What will lfe be like 100 years from now?

I honestly don't understand how we could possibly know what will happen in 100 years. So, in the absence of any real facts on the subject, here is something for your edification:


...or if that doesn't bring you down, how about


I think it is much healthier to our mental state to try to look for the silver lining in the mess we currently find ourselves in. :)

Tony
 

Aunt Marg said:
I'm convinced at the rate this world is going, there won't a world in 100 years, and if there is, I'm glad I won't be around to endure it.

What a disgrace it is... fracking, which is encouraging earthquakes, untold numbers of sea-life dying account the pollution and filth big industry is casting, landfill space at a premium, no more land for cemeteries, water woes around the world, food shortages in countries, extreme forest fires, flooding, the acute differential between the filthy dirty rich as compared to the poor (middle class today has all but evaporated away), and the list goes on.

I think people are fools to think that we can turn this world around and clean it up through carbon taxing, banning plastic straws, plastic bags, and other nauseating ideas our world leaders dream-up and concoct, not to mention the disposable mentality that plagues society today.

Mankind doesn't deserve to see this planet alive and well in 100 years.
Click to expand...


You seem to think it is an act of villainy to provide people with energy so that they can heat their homes and travel from one place to another. That's what "big industry" does. Yes, pollution results, but otherwise people live in mud huts and burn charcoal to cook dinner.

This winter in the "Great White North" why don't you turn off the lights and the heat? Become a "zero emitter." Don't burn wood, either, as that generates carbon emissions. Then write us a nice post in the spring about how things turned out.

The hypocrisy of people complaining about the evils of big business while using computers and iPhones, driving cars and living in toasty-warm houses never ceases to amaze me. Who provides these things? (Hint: It's not the Canadian government.) Yes, Bill Gates made a lot of money, but he contributed more to human development than Greta Thunberg could ever dream of doing.

You can always move to Mali and live in a mud hut, but then it's hard to get a good fiber optic connection to post your laments about corporate greed.
 
The song "As Time Goes By," was written in 1931. You probably remember it from Casablanca.

This day and age we're living in
Gives cause for apprehension
With speed and new invention
And things like third dimension

Yet we get a trifle weary
With Mr. Einstein's theory
So we must get down to earth at times
Relax relieve the tension

And no matter what the progress
Or what may yet be proved
The simple facts of life are such
They cannot be removed

You must remember this
A kiss is still a kiss,
A sigh is just a sigh
The fundamental things apply
As time goes by

And when two lovers woo
They still say, "I love you"
On that you can rely
No matter what the future brings
As time goes by

Moonlight and love songs are never out of date,
Hearts filled with passion, jealousy and hate,
Woman needs man, and man must have his mate,
That no one can deny

It's still the same old story
A fight for love and glory
A case of do or die
The world will always welcome lovers
As time goes by
 

fuzzybuddy said:
A hundred years from now? OMG, I'll be an ANCESTER.
Things will be very much like today, as it was for the last 10,000 years. We'll eat, sleep, have kids, have problems, have good times.
Click to expand...

For a really cool story about a group of people who no longer need to sleep and how that changes society read Beggars In Spain by Nancy Kress.
 
JimBob1952 said:
You seem to think it is an act of villainy to provide people with energy so that they can heat their homes and travel from one place to another. That's what "big industry" does. Yes, pollution results, but otherwise people live in mud huts and burn charcoal to cook dinner.

The hypocrisy of people complaining about the evils of big business while using computers and iPhones, driving cars and living in toasty-warm houses never ceases to amaze me. Who provides these things? (Hint: It's not the Canadian government.) Yes, Bill Gates made a lot of money, but he contributed more to human development than Greta Thunberg could ever dream of doing.
Click to expand...

You and I must have read two different posts but that doesn't seem possible because the words you quoted are the same words I read. Nowhere in her post did Aunt Marg say it was an act of villainy to provide energy to people, she only objected to fracking which is a very small portion of the production of petroleum products.

She also didn't object to big industry, she objected to the pollution and filth they add to our environment. And we know that big industry could reduce the amount of pollution and filth they add to the environment but many of them don't.

To me it isn't hypocrisy to use the products of big industry while also expecting them to be more responsible for minimizing their impact on the environment.
 
Aunt Marg, how much do you know about fracking? My son-in-law is an engineer with a natural gas company, and has been working with that source of energy all his adult life. He has explained a lot about the subject to me, and although I started out with the (I have to say it, politically correct) concept that fracking is one of the all-time evils inflicted on this planet, he's managed to convince me of two things:

1. Fracking isn't perfect, but outside of solar and wind power, it's pretty much the cleanest form of energy production we have. Much cleaner than coal or oil. Certainly safer than nuclear. And,

2. All the knee-jerk reactions against fracking would make a lot more sense if the people indulging in them stopped driving their cars, flying in planes, or turning on electricity in their homes. They can't have it both ways.
 
Sunny said:
Aunt Marg, how much do you know about fracking? My son-in-law is an engineer with a natural gas company, and has been working with that source of energy all his adult life. He has explained a lot about the subject to me, and although I started out with the (I have to say it, politically correct) concept that fracking is one of the all-time evils inflicted on this planet, he's managed to convince me of two things:

1. Fracking isn't perfect, but outside of solar and wind power, it's pretty much the cleanest form of energy production we have. Much cleaner than coal or oil. Certainly safer than nuclear. And,

2. All the knee-jerk reactions against fracking would make a lot more sense if the people indulging in them stopped driving their cars, flying in planes, or turning on electricity in their homes. They can't have it both ways.
Click to expand...
People just like to parrot stuff; simple virtue signaling.
 
