Jump to content

21st Century Predictions


Recommended Posts

I predicted the population would get more decentralized because of the web. Pavonis then predicted that centralized populations would grow instead and disadvantaged urbanites wouldn't be able to leave because they'd need resources in the city. I then responded by saying I dont see why a growing urban population would prevent the growth of an out-of-city one. Then I cited the rise of online education and online social networking as examples. What's so incoherent about that?

 

I don't mind you think my vocabulary or way of explaining things is dumbed-down. You guys have no idea how I see you. I think your reasoning is dumb-down. I feel a lot of close-mindedness. Plus, you guys are the type of people that would watch NOVA.

Both predictions lack precision (time frame, location, etc). However, due to many factors (mainly the increases in agricultural technology and gmo's) people do not need to live in rural areas. Thus, more people are moving to urban areas.

 

http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/publications/urbanization/urban-rural.shtml

 

http://www.who.int/gho/urban_health/situation_trends/urban_population_growth_text/en/

 

http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/news/population/world-urbanization-prospects-2014.html

 

Surely as someone who enjoys studying trends should realize that increases in technology generally result in urbanization, not the other way around.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 103
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

The best thread Nightly has had in months.

I predict that beer will be popular in the 21st century.

Now it sounds like the rooftop scene in Thor. YOUR ANCESTORS CALLED IT MAGIC AND YOU CALL IT SCIENCE.

RA

 

I didn't say I didn't understand you or that it was incoherent. I said it was borderline incoherent, and that you were hard to follow, which you were, because previously you posted a rambling, paragraph long run-on sentence, where you also go on tangents mid-sentence, and it becomes a chore to read. This post of yours above was much better.

 

In response, I don't think you understand current trends in demographics. Rural flight is a real thing that has been happening since the industrial revolution and the gradual industrialization of agriculture into big ag-business. Studies indicate that a majority of rural counties in the US (in some cases a very strong majority- e.g. 86% in the Great Plains) have lost population in the past 30 years. Your hypothesis that the web will cause de-centralization is not compelling. The web began to see large consumer use in the mid 90s, and in the past 10 years especially, has become almost ubiquitous with modern life. And yet, despite that, the study I linked to indicates that the rural de-population trend is actually accelerating. If your hypothesis was true, we should've seen a reversal of this trend, but in fact, the study showed that in every rural region of the US, the % of rural counties losing people increased between 2000 and 2010.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I predicted the population would get more decentralized because of the web. Pavonis then predicted that centralized populations would grow instead and disadvantaged urbanites wouldn't be able to leave because they'd need resources in the city. I then responded by saying I dont see why a growing urban population would prevent the growth of an out-of-city one. Then I cited the rise of online education and online social networking as examples. What's so incoherent about that?

 

I don't mind you think my vocabulary or way of explaining things is dumbed-down. You guys have no idea how I see you. I think your reasoning is dumb-down. I feel a lot of close-mindedness. Plus, you guys are the type of people that would watch NOVA.

Holy shit! It's like a completely different person typed this post. Did you sober up, or get high(er)?

 

Damn right there's a lot of close-mindedness here. Science is a conservative field. We don't change our minds lightly or at the whims of some flighty New Age hippie posting on a messageboard.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I predicted the population would get more decentralized because of the web. Pavonis then predicted that centralized populations would grow instead and disadvantaged urbanites wouldn't be able to leave because they'd need resources in the city. I then responded by saying I dont see why a growing urban population would prevent the growth of an out-of-city one. Then I cited the rise of online education and online social networking as examples. What's so incoherent about that?

 

I don't mind you think my vocabulary or way of explaining things is dumbed-down. You guys have no idea how I see you. I think your reasoning is dumb-down. I feel a lot of close-mindedness. Plus, you guys are the type of people that would watch NOVA.

Holy ****! It's like a completely different person typed this post. Did you sober up, or get high(er)?

 

Damn right there's a lot of close-mindedness here. Science is a conservative field. We don't change our minds lightly or at the whims of some flighty New Age hippie posting on a messageboard.

