How will the world look in 2050?

[Perfection]

Natural disasters will wipe out half of human population.

That much?

Really, the Earth may suffer some climactic shifts, but these calls of gloom and doom seem rather unfounded.

 

[Fifty]

HAHAHAHAHAHA How can anyone take you serious again? HAHAHAHAHAHA

Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you a textbook ad Hominem argument. Often used to attempt to maintain some form of persuasive power against clearly superior arguments, this tactic is common among 1st graders and other non-intellectual groups.

 

[ChrTh]

Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you a textbook ad Hominem argument. Often used to attempt to maintain some form of persuasive power against clearly superior arguments, this tactic is common among 1st graders and other non-intellectual groups.

+2 points for correctly italicizing a latin phrase.

-4 points for making something up
-3 points for expecting us to believe you without any evidence or argument
-1 point for thinking anyone reasonable astronomer believes there are Canals on Mars
-10 points for criticizing me when all I'm doing is pointing out the main flaws in your being (see the previous three subtractions)

 

[Fifty]

+2 points for correctly italicizing a latin phrase.

-4 points for making something up
-3 points for expecting us to believe you without any evidence or argument
-1 point for thinking anyone reasonable astronomer believes there are Canals on Mars
-10 points for criticizing me when all I'm doing is pointing out the main flaws in your being (see the previous three subtractions)

What precisely did I make up?

I can't believe you would begin to contend that there is no evidence or argument for being careful about the future of pollution and nuclear technology. It is SUV driving gas guzzling soccer moms like yourself that will doom mother earth.


PS: According to Wikipedia, tons of people believe there are canals on mars.

 

[ChrTh]

What precisely did I make up?

I can't believe you would begin to contend that there is no evidence or argument for being careful about the future of pollution and nuclear technology. It is SUV driving gas guzzling soccer moms like yourself that will doom mother earth.


PS: According to Wikipedia, tons of people believe there are canals on mars.

What did you make up? Hmm, let me see:

Originally Posted by Perfection
While I admit that it would be awesome, I find your prediction unrealistic.


WRONG!

Meterologists have been recording the GGG (Green Glowing Gradient) for several generations now and have seen it steadily climbing.

suck on that.

Ok, so first you make up the GGG. Then you claim Meteorologists have been recording it (for several generations even!), and then you claim that it's been steadily climbing.

Do you deny this is all a fiction?

As for the Canals on Mars, yes, at one point tons of people believed in them.

However,

The arrival of the space probe Mariner 4 in 1965, which took pictures revealing impact craters and a generally barren landscape, was the final nail in the coffin of the idea that Mars could be inhabited by higher forms of life.

most of them are dead.

EDIT: PS, I drive an Echo and moved to a house that's 1.4 miles from where I work. I'm doing my part. Your part, unfortunately, is making stuff up and then getting upset when people disagree with your fiction.

 

[Fifty]

What did you make up? Hmm, let me see:


Ok, so first you make up the GGG. Then you claim Meteorologists have been recording it (for several generations even!), and then you claim that it's been steadily climbing.

Do you deny this is all a fiction?

It was a literary device, as I elaborated upon later on in the thread. Most people are able to distinguish such nuanced use of symbolism... I guess I forgot that some people just aren't endowed with the cognitive capacity to notice such subtleties.

As for the Canals on Mars, yes, at one point tons of people believed in them.

However,

most of them are dead.

How am I supposed to trust an encyclopedia that any old person can edit. Why don't you find a better source for your argument (and I use the term argument VERY loosely)

 

[ChrTh]

It was a literary device, as I elaborated upon later on in the thread. Most people are able to distinguish such nuanced use of symbolism... I guess I forgot that some people just aren't endowed with the cognitive capacity to notice such subtleties.

Literary device? C'mon, you're kidding right? You think making up stuff is a more compelling argument than scientific fact for a scientific issue?

How am I supposed to trust an encyclopedia that any old person can edit. Why don't you find a [/better source for your argument (and I use the term argument VERY loosely)

I used your link. You provided it. If you didn't trust it, why did you link to it in the first place?

This is a put-on, right?

 

[Fifty]

Literary device? C'mon, you're kidding right? You think making up stuff is a more compelling argument than scientific fact for a scientific issue?

excuuuuuuuuuuuuse me for trying to make my point in a clear and interesting manner. Not everyone has a graduate degree in atmospheric chemistry, so I certainly couldn't use the academic lingo I normally use with my colleagues.

I used your link. You provided it. If you didn't trust it, why did you link to it in the first place?

This is a put-on, right?

What the heck are you talking about? If you don't start making sense soon I'm just going to go to bed. YOU bring up some dubious claim from an encyclopedia that ANY PERSON can edit, and you call MY claim ridiculous. Look, I've already posted evidence that many people believe the canal theory, what more do you want?

 

[ChrTh]

What the heck are you talking about? If you don't start making sense soon I'm just going to go to bed. YOU bring up some dubious claim from an encyclopedia that ANY PERSON can edit, and you call MY claim ridiculous. Look, I've already posted evidence that many people believe the canal theory, what more do you want?

My quote from Wiki is from the same article you linked and provided as evidence. I'm not sure why you're not grasping that. Did you not read the article?

EDIT: I'm not imagining this, am I? This has to be a put on.

 

[Fifty]

My quote from Wiki is from the same article you linked and provided as evidence. I'm not sure why you're not grasping that. Did you not read the article?

EDIT: I'm not imagining this, am I? This has to be a put on.

OF COURSE I'm grasping it.

Here is the sequence of events, broken down so as to be easy to digest for you:

1. I post convincing evidence that many astronomers believe canals are on mars

2. You find some garbage from an encyclopedia that ANYBODY CAN EDIT (even a 5 year old) as some sort of refutation?? You have got to be kidding me! And now YOU act as if I am the one who is wrong??