Fracking isn't "energy production;" it's a method for extracting oil and gas from shale (mainly) and it often leads to groundwater contamination. From what I remember, the oil extracted is extremely viscous and needs to be thinned down with chemicals in order to be able to flow through the pipelines, and that mixture is extremely hazardous to the environment when a pipe bursts, which they often do.

Be skeptical of people who claim to be "experts" just because they work in the industry.
 
asp3 said:
fracking which is a very small portion of the production of petroleum products
Click to expand...

I'm correcting myself here, I was completely wrong here. Fracking does make up a majority of both our US petroleum production and our US natural gas production. So eliminating fracking would have a major impact on the availability of petroleum products and natural gas in the US.
 
Let me try to clear this fracking thing up. :) People who want to cuss but for various reasons prefer to do it indirectly so everyone knows what they really mean without actually saying the "f-bomb", will say things such as "the flippin' thing" or "the friggin thing", "the floppin' thing", "the freakin' thing".

So "the frackin' thing" is just another of those terms for those who have grown bored with flippin, friggin, floppin, freakin, and want something new but still just as obvious, to say.

So we have to get the frackin' thing out of the ground, and depending on where the frackin' thing is located, we have to use different means to do it. :)

I hope that clears thing up...

Tony
 
Barring something that knocks out our antiquated grid which would set us back God knows how many centuries, I see zero privacy in 100 years ...humans completely monitored and data analyzed by AI. Think present day China on steroids; heck, they'll probably be in control globally since they're getting their population more and more locked down while free people seem to have a propensity to be their own worst enemies.
 
asp3 said:
You and I must have read two different posts but that doesn't seem possible because the words you quoted are the same words I read. Nowhere in her post did Aunt Marg say it was an act of villainy to provide energy to people, she only objected to fracking which is a very small portion of the production of petroleum products.

She also didn't object to big industry, she objected to the pollution and filth they add to our environment. And we know that big industry could reduce the amount of pollution and filth they add to the environment but many of them don't.

To me it isn't hypocrisy to use the products of big industry while also expecting them to be more responsible for minimizing their impact on the environment.
Click to expand...
Thank you so very kindly, Asp, you're a gentleman. :)

You've captured the very essence and jest of where I was going with my post.
 
asp3 said:
You and I must have read two different posts but that doesn't seem possible because the words you quoted are the same words I read. Nowhere in her post did Aunt Marg say it was an act of villainy to provide energy to people, she only objected to fracking which is a very small portion of the production of petroleum products.

She also didn't object to big industry, she objected to the pollution and filth they add to our environment. And we know that big industry could reduce the amount of pollution and filth they add to the environment but many of them don't.

To me it isn't hypocrisy to use the products of big industry while also expecting them to be more responsible for minimizing their impact on the environment.
Click to expand...

I'm really reacting to Aunt Marg's belief
asp3 said:
You and I must have read two different posts but that doesn't seem possible because the words you quoted are the same words I read. Nowhere in her post did Aunt Marg say it was an act of villainy to provide energy to people, she only objected to fracking which is a very small portion of the production of petroleum products.

She also didn't object to big industry, she objected to the pollution and filth they add to our environment. And we know that big industry could reduce the amount of pollution and filth they add to the environment but many of them don't.

To me it isn't hypocrisy to use the products of big industry while also expecting them to be more responsible for minimizing their impact on the environment.
Click to expand...
Aunt Marg said:
Thank you so very kindly, Asp, you're a gentleman. :)

You've captured the very essence and jest of where I was going with my post.
Click to expand...

I did not mean to be ungentlemanly, nor to give offense.

As an apology let me post an appropriate tune:

 
JimBob1952 said:
I'm really reacting to Aunt Marg's belief



I did not mean to be ungentlemanly, nor to give offense.

As an apology let me post an appropriate tune:

Click to expand...
Jim, you're a gem! :)

Please don't think I was upset with you, as we all come here with our own take on this world, our beliefs, our ways and our means, and no matter how heated our debates, conversations, or even disagreements go, I always try and shake hands with those involved before I walk away from the conversation.

There's only one or two members here I refuse to be lady-like to, and they have no one else to thank other than themselves for receiving the fallout they receive from me, account their own immaturity.
 
Aunt Marg said:
Jim, you're a gem! :)

Please don't think I was upset with you, as we all come here with our own take on this world, our beliefs, our ways and our means, and no matter how heated our debates, conversations, or even disagreements go, I always try and shake hands with those involved before I walk away from the conversation.

There's only one or two members here I refuse to be lady-like to, and they have no one else to thank other than themselves for receiving the fallout they receive from me, account their own immaturity.
Click to expand...

Thanks AM, your perspective is always welcome. What I meant to say is that I'm trying to take the optimist side to your more pessimistic view. I hope I'm right but I'm nervous that you are instead.
 
Advanced smarter robots are the future. They will look, talk and act human
and they will be conscious with personality. Then they may demand rights.
The climates of the world will change for the worse.
 
I think a better question would be 'How would you like the world to be in 100 years time? It would be interesting to know of people's different views of the future.
 
We won't need other people to pleasure us. We'll be able to just press a button to stimulate a specific region of the brain and voila! Instant orgasm!
 


Back
Top