Bionics. In the show, The Expanse there’s a scene where a guy who had his arm cut off in a space accident is trying to get his company to not cheap out and to pay for a bionic arm replacement instead of regrowing him a new arm. The bionic arm being greatly more superior than a normal arm.
Lately, robotics and prostheses are becoming so advanced I can see this as happening to where people will eventually want artificial designer parts over their own.
We had quite the discussion at work about this very scene (I am loosely related to OSHA stuff), at some point people might think of deliberately having work “accidents” so the employer has to pay for superior replacement parts. And then have an advantage on the job market because of this. Same could go for sports.
I guess technologically, we are very close, but might need to work on the whole ethics part a bit more?
Having said that, I would not mind some advanced Kiroshis to replace my screwed up eyeballs.
This assumption is made based off of current prosthetics. What if future prosthetics are near-nonidentifiable from real ones? Maybe we’re even about to get our real skin to grow over the outside.
Surely it would work like a car warranty, where a certain level is free and you would have to pay extra for the good stuff. For example, you lose your arm in a work accident, company replaces your lost arm with arm-replacelement-mk1-TM which is equivalent-ish to a regular human arm. However, if you want top of the line arm it will cost extra and company will just pay for surgery and base arm replacement, you must cover the difference. You want anything other than the Honda civic of arms? Gotta pay that premium baby! Otherwise embrace the beige mediocraty life.
AI is already well underway, so that's probably the most plausible soonest.
A fully reusable rocket in the form of Starship is also well underway and should be successfully orbiting for the first time soon. Just a matter of a year or two before it's doing workhorse cargo launches probably.
The new round of superconductor possibility might pan out, which would be another one. But that's more of a yes/no outcome that hasn't quite been settled yet, rather than something with a "completion bar."
The most recent test launch was just a few seconds of engine firing short of reaching orbital velocity, it would have made it if not for an apparent oxygen leak. The next test rocket has been doing static fire tests already, and it has a cargo door and rack capable of launching Starlink V2 satellites so I wouldn't be at all surprised if they send up a few on it.
Just a matter of a year or two before it’s doing workhorse cargo launches probably.
I doubt that. I’m a big fan of the concept, But SpaceX is behind their promises schedule in a way that would make NASA blush.
Starship launches are becoming less transparent in what they share and information is becoming less frequent. Starship is supposed to land humans on the moon for Artemis III for 4 billion dollars but right now it can’t even make orbit without violently exploding for mostly unknown reasons.
The main lesson from launch 1 was that a deluge system is an absolute must, like literally everyone told them, but Musk personally vetoed. Now they have something almost the same, but more complicated because Musk refused to do things on time. And the lessons from launch 2? Who knows, they stopped talking, and analysis of the videos is very hard because SpaceX realized random YouTubers could analyse their failures.
Remember, Elon said we’d have 2 Starships on Mars in 2023.
They've launched a total of two Starship test flights so far, so I'm not sure how you're drawing a meaningful trend line on them becoming "less transparent." We know a lot about IFT-3 already, they've been doing static test fires and the Starship slated for it has a cargo bay capable of launching Starlink V2s.
SpaceX has never been shy about their failures. They've released humorous supercuts of their Falcon 9 landing failures before, and have allowed those Youtubers to place cameras around Starship launches to get views from close enough to be fried by the rocket exhaust. So I'm not sure where you're getting this sense of secrecy from. What other launch companies are so open about their development process?
It’s such a far fetched idea it sits in the same camp as teleporting but we all have to have dreams, and napping on the train on the way to work sounds so pleasant
The key detail being the following. “The US National Ignition Facility (NIF) has made significant strides in nuclear fusion, but it’s not yet efficient enough for power grid use. The facility’s laser system loses over 99% of the energy in a single ignition attempt.”
I truly hope that fully maintained nuclear fusion will become a reality. However, I don’t see this being achievable for another few decades.
AGI lead government that is written like a constitution and bill of rights. The infinite persistence factor without human needs or motivations is a major improvement over anything that has ever existed.
The idea of AGI lead government sounds quite interesting. However, there are many concerns that would need to be addressed and prevented in the structuring of such a system. Safeguards of physical assets, hardware, and software entry points. Does the AGI have any access to the internet or networks of any kind? How do we interact with such a system by state/providence? What do you do when bad actors get a hold of it or are feeding it incorrect information?