This is getting rediculous dude.

 

[ChrTh]

OF COURSE I'm grasping it.

Here is the sequence of events, broken down so as to be easy to digest for you:

1. I post convincing evidence that many astronomers believe canals are on mars

The only evidence you posted is from "PS: According to Wikipedia, tons of people believe there are canals on mars."

2. You find some garbage from an encyclopedia that ANYBODY CAN EDIT (even a 5 year old) as some sort of refutation?? You have got to be kidding me! And now YOU act as if I am the one who is wrong??

This is getting rediculous dude.

You're telling me.

 

[Fifty]

The only evidence you posted is from "PS: According to Wikipedia, tons of people believe there are canals on mars."

Exactly. What about that is incorrect as evidence?


EDIT: Holy crap I just realized what you were saying. Uhg I feel like an idiot man sorry. ... That sentence is just so tucked away down there about canal theory being bogus that I really didn't see it.

 

[ChrTh]

Exactly. What about that is incorrect as evidence?

How can you use Wikipedia for evidence, and then criticize me for using Wikipedia for evidence, when it's the exact same article?

 

[Fifty]

I'm normally not this crazy man that was a brain fart of severe magnitude... you are right about the canal thing but that doesn't change my original point!


EDIT: I mean if you look at my original point, the canal thing was just a side note.

 

[ChrTh]

Well, I'm relieved to know that I'm not insane.

And I'm not disputing that we're doing nasty stuff to the environment, but the original point of the thread was ...

wait, what was it again?

...

Oh yeah, how the world would look in 44 years. If the clouds are going to glow green, I want to know why. "Pollution" ain't enough of an answer, because that might make them gray, but green ... and glowing? That sounds more radioactive than polluted.

 

[Fifty]

Well, I'm relieved to know that I'm not insane.

And I'm not disputing that we're doing nasty stuff to the environment, but the original point of the thread was ...

wait, what was it again?

...

Oh yeah, how the world would look in 44 years. If the clouds are going to glow green, I want to know why. "Pollution" ain't enough of an answer, because that might make them gray, but green ... and glowing? That sounds more radioactive than polluted.

well of course the cloud thing was more hyperbole than anything!

edit: and in retrospect, I probably shouldn't take old reruns of "sightings" on the scifi channel as being any indication of current astronomy

Jeez I almost feel like deleting or editing all those posts man I probably look like I'm crazy or on some sort of medication or off some sort of medication I should be on or something! x 10,000

All I was trying to say was that if we don't watch out, what we are doing today could come back and bite us later on.

 

[Perfection]

Oh yeah, how the world would look in 44 years. If the clouds are going to glow green, I want to know why. "Pollution" ain't enough of an answer, because that might make them gray, but green ... and glowing? That sounds more radioactive than polluted.

Radioactivity seldom makes things glow. It's just an odd coincidence that many radioactive elements have forms where they are phospherescent.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Jeez I almost feel like deleting or editing all those posts man I probably look like I'm crazy or on some sort of medication or off some sort of medication I should be on or something!

Medication, yes that's the word I was looking for.

 

[Headline]

IMO, USA will be in decline, with india and china the new superpowers. There will probably be a major war, and unless there is a nuclear war, the climate will stay roughly the same. There will probably be the same level of tension, but in different places. Australia will probably be still be ignored by the world powers.

45 years are pretty short. I doubt you will see the decline of USA. India will not become a superpower with its social caste system. There will be no nuclear war because of detente.

I predict the following
1. Oil price increase and level off. Coal refined diesel replaces crude oil as the main source of fossil fuel. China has increase demand of fossil fuel. However, due to the lack of natural resources in China, the Chinese economical growth slows down. USA and China compete for Russian coal. USA reserve its own coal. Russia become the main producer of fossil fuel.

2. Social unrest in China, USA and EU. Chinese will be fighting for civil liberty as the number of middle class increases. USA will have a political battle between the traditional white elite and the hispanic background white elite. A first hispanic white president will be elected. EU will have problem intergrating the economy because each region will want to control over EU's primary economic policy. I predict major industrial power will withdrawn from EU.

3. China will build up its military because of xenophobic characteristic of China. However, US will spend even more. There will be a new cold war between US and China. There will be no war between the two countries for 50 years. US and China's economy will be so interwinded that each country cannot afford to break the relationship. Globalization will be an unbreakable trend.

4. There will be a global great depression which rock the entire world. The overproduction of goods that exceed the demand and the lack of new well trained work force will result in a huge structural unemployment. The inability of China to handle the shift in economical model will cause a new great depression which is similar to that of The Great Depression.

5. A female US president will be elected as the aftermath of the depression.

 

[Chieftess]

In 2050 AD, China will win a histographic victory.

- Cuba will probably be more democratic, if not having multiple rebellions. When Castro kicks the bucket in the next 10 years or so, there's going to be power struggles.

- China will probably be a full fledged economic powerhouse and industrial base. (Hey, look at Russia in 1917. They were a "backwards nation", and turned that around in a few years or so.)

- India, and Brazil will be right behind China.

- There will probably be wars over the last droplets of oil and other resources.

- Europe will have most, if not all European nations under their flag, and probably be considered a nation.

- Africa will still have its' very loose continential 'nation' (it's all African nations except for Morroco, who tried to apply for European Union membership.). Some sub-Saharan countries will be industrialized (Nigeria, and others..).

- South America and North America will have their own nation-like treaties, respectively. (Not quite like the EU, but more along the lines of trade, and mutual defense).

- Asia... who knows. Maybe China might invade its' surrounding neighbors, with the Middle East trying to unify.