Faster-than-light travel. Which is physically impossible, but whatever.
Physically impossible as per our current understanding of physics, mathematics, and technology.
Maybe not, if we where to find a cheat way with wormholes.
I’d like to support solarpunk development. I just want to live a simple life, with high tech in cooperation with the environment. We need it badly. I would fund so many community libraries. Don’t misunderstand me though. I still want space travel, but I no longer trust capitalists with it.
An end to the problem of aging, and death. Whether that means turning into cyborgs, I don’t care. I just want to choose when I die. Not having dying slowly happen to me like a terminal illness. Plus life is way too short. If I get tired of immortality let me off myself. But let me at least get tired of it first.
Honestly I’d be horrified knowing that without aging, a traumatic, fatal, accident becomes more and more likely as time passes to the point of being inevitable. Always on edge for that moment when it all suddenly comes to an end.
That sounds like the gambler’s fallacy to me. Time alone wount make an accident more likely, it just means potentially mpre opportunities wheee an accident could occur. Sitting on your sofa today or 10,000 years from now makes no difference if the environment is the same. If you’ve played the lottery 10 times before you likely won’t win if you play again, if you play 100,000 times you still won’t win.
You shouldn’t be any more anxious about an unexpected accident than you are right now. Just without the worrying about factoring in aging.
I would fund a truly fair AI and a very gentle, but firm, self replicating robot army to enforce it’s benevolent will on everyone.
So basically SkyNet, after I make a pointer arithmetic mistake.
Ive been thinking for years that if we could put the (absolutely enormous) privacy concerns aside think of the environmental benefit of every major city in the world having an “AI” controlling the traffic lights and variable speed limits. Using numberplate recognition cameras and gps on every vehicle to optimise flow, reduce bottlenecks and minimise time spent in traffic.
That won’t work because you’re approaching the problem from the wrong angle; you’re trying to “fix” traffic by encouraging more traffic. If you want to improve car traffic the only possible solution is to make other forms of transport more appealing. It doesn’t really matter which form of transport you focus on, it could be trains, busses, bikes, walkability, etc; just as long as you ensure it’s as or more efficient than a car for the majority of journeys.
The only way to fix traffic is for there to be less traffic.
Well you arent wrong but its not like its a “pick one” situation. With the unbiased data from the AI you could optimise all forms of transport. If you can see that theres clearly a lot of people driving from point A to point B you can examine the why and implement better solutions.
Society wastes a great deal of time looking for the perfect solution while some good ones sit right under our nose. If the AI solution has a city of 1 million drivers saving 5 minutes each way on an average commute of an hour. Thats the equivalent of 166k cars not driving that day and everyone saves 10 minutes.
I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make and the metrics you’re using don’t really make sense. If one million people are driving with an average commute of 1 hour (personally I find it insane that that’s considered “normal” in some places, it should be an upper bound) and switch to a train which saves only 5 minutes each way they’d still save that same 10 minutes. Depending on what you mean by your “cars not driving” metric, that’s anywhere between 1 million cars (no more cars driving) and 255k cars (carbon emissions of 1m electric car commuters vs 1m national rail commuters, using this data).
That’s not even accounting for the induced demand previously mentioned, making driving more appealing only creates more drivers which makes driving worse.
And all of that is still only considering the traffic itself and not the effect of the infrastructure. Take a satellite shot of any random North American city and chances are a significant portion of it is just places to park a car. It’s a bit less common to see a city center dedicate half of its land to bike, bus, or train parking; that land is better used for people or business instead.
The specific numbers dont matter.
If you take 1 million cars with an average useage time of 1 hour a day and reduce that by 10 minutes thats roughly the same as taking 1 in 6 cars off the road from an emisions standpoint.
Make it 500,000 cars and reduce it by only 5 minutes its roughly the same as 41,000 cars worth of emissions that werent pumped out of exhaust pipes.
No it doesnt solve everything. Yes a well designed public transport system would be a much bigger environmental benefit. But its something that could be done with current tech and without massive infrastructure overhauls with a real tangible benefit for the environment and society.
The numbers do matter because the numbers are literally your entire argument. You’re arguing building for cars is more effective, you cannot make arguments about effectiveness without numbers. Alternative transport methods can be done with current tech since alternative transport methods literally existed before cars. There are plenty of examples of places that aren’t car-centric, and most major car-centric cities weren’t originally built around cars. I honestly have no idea how you could have thought that’s a remotely reasonable argument? It’s utter nonsense.
Even if your massive infrastructure overhaul argument was valid1, we’re literally talking about a hypothetical scenario where you can pump absurd amounts of money into a project.
1. It’s not, just build other infrastructure instead of more roads. From a strictly capitalist perspective it pays for itself when more space can be used for taxable business instead of the dead weight of parking, and those businesses are more accessible to foot traffic making them more profitable and therefore generating more taxes. Not to mention the maintenance costs.
Asteroid mining. This may still be too far off and too expensive. But the first person to get this working successfully will be a trillionare.