 

How is the rise in social networking and online education even remotely correlated to people moving into the country? You could argue people in remote areas have an increased access to these resources OR more people are turning to online environments for networking and education. However, just because rural areas have increased access to education/ social networking does not mean people are moving there. If anything, as people increase their education they are more likely to move to a city (field dependent).

Link to post
Share on other sites

QUOTE: Depending on the frame of reference, this can be applied at any time.

 

Depending on the frame of reference is very important here. You have to know what question you're asking and what you're looking for. A person's individual experience could be damn different from what is portrayed generally on the news.

 

Let's say we're talking about society and the news instead of an individual. Themes can be more prominent at different times than others. EX: Sex is ALWAYS important, but if we're talking about the Victorian Era, than the topic of sex will be more prominent because of sex's extreme influence on fashion (women not being allowed to show their ankles) right down to the sexual revolution of the 60's (a boom in public nudism).

 

There's always been and always will be a market for new technology. But if you compare the 1990's to the 2000's, then technological themes are more prominent in the 2000s because of the rise of the iPod and iPhone making technology interesting to the average joe. Not every layperson was online in the 1990's ICQing. But everyone in the 2000s related to the iPhone.

 

So when it talks about propaganda, cultism, prominent in the time you mentioned, it's probably gonna come more to light than a time like now. The problem of ISIS is HUGE in the news now, but is it as propagandized as, say, WWII or the Cuban Missile Crisis was? Maybe what that post was trying to say was that propagandization itself (if that's a word) will be more on the spot. Probably we'll see the government be more distrusted than usual like in 2004 as opposed to 2014.

 

More later. I'm in class!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably we'll see the government be more distrusted than usual like in 2004 as opposed to 2014.

 

Are you saying the government was less trusted in 2004 than 2014? And which government? Based on asking if we have Best Buy in the States, so are you discussing the US government or your government?

Link to post
Share on other sites

QUOTE: Depending on the frame of reference, this can be applied at any time.

 

Depending on the frame of reference is very important here. You have to know what question you're asking and what you're looking for. A person's individual experience could be damn different from what is portrayed generally on the news.

 

Let's say we're talking about society and the news instead of an individual. Themes can be more prominent at different times than others. EX: Sex is ALWAYS important, but if we're talking about the Victorian Era, than the topic of sex will be more prominent because of sex's extreme influence on fashion (women not being allowed to show their ankles) right down to the sexual revolution of the 60's (a boom in public nudism).

 

There's always been and always will be a market for new technology. But if you compare the 1990's to the 2000's, then technological themes are more prominent in the 2000s because of the rise of the iPod and iPhone making technology interesting to the average joe. Not every layperson was online in the 1990's ICQing. But everyone in the 2000s related to the iPhone.

 

So when it talks about propaganda, cultism, prominent in the time you mentioned, it's probably gonna come more to light than a time like now. The problem of ISIS is HUGE in the news now, but is it as propagandized as, say, WWII or the Cuban Missile Crisis was? Maybe what that post was trying to say was that propagandization itself (if that's a word) will be more on the spot. Probably we'll see the government be more distrusted than usual like in 2004 as opposed to 2014.

 

More later. I'm in class!

What?

Link to post
Share on other sites

This made me laugh:

 

Plus, you guys are the type of people that would watch NOVA.

 

Also try when you post to quote in the reply box clicking on the box in the top left of the message posting offering that looks like a white box with a switch pointing up. You then convert to old message board posting and just put

and paste the quote (without the space I put in) and then the close quote thing.
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

QUOTE: Depending on the frame of reference, this can be applied at any time.

 

Depending on the frame of reference is very important here. You have to know what question you're asking and what you're looking for. A person's individual experience could be damn different from what is portrayed generally on the news.

 

Let's say we're talking about society and the news instead of an individual. Themes can be more prominent at different times than others. EX: Sex is ALWAYS important, but if we're talking about the Victorian Era, than the topic of sex will be more prominent because of sex's extreme influence on fashion (women not being allowed to show their ankles) right down to the sexual revolution of the 60's (a boom in public nudism).

