Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies






The IEET is a 501(c)3 non-profit, tax-exempt organization registered in the State of Connecticut in the United States. Please give as you are able, and help support our work for a brighter future.


Search the IEET
Subscribe and Contribute to:


Technoprogressive? BioConservative? Huh?
Quick overview of biopolitical points of view




whats new at ieet

The why and how of effective altruism

Humanism, Transhumanism, and Speculative Posthumanism

Promoting scientific and rational literacy to create a friendly global ideology that helps humanity

The death of our Republic is inevitable, but what should replace it?

Friendly Artificial Intelligence: Parenthood and the Fear of Supplantation

Our Paradoxical Economy - Courtesy of Technology and the Lack of Basic Income


ieet books

The Future of Business
Author
Ed. Rohit Talwar


comments

dobermanmac on 'Longevity will lead to Overpopulation - we need to consider our options now' (Jul 6, 2015)

rmk948 on 'Condoms are So Hundred Years Ago: Why Better Birth Control for Men Would Be Better for Everyone' (Jul 5, 2015)

Vinayagamoorthy on 'Practopoiesis: How Cybernetics of Biology can Help AI' (Jul 5, 2015)

vanillahaze on 'Condoms are So Hundred Years Ago: Why Better Birth Control for Men Would Be Better for Everyone' (Jul 4, 2015)

Valkyrie Ice on 'Longevity will lead to Overpopulation - we need to consider our options now' (Jul 4, 2015)

spud100 on 'How to Survive the End of the Universe' (Jul 3, 2015)

Alexey Turchin on 'How to Survive the End of the Universe' (Jul 3, 2015)







Subscribe to IEET News Lists

Daily News Feed

Longevity Dividend List

Catastrophic Risks List

Biopolitics of Popular Culture List

Technoprogressive List

Trans-Spirit List



JET

Enframing the Flesh: Heidegger, Transhumanism, and the Body as “Standing Reserve”

Moral Enhancement and Political Realism

Intelligent Technologies and Lost Life

Hottest Articles of the Last Month


Universal Basic Income—The Foundation of a Technically Advanced Society
Jun 15, 2015
(47952) Hits
(6) Comments

Should Politicians be Replaced by Artificial Intelligence? Interview with Mark Waser
Jun 12, 2015
(19266) Hits
(3) Comments

Will Artificial Intelligence be a Buddha? Is Fear of AI just a symptom of Human Self-Loathing?
Jun 17, 2015
(11289) Hits
(5) Comments

Split the Earth: 50% for Humans, 50% for Protected Biodiversity Zones
Jun 21, 2015
(10368) Hits
(1) Comments



Comment on this entry

Earth 2063: a Brief Glimpse at Life Fifty Years into the Future


Dick Pelletier


Ethical Technology

January 03, 2013

We narrate this glance into the future from the point of view of someone looking back from 2063.


...

Complete entry


COMMENTS



Posted by DSAvery  on  01/03  at  10:20 AM

Nice , but some things will never happen.  Space Elevators are so fraught with danger as to be a non starter idea. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_elevator_safety for the number of problems that need working around to make them safe.





Posted by Dick Pelletier  on  01/03  at  02:45 PM

Although the technologies necessary to build a space elevator do not exist today, by the 2040’s, if molecular nanotechnology and artificial intelligence continue to advance exponentially, this wonder tech may become possible.





Posted by Christian Corralejo  on  01/03  at  02:55 PM

I don’t think building it is the problem.  Its the potential hazards that would threaten a space elevator and its constructors/users that are the problem.  Here’s what the Wikipedia page says:

For early systems, transit times from the surface to the level of geosynchronous orbit would be about five days. On these early systems, the time spent moving through the Van Allen radiation belts would be enough that passengers would need to be protected from radiation by shielding, which adds mass to the climber and decreases payload.[54]

A space elevator would present a navigational hazard, both to aircraft and spacecraft. Aircraft could be diverted by air-traffic control restrictions. All objects in stable orbits that have perigee below the maximum altitude of the cable that are not synchronous with the cable will impact the cable eventually, unless avoiding action is taken. One potential solution proposed by Edwards is to use a movable anchor (a sea anchor) to allow the tether to “dodge” any space debris large enough to track.[31]

Impacts by space objects such as meteoroids, micrometeorites and orbiting man-made debris, pose another design constraint on the cable. A cable would need to be designed to maneuver out of the way of debris, or absorb impacts of small debris without breaking.





Posted by Dick Pelletier  on  01/03  at  03:34 PM

Most arguments against the SE assume that today’s world will not change over the next thirty or forty years, but technologies will not stand still.

For example, radiation dangers could be eliminated with genetically-engineering people to become immune to the threat.

And as molecular nanotechnology advances, many believe this could provide nano-robots that with tomorrow’s technology, may even be able to create an ‘immune’ area around the SE to protect it from space objects and debris.

Exponentially-advancing technologies could solve all issues that stand in the way of developing this easy access to space.

However, some believe that one day we will harness ‘anti-gravity’, which would make the SE unnecessary. Wild concept, but who knows?

Will the future advance in such an optimistic manner? Positive futurists believe that it will.





Posted by Frank Glover  on  01/03  at  06:11 PM

Agreed. Space Elevators will be possible, but not practical.

Those who think of them as an ultra-tall structure that may collapse, don’t understand that it’s an object that’s actually in geostationary orbit (its center of mass, anyway) that happens to be long enough to reach the ground. However…

It’s a slow ride through the VanAllens (most rockets use high-thrust transfers to GEO or escape, and don’t linger in them) to reach the geostationary (and by definition, zero inclination) orbital point…that you may not have wanted. Not everyone needs to go to GEO, many users will want/need much lower and/or different inclination orbits, but the lower you get off the structure, the more horizontal velocity you must quickly generate on your own.

And they’re a stationary target for any objects that are in anything *other* than geostationary orbit. Every orbiting object crosses (or coincides with) the equator, and sooner or later, it’s going to be at that particular longitude…

And the necessary light-but-strong structural materials will also improve the case for rockets and all other flying machines.






Add your comment here:


Name:

Email:

Location:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

HOME | ABOUT | FELLOWS | STAFF | EVENTS | SUPPORT  | CONTACT US
SECURING THE FUTURE | LONGER HEALTHIER LIFE | RIGHTS OF THE PERSON | ENVISIONING THE FUTURE
CYBORG BUDDHA PROJECT | AFRICAN FUTURES PROJECT | JOURNAL OF EVOLUTION AND TECHNOLOGY

RSSIEET Blog | email list | newsletter |
The IEET is a 501(c)3 non-profit, tax-exempt organization registered in the State of Connecticut in the United States.

Contact: Executive Director, Dr. James J. Hughes,
56 Daleville School Rd., Willington CT 06279 USA 
Email: director @ ieet.org     phone: 860-297-2376