AGI is orders of magnitude more advanced than what we currently have available. It is a self aware system. Most of the issues must be addressed internally, but ultimately it is self regulating in every respect. There would be redundancy, and an element of design trust built in. It would not be corruptible like humans where we must be skeptical of our governments. In some respects, it is the hacker, it is the internet, and it is Orwellian in scope, but it is not authoritarian, or ideological. It would be direct and openly available for everyone to consult at any time. It would be capable of explaining anything in easily understood language according to the capabilities of the end user. The primary way it shapes policy and changes for the betterment of the majority is through rewards and amenable compromise. Ultimately, I think this is the only way to manage a real post scarcity society.
Apart from the alignment problem*, having unchangeable laws can be really bad. The bill of rights shows that for tye US constitution, now what if a ‘new’ need arises for the law shows it self.
the alignment problem is the still unsolved problem of getting even simple machine learning models/AIs to do what we want.
It is the same for pretty much all the narrative hand waves that are used to push the story forward. This is not knocking SF but to temper expectations.
Deep sleep/human hibernation.
FTL travel of any description, including FTL communication.
That’s quite the question to ask, but as far I can tell it only works with quantum information. Sending a body would be like you trying to fit into a fiber cable to be bounced inside of beneath the Atlantic to avoid the otherwise long flight.
From what I know of sci-fi, teleportation is often a machine that scans, destroys, and replicates the particles in your body at a secondary location.
So if we could figure out scanning and printing at the atomic scale, with zero defects, and pair it with sending information at near instant speeds via quantum teleportation, we could have a teleporter.
You just made me curious and we're not alone in wondering
To have a scanner that can record the position of every atom in the body to an accuracy of the order of the size of a hydrogen atom would require position accuracy of about 10-10 meters. To get that accuracy over a distance of order 1 meter, this would require 30 decimal digits, which would be about 100 binary digits per atom. However, there would be a lot of redundancy in this data, so let’s be optimistic and assume you could compress this down to 1 bit per atom, so we still need approximately 1027 bits of data to just specify the positions of all the atoms in a human body. According to Wikipedia (Exabyte), the approximate data storage capacity of all the computers and storage devices in the world today is roughly 1 zettabyte = 1021 bytes = 1022 bits. Therefore, the data for the scan of one human would require at least 10,000 times the total storage of all the data stored on Earth right now.
Now I'm wondering how long it would realistically take for that to become a not-insane demand. I know data storage multiplies pretty rapidly, but not that rapidly, so are we talking decades or centuries?
I was getting incredibly confused because the copy/paste didn’t copy the superscript for the exponents. I was like, “there’s definitely more than 1027 atoms in the body… wait, how are there supposedly only 1021 bytes of storage in the whole world? Oooh…”
Quantum “teleportation” is not capable of sending information FTL. Quantum entanglement means that the wave functions of two or more particles (in essence, the information possessed by the particles) are correlated, but the information must be encoded by a device at the midpoint between the two observers and sent to the observers at a speed not exceeding the speed of light.
Teleportation in that term means “make a thing disappear in one place and appear in another”. No “immediate” is ever implied.
Wikipedia article has a great diagram on the topic. Add an article on “no cloning theorem” to understand why “teleportation” is a fitting term. I recommend reading both without expectation, just read through the steps as if you’re learning a new math tool.
In short, quantum teleportation is a way to take a quantum state (which are fundamentally unforgeable - you can’t simply create a clone of a particle), destroy it, extracting classically communicable data, and they recreate it in another location.
Directed energy weapons already exist today. They’re mostly experimental, but the US and Germany (and possibly others) are both investing millions into R&D and have working prototypes.
Speed of light is a singularity in a special relativity theory. Singularities usually indicate model limitations, not reality fundamentals.
The theory happily describes behaviours below and above this “speed limit”, but insists on it being unapproachable from either side, which is weird already. At the same time our other models tell us that matter loses a finite amount of energy when it gains mass and stops moving at the speed of light.
Problem is, we don’t seem to have a vocabulary to discuss ways around this singularity and universe is not so forthcoming with any clues.
It’s a general crysis of physics lately. We know our models have limitations, we often know where they break exactly, and universe just giggles along.
But yeah, it’s highly unlikely that any SF will correctly guess a viable FTL, even if it is possible. Especially considering how seemingly every author thinks quantum entanglement is it.
Add comment