 

There's always been and always will be a market for new technology. But if you compare the 1990's to the 2000's, then technological themes are more prominent in the 2000s because of the rise of the iPod and iPhone making technology interesting to the average joe. Not every layperson was online in the 1990's ICQing. But everyone in the 2000s related to the iPhone.

 

So when it talks about propaganda, cultism, prominent in the time you mentioned, it's probably gonna come more to light than a time like now. The problem of ISIS is HUGE in the news now, but is it as propagandized as, say, WWII or the Cuban Missile Crisis was? Maybe what that post was trying to say was that propagandization itself (if that's a word) will be more on the spot. Probably we'll see the government be more distrusted than usual like in 2004 as opposed to 2014.

 

More later. I'm in class!

What?

 

..................WHAT! I give up.....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pavonis, maybe you could appreciate this: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/2021160_The_Standard_Model_Alchemy_and_Astrology

 

It's a review of the Standard Model by some unknown guy. I got the gist of it but don't bother asking me if I understand the equations or anything.

It doesn't take my side exactly but it's good at explaining the impasse in our debate.

 

Wait! Don't say anything! I can read the future!........You're gonna say there's no impasse in our debate because you know what you're talking about and I'm completely ignorant.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow. Now let me finally take MY TURN (thank God) to say the last two posts are the two stupidest things I ever read! I'm not even answering! I'm don with this!

Me asking what criteria you use to establish your beliefs was one of the two stupidest things you've ever read? Seriously?

 

Should I go back to pillows?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pavonis, maybe you could appreciate this: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/2021160_The_Standard_Model_Alchemy_and_Astrology

 

It's a review of the Standard Model by some unknown guy. I got the gist of it but don't bother asking me if I understand the equations or anything.

It doesn't take my side exactly but it's good at explaining the impasse in our debate.

 

Wait! Don't say anything! I can read the future!........You're gonna say there's no impasse in our debate because you know what you're talking about and I'm completely ignorant.

Kid, it doesn't take your side at all, in any way, shape or form. Just because the author used "astrology" in the title doesn't mean he actually thinks there's something to it. He's just reviewing the state of the art on particle physics and the Standard Model. The title was just a joke.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Pavonis, maybe you could appreciate this: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/2021160_The_Standard_Model_Alchemy_and_Astrology

 

It's a review of the Standard Model by some unknown guy. I got the gist of it but don't bother asking me if I understand the equations or anything.

It doesn't take my side exactly but it's good at explaining the impasse in our debate.

 

Wait! Don't say anything! I can read the future!........You're gonna say there's no impasse in our debate because you know what you're talking about and I'm completely ignorant.

Kid, it doesn't take your side at all, in any way, shape or form. Just because the author used "astrology" in the title doesn't mean he actually thinks there's something to it. He's just reviewing the state of the art on particle physics and the Standard Model. The title was just a joke.

 

I guess I'll have to take your word for it. So it was an ironic title, huh? Funny you could notice that but you're so bent on being right you don't notice that Kurzweil's "Spiritual Machines" is also an ironic title!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just don't understand what's so vague about saying we'll have computer chips as small as blood cells. It's already been created. If you're in that world I guess you understand the economic timetable, the politcs, etc...what's so radical aboutKurzweil saying they'll be common by 2029? And if he's off by a couple years does that make his prediction completely null?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Extrapolating on what future technology might be like isn't quite the same. That's a matter of simply following long standing trends already in progress and estimating where things will be down the road if those trends hold. Not the same as astrology.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We should test out our pillow hypothesis.

 

 

 

Everyone knows that pillow population is strongly correlated with the ability to predict the future.

Hypothesis: Quantity of pillows and the accuracy of future predictions among Nightly users is significantly correlated.

 

We have our data (feel free to add and/or correct:

Ms. Spam: 5

Ramon Atila: 1

Monkeygirl: 47

Ryn: 6

Copper: 8

Cerina: 26

Driver: 31

Evolence: 5

Pavonis: 29

 

Participants could make predictions based on five statements. This data will be binomial (right/wrong). Parameters are specified for degree of correctness. I bet we could get this shit in a journal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...