Cosmology, definitely. The future of mankind depends on that.
Edit: If we have a future...
Semper Fi!
Edit: If we have a future...
Semper Fi!
Last edited by Trooper_Collider (2006-06-17 21:55:30)
Poll
Which field of science will have greater impact?
| Cosmology | 4% | 4% - 7 | ||||
| Genetics | 19% | 19% - 28 | ||||
| Cryonics | 5% | 5% - 8 | ||||
| Neurosurgery | 7% | 7% - 11 | ||||
| Pharmacology | 4% | 4% - 7 | ||||
| Biotechnology | 11% | 11% - 17 | ||||
| Nanotechnology | 26% | 26% - 38 | ||||
| Propulsion (in stellar contexts) | 10% | 10% - 16 | ||||
| Propulsion (in terrestrial contexts) | 9% | 9% - 14 | ||||
| Total: 146 | ||||||
Words out of my mouth.Alexanderthegrape wrote:
I voted Nanotechnology because the technology that fields creates will revolutionize all of the others.
Same same, nanotechnology has applications in all listed fields as well as countless others. Not to mention nanotechnology can serve to advance itself.Alexanderthegrape wrote:
I voted Nanotechnology because the technology that fields creates will revolutionize all of the others.
Robots, flying cars and colonies on the moon.
Prediction is a mug's game -- leave that to the likes of Jack van Impe and Nostradamus. The only way to be right even 10% of the time is to be hopelessly vague. The future's not ours to see. I voted null, like I almost always do.
"Impact", though subjective, is a function of cost and utility, which is complex. And although many people have pointed out upthread that advances in nanotech could lead to advances elsewhere, the same is also true for most of the others -- we just hear more about nanotech, that's all. Synergistic combinations of as yet unknown advances are not predictable.
Don't get me wrong, I like to speculate as much as anybody. I just think we're overwhelmingly likely to be wrong. See James Burke (on the past) and Michio Kaku (on the future) for interesting but accessible analysis on this kind of thing. The Connections series is old but way ahead of its time, in terms of the essentially chaotic nature of networks and such...
Science has reached a stage where it's just not possible for the layman to keep up across different fields. As recently as a hundred years ago, "learned men" could feasibly study and learn all the science of the day. These days it's all about specialization, and consequently we're surrounded by technology we mostly don't really understand.
There's only so much learning you can cram into a lifetime, and as the sum of human knowledge grows, so too does the gap between it and a single human's capacity to meaningfully abstract it as a whole. That's why superstition is making a huge comeback. It's a natural defence mechanism against feeling overwhelmed by "magic" and one's own ignorance in the face of it.
So I'm going with robots, flying cars, colonies on the moon, and whatever will enable us to fight off the terrorists, aliens and subterranean lizard people.
Prediction is a mug's game -- leave that to the likes of Jack van Impe and Nostradamus. The only way to be right even 10% of the time is to be hopelessly vague. The future's not ours to see. I voted null, like I almost always do.
"Impact", though subjective, is a function of cost and utility, which is complex. And although many people have pointed out upthread that advances in nanotech could lead to advances elsewhere, the same is also true for most of the others -- we just hear more about nanotech, that's all. Synergistic combinations of as yet unknown advances are not predictable.
Don't get me wrong, I like to speculate as much as anybody. I just think we're overwhelmingly likely to be wrong. See James Burke (on the past) and Michio Kaku (on the future) for interesting but accessible analysis on this kind of thing. The Connections series is old but way ahead of its time, in terms of the essentially chaotic nature of networks and such...
Science has reached a stage where it's just not possible for the layman to keep up across different fields. As recently as a hundred years ago, "learned men" could feasibly study and learn all the science of the day. These days it's all about specialization, and consequently we're surrounded by technology we mostly don't really understand.
There's only so much learning you can cram into a lifetime, and as the sum of human knowledge grows, so too does the gap between it and a single human's capacity to meaningfully abstract it as a whole. That's why superstition is making a huge comeback. It's a natural defence mechanism against feeling overwhelmed by "magic" and one's own ignorance in the face of it.
So I'm going with robots, flying cars, colonies on the moon, and whatever will enable us to fight off the terrorists, aliens and subterranean lizard people.
Who negged me for 'wuts wrong wit science ~.^'
Well then 'wuts wrong with spelling ~.^' Retard.
Well then 'wuts wrong with spelling ~.^' Retard.
Genetics hands down.
I cast my vote for genetics. All else is nice, but superficial in comparison. Sufficiently advanced genetic science could lead to near-immortality not only for an individual, but of an entire species. A 'utopian' ideal would be to spread the human race across different worlds, and genetically alter each group to survive based on whatever ecology already exists there or has been planted. That way, something like an all-consuming virus would not be able to wipe out our entire civilization.
Good choice for choosing to refine your selection to a single option. + Bump.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
I cast my vote for genetics. All else is nice, but superficial in comparison. Sufficiently advanced genetic science could lead to near-immortality not only for an individual, but of an entire species. A 'utopian' ideal would be to spread the human race across different worlds, and genetically alter each group to survive based on whatever ecology already exists there or has been planted. That way, something like an all-consuming virus would not be able to wipe out our entire civilization.