I’m pondering how extensive the “civilized” areas of the world need to be (as in, one last domed city full of Brave New World clones, surrounded by lawless hordes who daily try to breach the force field, probably wouldn’t count). Rather than dropping in my own arbitrary percentage, perhaps you can integrate that into your choice somehow. I’d probably sum it up myself as a goodly portion of the world’s population is still subject to law and order and other such high ideals and is not in rapid decline as of the moment in question.
So obviously our civilization is facing plenty of possible threats, be it nukes and wars galore (genocide), global warming/flooding, general degradation of habitats, killer asteroids and other acts of God/The RNG, mass starvation, and so on. How likely is it that our worldwide culture will make it more or less intact to the year 2100 (2101 for you nitpickers)?
I voted 90%. It’s always possible there’ll be a civilisation destroying event but it would have to completely mess up every part of the world to properly erase “civilisation”. I think of the threats you mention a killer asteroid or something of that magnitude would be the only thing that could wipe out civilisation.
I voted 80%. We’ll probably muddle through, although the world of 2109 might be much poorer than ours in many ways. That’s with foreseeable trends. In my opinion, the biggest unknown is whether some paradigm-shifting breakthrough (like practical self-replicators, or a cure for aging) might lead to a huge advance in the human condition.
If you are referring to the American society/Western civilization, I give it a big goose egg. For America, we are on a steep decline right now and I give us thirty years, tops, and that’s being generous. For Western civilization in general, fifty years, tops.
100% guaranteed that Civilzation will survive…
-----if “record-keeping” includes writing on papyrus and clay tablets…
and if “a complex political instutution” includes having a tribal chief, a shaman and a class of warriors with bow and arrows, ruling over some peasants
Now, if in 2209 ya wanna have electricity and running water in a nice democratic society, then it’s gonna take a bit more work…
(…and a lot of luck to keep the crazies away from the nukes.)
100 years really isn’t that long of a time and the Romans took several centuries to get to a point where everyone agrees their civilization was gone, from Europe, and that was with rampaging hordes of Vandals running through. There aren’t enough uncivilized places in the world to rampage through the civilized world so our decline should take longer.
But if some super bacterium was produced that destroyed 70-80 of all crops then I think civilization would disappear very quickly and in the age of biologic weapons it’s possible so I went with 90% as well.
Well, in the last 100 years, we’ve survived two world wars, the cold war, and the doomsday predictions of the Club of Rome in the 1970s. I think it’s close to 100% chance of surviving the next 100 years. Petrol will be more expensive, there will be less wilderness, and there will still be a lot of poor people in Latin America, Africa and Asia, but civilisation is too wide-spread and well-entrenched to be killed very easily.
Civilizations on this planet seem to come and go on a regular basis. The only common thread being that none of them last forever. I see nothing special about this one that would cause it to last any longer than normal. The balancing act of keeping ( some large percentage of ) 7 billion human beings fed on a daily basis is bound to fail at some point, resulting in the destruction by fire of a large portion of the population and with it, the knowledge and skills to keep the power and transportation networks functioning. The resulting spiral of starvations should reduce the planet population back to the point where hunting and gathering again becomes a viable option. Hopefully, from that point, humans will understand the folly of over reliance on technology and turn it’s collective back on it.
All out (nuclear) war - unlikely to happen to all of them at the same time, and full-scale nuclear war is probably a lot less likely now than it has been in the last century.
Lack of food/water/energy - probably going to be a problem for a long time world-wide, but not really in the “first world”. If push comes to shove, there’s plenty of technology to keep everybody here fed, wet and with electricity, even if it means giving up other stuff. It might cause a few big political/power shifts, but it won’t destroy civilization as a whole - it’s much too valuable to discard if you don’t have to.
Sigh another primtivist. :smack: Population bomb theories are complete crap and despite the claims of the Club of Rome, Paul Erhlich, and Malthus such theories have never panned out. Starvation results from the failure to distribute food properly not lack of production. Also why the hell would you want us to be savages again, pathetic tribesmen living at the mercy of nature. Technology does not automatically better humanity but it does help. According to your idllyic society our life spans would decline by over two-thirds, and people would have no purpose but physical survival. Also why are you using a computer if you’re a primtivist shouldn’t you be in skins and grunting and eating raw rabbits?
I think the next 90 years is going to bring quite a bit of interesting changes. Radical changes in technology (especially around the 2030 or so mark) that will stress our current social structures. Political changes will ravage us as well.
I don’t think anything bad will happen, like a nuclear war or anything, but Civilisation as we know could come screeching to a halt or even be regressed to a period well before our current time very simply. Technology seems like an unstoppable force better than economic problems or the power of social conventions themselves.
I would never say it is 50/50, and 70-80% seems like a safe number. Higher than a coin flip, but lower than nearly certain.
I went with 90 because it’s not 100. And that fraction short of a hundred is to allow for the possibility of a meteor strike or some other natural disaster. Slim, but not zero.
I suspect there will be about the same difference between 2100 and 2000 as there was between 2000 and 1900. We will still recognize the world, grander, brighter, smellier, and danker.
Pretty much my reasoning. I figure our civilization has over a 99% chance of survival. So mathematically, of the available choices, I should have rounded it off to 100%. But I felt that 100% implied absolute certainty so I went with 90% instead.
If by ‘existing’ it means our current way of life, as it is, I only giving it 30%. That there be a human presence, around 100%, pending 2012-style doomsday scenarios, cosmic eradication or or an accidental (or deliberate) nuclear fallout.
I am giving a 50% chance that we will survive but greatly diminished.
My reasoning: I think oil ought to run out by 2090 (the news/magazines kept saying it’s going to run out soon. I just don’t know how soon). Time will also tell which side of the climate debate is right. I also have no idea how Earth’s resources are going to hold up.
Zero. There is no way that “our” civilization will survive. There may be a civilization but it will in no way resemble what we now know as Western, with America and other English-speaking nations at the top of the heap. China and India are going to be the empires of the future; America, the UK, countries like France and Spain, Australia, etc - these old-fashioned societies will be utter backwaters by the 22nd century, barely worth living in. They’ll be like Zimbabwe.
