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.
If anti-aging guru Aubrey de Grey’s prediction of a 1,000-year lifespan is correct, then one may wonder what life might be like living for such a long time. The following timeline looks briefly at today’s world, and then offers a positive glimpse at how the future might unfold as we trek through the next millennium:
Present Day to 2100
We begin with assumptions that in the coming decades, scientists will conquer, or make manageable, many of today’s killer diseases, including humanity’s most hated scourge, aging. Futurist Ray Kurzweil discusses how technological progress, including ‘The Singularity’, may affect us, in the video below:
By mid-century, neural research provided scientists with a better understanding of consciousness, which encouraged many people to replace their biological neurons with nanomaterials that process data millions of times faster. With this quicker thinking upgrade, people can consider hundreds of options in a split second when making decisions, which raises intelligence levels and curbs aggrieve behavior.
By 2060, increasing numbers of people are opting for all non-bio bodies loaded with nano-computers that, on voice command; can appear a different age, race; or even gender; and are immune to disease and accidents. Should disaster occur, mind and memories auto-transfer into a new body allowing life to continue. Patients wake up in a fresh body with all the latest innovations, barely aware that they had died.
2100 to 2200
By 2100, population passed 10 billion, with only a scattering living offworld. Also at this time, humanity evolved from separate squabbling cultures into a peaceful global village. Triumphant Moon and Mars forays and other ventures have spurred interest in space as the world unites to explore the high frontier.
We now harness 100% of Earth’s energy output, earning us a Type I Civilization rating; an idea created by Nikolai Kardashev to chart the progress of intelligent civilizations. This increased energy enables us to control our weather (no more harmful storms and earthquakes) and create faster-than-light-speed travel.
2200 to 2500
By 2300, human population has grown to 11 billion; 4 billion live on Earth, 7 billion offworld. Space colonists alter their body size and molecular makeup to meet temperature, atmosphere, and gravity requirements of their new home planets. This has resulted in a wide diversity of human appearances throughout the galaxy. In meetings, some find it hard to believe we all share the same Earth ancestry.
In 2350, nanotechnologists began constructing a Dyson Sphere. This futuristic idea, proposed by astronomer Freeman Dyson, captures all the sun’s energy. To build this techno-wonder, tiles were produced in nanofactories and space faring nanorobots arranged them to encompass the Earth and sun.
Completed in 2400, this system accesses all of our star’s energy, and provides 252 quadrillion square miles of habitable space for colonization. Commanding this enormous amount of energy has raised Earth to a Type II Civilization enabling the development of powerful technologies that allow building space colonies throughout the Milky Way, and even sending distant probes into other galaxies.
2500 to 3000
During these five centuries, we mined energy from millions of stars, accumulating the huge power levels required to format wormholes and explore black holes. By year 3000, we became a Type III Civilization with incredible abilities. We can travel through time, instantly go to any place in the cosmos, and visit parallel worlds. What’s next for humanity? How about a digital-only existence? Stay tuned!
Conclusion
Experts believe that with strong worldwide focus, most of these events can be realized; and many who enjoy good health today, could achieve indefinite lifespan and live this 1,000-year future. Are you ready?
Dick Pelletier is a weekly columnist who writes about future science and technologies for numerous publications. He's also appeared on various TV shows, and he blogs at Positive Futurist.
Print •
Email •
permalink •
(17) Comments •
(4240) Hits •
subscribe •
•
•
•
•
•
COMMENTS
I can get behind the population numbers for this century, but they seem radically conservative for the later ones. What is the reasoning that says Earth’s population would actually decrease?
Quick question. How can there be a population increase if people opt for non-biological bodies? So far, I haven’t found any explanation on how such beings would reproduce (assuming they even want to).
@Dick
Am I ready? Sure. Bring it on!
For me the more tricky, and in a way interesting, question is whether we will manage to muster the “strong worldwide focus” needed to bring it about, and more importantly HOW we can do this.
@Christian C
Not really sure I understand the problem. Obviously, a non-biological existence will be accompanied by non-biological forms of reproduction, of that is what we want. Of we have managed to develop the technology to do the one, why wouldn’t we be able to do the other?
