Obviously there would be problems with this. Do you promote modern civilization lasting forever, or are the problems it would cause(fish extinct, farm animals suffering in much greater number, etc.) not worth it? There's no way it can end without causing a large amount of suffering.
If civilization could last forever
- Thread starter rainforests1
- Start date
Clueless Git
Plant powered
One problem being that whatever's modern today will be very 'yesterday' by tomorrow.
The only thing that preserves modernity is constant change.
The only thing that preserves modernity is constant change.
Blobbenstein
.......
as long as they don't redesign the wheel, we'll be ok.
Heat death of the Universe springs to mind..
We could eke out our last trillion years in a matrix powered by a Duracell battery. Well, we could convert the last remaining matter to power a matrix, and last a very very long time, not forever though.
Heat death of the Universe springs to mind..
We could eke out our last trillion years in a matrix powered by a Duracell battery. Well, we could convert the last remaining matter to power a matrix, and last a very very long time, not forever though.
beancounter
The Fire That Burns Within
Blobbenstein
.......
We could maybe do better than a Dyson sphere. If you had a hundred billion people living in a low powered matrix, and could convert matter into energy, we could live a lot longer than the life of the Sun..If you could convert the whole galaxy gradually into energy.
Last edited:
FortyTwo
Custom Title
Two words
Dyson sphere
Even those civilizations won't last forever.
We'd just be helping along the extinction of the Universe, making each little light go out a bit faster.
beancounter
The Fire That Burns Within
The universe won't last forever with or without a Dyson sphere, so the OP is moot.
I think you guys might be interpreting the wording in the OP just a smigeon too literally! Just saying.
beancounter
The Fire That Burns Within
You've heard the phrase "Take the ball and run with it", right?
...or in this case "take the sphere"....
To answer the OP, yes, I support civilization lasting "forever", but for that to work out we obviously need to solve a number of problems related to overpopulation, future-proof energy sources and pollution. The birth rate in industrialized countries is mostly below the rate needed to sustain current numbers (at least here in Europe), so in that sense there is hope.
Blobbenstein
.......
Industrialise the world, grow oil algae, get everyone watching soaps, and the population will decline, from what I've read.
FortyTwo
Custom Title
The entire question is like setting up a marathon race, putting a snail at the starting line, and ten seconds in wondering what's going to happen when the snail gets to the end.
yakherder
老外
It either has to continue expanding to support itself or or has to end.
I'd be equally happy going to Mars or going back to pre stone age,
I'd be equally happy going to Mars or going back to pre stone age,
Blobbenstein
.......
There is enough iron around to stop us going back to the stone age...just think of all those thousands of miles of steel railways...we'd go back to the iron age at the most.
I can see you as a Roman soldier.
FortyTwo
Custom Title
Blobbenstein
.......
one thing that worries me about going back to the stone age, iron age etc, is all the nuclear stuff that is sitting around, like power stations, weapons, waste....that might be an issue.
yakherder
老外
It's just a daydream A collapse not catastrophic enough to somehow eliminate everything from agriculture to electronics would pretty much just make life horrible for anyone with a healthy sense of empathy or self preservation. Perpetual resource based expansion is the best realistic answer I can visualize. Most of the better theoretical options aren't realistic. We're stuck on this path until we evolve, which will probably involve a gradual dampening of the emotions that once played an important role in keeping small egalitarian bands together, but now just serve to depress us as we view a world that just seems completely wrong with no hope of ever being fixed.
A collapse not catastrophic enough to somehow eliminate everything from agriculture to electronics would pretty much just make life horrible for anyone with a healthy sense of empathy or self preservation. Perpetual resource based expansion is the best realistic answer I can visualize. Most of the better theoretical options aren't realistic. We're stuck on this path until we evolve, which will probably involve a gradual dampening of the emotions that once played an important role in keeping small egalitarian bands together, but now just serve to depress us as we view a world that just seems completely wrong with no hope of ever being fixed.