This plus fusion are the two things most needed to transition humanity to a space based civilization.
Asteroid mining is incompatible with current capitalism. Say you harvest an asteroid with 100,000 of platinum in it. You in theory now have trollions of dollars in platinum for the $40 billion you spent harvesting the asteroid, only you have now quadrupled the amount of platinum in the economy, crayering the price and totally ruining your company. It’s obviously a net good for humanity as a scarce resource is now abundant, but it is bad for capitalism because the ones who finaced the work are the biggest loser.
I did some googling and math. Global platinum market is 8 million oz a year. Current spot price is ~$900. That’s $7T per year. They would have a monopoly and be able to shut down all mines by undercutting the price selling at say $800/oz. If it cost $40 Billion to mine the asteroid, that means it would take 7 years to pay back the cost.
7 year payback is short for businesses. Commercial Solar is installed despite having a 10 year payback.
I think if mining economy worked like that, Saudi Arabia would have gone bankrupt by cratering the price of oil.
Oil jas constant demand and the Saudis have so much of it that it costs them very little to drill for it and store it. And digging a new well doesn’t immediately flood the market with 4x the annual production of oil.
I’m not arguing against asteroid mining. I am saying that it is fundamentally impossible under our current capitalist system. That’s why there has been zero advances in the concept in iver a decade.
They don’t have to sell all the platinum immediately. Just like DeBeers has mountains of diamonds they keep locked up in warehouses to keep the price controlled.
That has a real chance of existing? Something with clean power.
That I really want? Replicators. Man think about a life not having to cook or clean dishes.
That I really want? Replicators. Man think about a life not having to cook or clean dishes.
Drug addicted, Mafia made, trash fed makers from Transmetropolitan, specifically.
My appliance is on drugs
I LEARNED IT FROM WATCHING YOU!!!
Is transmet trending somewhere? I haven’t seen it quoted or memed in years but now twice in two days.
Not that I’m aware. Probably Baader-Meinhof.
To wit, coincidences are more noticeable than non-coincidences, and once you’ve noticed one it’ll be much easier to notice others you might have missed.
I myself once spent about a week seeing Curta hand-held mechanical calculators everywhere. Books, magazines, blog posts, youtube… I wasn’t complaining, of course, the Curta is an amazing piece of engineering, but still, it was a bit weird.
Guessing not the replicators from sg1.
So many stupid problems could be resolved with miniaturized fusion cells
Two chicks at the same time.
I know that not most woman aren’t in to a men just for his money, but the kinda chicks who will double up on a guy like me are!
Chicks dig guys with money!
Good point. I’m going with “giant robot”. Chicks dig giant robots.
Well yeah… but we call them gold diggers, not chicks.
Bacta Tanks. Maybe a few days in one would fix my back.
Naa I want a Sarcophagus from Stargate.
Although only use it when you need it.
Nano-tech medicine, for sure. Injectable swarms of individually dumb, tiny robots which are controlled by an external AI doctor.
Nanotech robots for garbage recycling.
Imagine if we dumped our trash into one end of a big fuckoff machine and out the other end it came out in microscopic pieces into hoppers for reuse or correct disposal.
Throw in an old appliance and out the other end comes the aluminium from the body, the steel, the copper from the wiring, the silica… you get the idea.
But they’d just realize we are all garbage and then gray goo the entire earth
Nah thats the dystopian version, op specified “Exotic” thats the one that doesnt go wrong and kill us all.
“Exotic” isn’t synonymous with “safe”
Dont tell me how my hypothetical science fiction invention works, you dont understand the hypothetical sciemce fiction research we would be hypothetically doing.
hypothetically cool, and very hypothetically legal
deleted by creator
I’ve been thinking along the same lines lately. A fully open source hardware and software architecture and implementation, to replace the closed “old world”.
deleted by creator
I imagine it would probably take someone obscenely rich choosing not to be rich anymore in order to make it happen. Which seems unlikely.
deleted by creator
How about a UBI? Do social policies count as technologies? They do in 4X games, so I’m going with it.
I would categorize UBI as a policy/law, more than a tech thing.
Yeah. But on the other hand, isn’t civics sort of a technology too? Policies were invented, no?
I guess you could say the UBI has already been invented, but I think practical implementation is important too. Same as if I’d said we should do fusion power or something.
It’s not really science fiction since there are scientists working on it right now, because capitalism is the brake of development. I would invest on photonic computer research, that would help advancement of society in all aspect.
I read an ieee paper a few years ago that went into why photonic computing failed and why it won’t ever succeed.
The problem is that photons are fat compared to electrons so circuits couldn’t be made as small as they are already today. When cmos was 500 nm and researchers weren’t sure if things could be made smaller, photonics made sense. But now they’re at 3nm process (yes it is a marketing label, but pitch is 24 nm ) . Visible light has a wavelength of 400nm. The wave function of a photon would smear across circuits that small.
Giving it all away to mutual aid groups to have them figure out local issues.
Combustible lemons. But failing that, a portal gun.
Universal translator