“Obviously, a non-biological existence will be accompanied by non-biological forms of reproduction”
I would have assumed so but I have yet to come across a good/clear explanation for how that would work and how it would be any different from just creating another robot. If I recall correctly, even Dick mentioned that there’s the problem of creating new consciousness and transferring it into a new body. It may be hard for you to understand seeing you have no interest in having children (that’s what you told me right?).
As humans evolve into non-biological beings, which could happen during the last half of this century, increasing populations may be dictated by need to provide colonists for offworld living; or even a carryover of current desires just to become parents.
Although it’s impossible for today’s minds to conceive how reproductions would be accomplished in this future time, one possibility might be to create a body using molecular nanotechnology; then simulate a consciousness with memories and emotions. This is how Ray Kurzweil hopes to one day bring back his father: clone a healthy body, simulate his mind and personality, and then bestow him with appropriate memories.
As to mustering up world support for a positive future like this, the problems are huge.
Most of our mainstream world does not believe that artificial intelligence will one day surpass humans in thinking ability, nor are they aware that conquering death has an excellent chance of becoming reality within their lifetime.
But promising events indicate that this barrier will not last forever. Recently, the PBS News Hour interviewed several members of a Singularity University Conference, talking about many of our futuristic topics; and our IEET site is attracting new readers on an almost daily basis. The dream moves forever forward!
I can’t imagine human populations ever shrinking in numbers.
In fact, during the transition from Type II Civilization status to Type III, our population could rise into the sextillions as we begin settling colonies throughout the galaxy.
“Most of our mainstream world does not believe that artificial intelligence will one day surpass humans in thinking ability,”
Most of the mainstream don’t believe, nor are they interested,
they may be more interested in Tom Cruise’s latest custody motion or Angelina Jolie’s earrings. @Chris, in the near future there’s no danger of underpopulation in certain regions; in Latin America there is plenty of reproduction going on.. you know how Catholics are.
You may have a point on most of mainstream society neither believing or caring about computers surpassing our ability to think, unless it involves a robot uprising . The same may be said about longevity to an extent. Didn’t you or someone prose an article about levels of interest towards longevity among different age groups?
@ Dick Pelletier
“one possibility might be to create a body using molecular nanotechnology; then simulate a consciousness with memories and emotions.”
The problem with that is that with all our knowledge and methods we still don’t have a very good understanding of what consciousness is or how it works. But playing with the method you suggested, I’ve brain stormed another possible way for non-organic humans to reproduce. If you’ve heard of DNA computing, them you would be aware that it is an alternative to silicon computing. I you can create a thinking machine based off of human DNA, then maybe two non-organic humans could produce another non-organic human that uses a DNA computing computing system based off the combination of the DNA of the two parents (They would have to utilize DNA computing based off of their former DNA). They may have to include quantum computing as well for any higher form of thinking. Does this make sense or sound practical?
@Christian: I find it baffling that you question the capability of uploaded/synthetic intelligences to reproduce whilst assuming the feasibility of said intelligences. Surely their production would be vastly more complicated than their reproduction, no? And why would Peter’s desire or lack thereof to have children be relevant to his ability to understand such synthetic reproduction?
” Didn’t you or someone prose an article about levels of interest towards longevity among different age groups?”
Wasn’t me.
(BTW, would you write a piece on what is modern about S. Cal., and what isn’t? Haven’t spent much time there, stayed in Lemon Grove, though. San Diego is a good place to be if one has big bucks)
Was going to post a reply to Christian, but I see others have beaten me to it. In any case it seems to me that the copying of a digitalised mind-file is a far more complete form of “reproduction” than the contribution of some sperm to the fertilisation of an egg. Not that I have anything against “natural” “reproduction” (except, obviously, the extreme pain and risks associated with childbirth), but it is neither especially natural (technology is just as natural) nor is anyone actually reproducing themselves. Just some of their genes.
The timeline suggested in the article for neural research to provide a better understanding of consciousness is mid-century, a post-Singularity era, at which time people will begin to replace their biological neurons with nanomaterials that process data millions of times faster.
It may require enhanced brains in this fashion before people would gain the intelligence to opt for replacement of all their biology for non-bio bodies, circa 2060.
