. Look at social media. Can't say that has helped people, maybe in terms of breaking news but other than that, it's just all noise.