What do you think is the future for this civilization
 

Is the future good?, Will happiness only exist within the span of the next few years, is the future bad, or is this only the beginning? People say that dinosaurs were primitive creatures but society still has a long way to out live them.......

yo Morphuis i think the future would be good, but not if they make all the Horror films like Jason X:flames:

I mean good as in something to look forward to..............What do you think?

Bleak outlook. . .
 

Well, I think the future holds this:

We're all goign to die! We're all going to die!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Check it out:

1. The ozone layer gets destroyed, Earth gets warmer, the Arctic and the Antarctic melt, and we all get flooded and die.

2. Judging by how everything is going, We'll probably nuke ourselves to death in the next few years.

Doesn't look very promising, does it? The only reason I stay on this stupid, poultry, boring planet and not just pick myself off with a shotgun is because my friends, family, and pets need me.
- DH

Riiiiggghhht Dark Hood...

PLANT TREES, NOT BOMBS. (cool slogan huh?

The only thing is that humans have already found a way to fix the o-zone layer..............

Re: What do you think is the future for this civilization
 

1. Species lifespan has no bearing on their development so that is a completely irrelevant non-point.

2. Really? They didn't mention it in any news I've seen. Link, if you please.

why dont you look at some nano technology and then tell me.......

And back to your formulaic idiocracy.

Let me sum up here: You know nothing about the subject, so you find a big word that describes something that is nothing to do with what we're talking about, and use it in the hope that you will appear clever. Am I right?

Nano-technology has great capability,no, human society has not reached it quite yet but in time nano-bots will do this for us. It is the manipulation of carbon based substances to alter the original property or properties of the same substance. This is achieved through a complicated process of molecular manipulation and isolation. Basically you could change the ozone to a piece of cheese....

To: Danny
From: Morphius

1. You said .

2. Nanotechnology is a very vague term, but when it is specified, it almost invariably has nothing to with what you said. Too much Red Dwarf, my friend...

Vague for a lay-men, I assume you know what a red dwarf is though, otherwie you should not be using the term.......

Nanotechnology is an experimental science at the moment, but in practical terms it refers to the general science of (to be basic) constructing very small robots to assemble substances Atom-by-Atom. It does not emphasize a purpose. Indeed, the purpose generally considered to be most important is for Medicine, not the changing of substances from one thing to another.

And Red Dwarf (in this context) describes a TV programme, not the other term for a Brown Dwarf...

But if this can be obtained with more pros than cons we will use this to our benefit to fix things such as the o-zone layer, the only problem is developing the bots, this will take time but this is what I was saying before you rudely interrupted me and questioned my knowledge...........

Do you realise how expensive that would be?

Buddy, this is a Messageboard. It is impossible to interrupt someone. We were several hours apart...

First of all it takes time not every thing is cheap, and i was being sarcastic, I thought you were very sarcastic yourself?

No, you really don't have a clue how expensive that would be, do you?

No, I'm nicer than that. I'm only sarcastic where it's deserved.

Then it is all settled

Thank God for that! (metaphorically speaking, of course... :D)

Yes it is settled and i encourage anyone who wants to argue my pointor situation............The wise man knows not all the answers..............

*clears throt*

Nano-tecnolgy: as in Nano-bots:Micro bots that will be used in the futrue to make people live longer, move faster,be stronger, and improve all other human flaws.(i think we have some.....don't we?)

Not only that, he wants us to put corn oil in our cars' gasoline tanks. My manufacturer's warranty would definitely not cover that.

I do not want you to do anything but rather think about anything

Murphy, why don't you just explain specifics as to why you say what you say. Make one post dimwit. And really if you come in another argument (most likely in 5 minutes) try and sound sensible, your even worse here then on oddchat...

I do not understand why you say this............

It seems best not to argue with him. Just nod your head and pretend he knows what he's talking about...

I do not care what you think about me because it is not you who will be judging me in the end........

Don't listen to him.He just cra-z

(Hm, is this the same morphius that I've heard behaves like a laxative on Oddchat?)

Aaaanyway.... The future? I try not to think about it too much, it's pretty depressing.

As a sidenote, this nano-technology everyone's talking about... Some drug currently on the market cost somewhere into the hundreds of pounds for just one packet of 56 (Lamictal, for example) - and that's just for a chemical. It would likely cost billions to create and mass manufacture "nano-bots" - and it'd be quicker and cheaper just to cut down (with the ultimate aim of cutting out altogether) fossil fuels so it fixes itself. Trouble is, most countries seem to like their throwaway lifestyle too much, so I can't see that happening in the near future. We'll probably just have to evolve to be UV-resistant, instead...

That's the second time you've said that. Is it a religious reference?

most likely another incedance of too much red dwarf.

too much red dwarf?

Too much of the television program Red Dwarf, mentioned earlier.

I don't really have a right to post here (of course I do, but let me finish), seeing as technology isn't taught at my school (other than woodwork, but nanobots probably won't be made of that stuff), and I'm a dunce at it really.

But would it really be cheaper to stop the fossil fuel industry. I can comprehend the amazingly high prices of just a single piece of nano-technology, but really, would it actually be less expensive to take on mega-corporations such as Exxon? The world is still driven by money (metaphorically speaking, I hope), and the Big Powers of the world don't seem to understand the potential of technology over natural exploitation. (I think I brought that back to the future quite nicely).

Until there arrives a time when the Earth's supply of oil is actually increasing and money isn't such a powerful tool, I don't think the future holds much of interest in terms of Armageddon or Deep Space Exploration or anything like that. Maybe we'll put an end to terrorism and child labour, perhaps we can even stamp out animal cruelty and hunting and deforestation. Who knows, perhaps the NHS will be worthwhile once more.

I repsect your opinion but this technology will be brought up if there are more positives than negatives within it.........

Aaaahahahahahahaaaa, Max made a joke! :D ;)

Where?

Preventing humans from wiping out life on earth by wiping out life on earth? Hmm...