These enhanced humans could be as different from us 2012’ers as we are to our caveman ancestors. Our crude 2012 lives and social issues could be reduced to distant memories of a forgettable past.
I envision a future humanity that has overcome violence, crime, wars; and ethnic and religious disagreements.
Only when we reach this point in our evolution, will we be able to muster the technologies to head for the high frontier and take our place among advanced civilizations.
Will the future unfold in this optimistic way? Time will tell.
Funny that you mentioned crime. Just recently from my sociology class I received an excerpt from Emile Durkheim’s essay “Rules of the Sociological Method” titled “The Normality of Crime”. Here’s part of a summary; According to Durkheim’s anaylsis, the only way to completely do away with murder, for example, would be for every member to develop intense respect for all other members. If that, happened, Durkheim points out, then the crime of murder might disappear, but previously minor offenses would then seem more serious. In a society of saints, he says, the crime of murder would not be a problem, but perhaps the “crime” of insulting others would be.
To sum it up, Durkheim makes the argument that crime isn’t just normal in society, it is a paradoxical necessity because it is the existence of crime that affirms the “collective conscience” of the values and beliefs of said society. Even if a serious crime, such as murder or thief, were completely abolished, which I personally doubt, some other offense would rise to the status of “crime”. Even something as minor as insulting or annoying someone. I would expand more on this but I have to leave on vacation with my family. Be back in a week.
You make a good point; however, Durkheim is talking about today’s humans without tomorrow’s brain enhancements.
When we reach mid-century after neuroscientists have unraveled many of the mysteries of consciousness and molecular nanotechnology has advanced making it possible to replace neurons with non-biological nanomaterials that allow thought processing millions of times faster, we’re looking at a type of intelligence that’s almost unimaginable with today’s minds.
Our future humans cannot be compared with today’s crude examples of humanity. Without enhanced brains, we would never be able to advance into this positive future.
Final comment before I leave. I don’t think it would make much of a difference. It like the Futurama quote “the more things change, the more they stay the same”. Also, there may be a fine line between being positive and being naive.
“however, Durkheim is talking about today’s humans without tomorrow’s brain enhancements.”
Not even today’s humans, Durkheim lived a long time ago. What concerns me most is the near future of dystopia: mobsters and gangsters benefit as much as anyone else by material progress. Yet if you are correct on colonising space then it does not have to be permanent; crooks can live on one planet, straights can live on another.
@Chris: You are right to include this quote,
“there may be a fine line between being positive and being naive.”
That was quite true in the past, the original transhumanists suffered from Future-Rapture. But today very few are naive.
The biggest problem with this hypothetical timeline is that it doesn’t account for LENR. Clean, very cheap, and super abundant energy from LENR will free our economy from the main bottleneck of growth, and will also allow man to easily, cheaply, and frequently escape the Earth’s gravity well, thus changing the above dynamic with mass immigration to our solar system this century. By the way, expect the first commercial LENR generator to be introduced to the market this year.
“A volume about the size of a #2 pencil eraser of water provides as much energy as two 48-gallon drums of gasoline. That is 355,000 times the amount of energy per volume – five orders of magnitude.” ( http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/New-LENR-Machine-is-the-Best-Yet.html ).
This phenomenon (LENR) has been confirmed in hundreds of published scientific papers: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJtallyofcol.pdf
“Over 2 decades with over 100 experiments worldwide indicate LENR is real, much greater than chemical…”—Dennis M. Bushnell, Chief Scientist, NASA Langley Research Center
“Total replacement of fossil fuels for everything but synthetic organic chemistry.”—Dr. Joseph M. Zawodny, NASA
By the way, here is a survey of all the companies that are bringing LENR to commercialization: http://www.cleantechblog.com/2011/08/the-new-breed-of-energy-catalyzers-ready-for-commercialization.html
IEET 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,
Williams 119, Trinity College, 300 Summit St., Hartford CT
06106 USA
Email: director @ ieet.org phone:
860-297-2376
. The same may be said about longevity to an extent. Didn’t you or someone prose an article about levels of interest towards longevity among different age groups?
IEET Blog
I can get behind the population numbers for this century, but they seem radically conservative for the later ones. What is the reasoning that says Earth’s population would actually decrease?