Total Posts:21|Showing Posts:1-21
Jump to topic:

America in the year 3000

crackofdawn_Jr
Posts: 1,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2009 6:39:59 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/23/2009 6:39:02 PM, Twistedgypsychild wrote:
What will the USA be like in the year 3000? Economically, Financially, Physically, Socially..and in every other aspect you can think of :)

Jamie

It won't be around.
There are three types of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics"
-Mark Twain

"If at first you don't succeed, redefine success"

"Therefore love moderately. Long love doth so.
Too swift arrives as tardy as too slow."
- William Shakespeare

"There must be no majority decisions, but only responsible persons, and the word 'council' must be restored to its original meaning. Surely every man will have advisers by his side, but the decision will be made by one man."
- Adolf Hitler
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2009 6:42:17 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Yes, it is unlikely that the United States will exist in 3000 years. If by America you mean what will the continent of North America and/or South America then I couldn't even begin to fathom what huge differences and advances will be made.

That is, if humanity is still around.
crackofdawn_Jr
Posts: 1,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2009 6:43:34 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/23/2009 6:42:17 PM, JBlake wrote:
Yes, it is unlikely that the United States will exist in 3000 years. If by America you mean what will the continent of North America and/or South America then I couldn't even begin to fathom what huge differences and advances will be made.

That is, if humanity is still around.

Not in 3000 years, the year 3000CE. I think that either the US will collapse on itself or end up merging with some other power.
There are three types of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics"
-Mark Twain

"If at first you don't succeed, redefine success"

"Therefore love moderately. Long love doth so.
Too swift arrives as tardy as too slow."
- William Shakespeare

"There must be no majority decisions, but only responsible persons, and the word 'council' must be restored to its original meaning. Surely every man will have advisers by his side, but the decision will be made by one man."
- Adolf Hitler
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2009 6:53:48 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
That's what I meant. I don't know why I typed in 3000 years. I highly doubt the U.S. will still exist in the year 3000 BCE.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2009 6:57:03 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/23/2009 6:53:48 PM, JBlake wrote:
That's what I meant. I don't know why I typed in 3000 years. I highly doubt the U.S. will still exist in the year 3000 BCE.

I'm sure the US won't exist in 3000 BCE either. In fact, I'm fairly sure it didn't.

But I agree; by the year 3000, the US as it currently exists won't be around. It may break up into smaller states, or it could join up with a larger, trans-national state - maybe the North American Union? >.>
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2009 6:58:28 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/23/2009 6:53:48 PM, JBlake wrote:
That's what I meant. I don't know why I typed in 3000 years. I highly doubt the U.S. will still exist in the year 3000 BCE.

Fail again.
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2009 7:02:45 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
AHH! 3000 CE.

That is one interesting question though, Volkov. Will the U.S. break up into smaller nations or combine into a larger federation?
ToastOfDestiny
Posts: 990
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2009 7:03:22 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I'm hoping for globalization.
At 10/11/2009 8:28:18 PM, banker wrote:
Our demise and industrial destruction
At 10/11/2009 10:00:21 PM, regebro wrote:
Only exists in your head, as already shown.

At 10/11/2009 8:28:18 PM, banker wrote:
reveal why you answer with a question mark
At 10/11/2009 10:00:21 PM, regebro wrote:
Because it was a question.

RFDs Pl0x:
http://www.debate.org...
crackofdawn_Jr
Posts: 1,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2009 7:03:49 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/23/2009 7:02:45 PM, JBlake wrote:
AHH! 3000 CE.

That is one interesting question though, Volkov. Will the U.S. break up into smaller nations or combine into a larger federation?

It will probably combine into a larger federation. The US is too culturally similar to breakup methinks.
There are three types of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics"
-Mark Twain

"If at first you don't succeed, redefine success"

"Therefore love moderately. Long love doth so.
Too swift arrives as tardy as too slow."
- William Shakespeare

"There must be no majority decisions, but only responsible persons, and the word 'council' must be restored to its original meaning. Surely every man will have advisers by his side, but the decision will be made by one man."
- Adolf Hitler
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2009 7:12:26 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/23/2009 7:03:22 PM, ToastOfDestiny wrote:
I'm hoping for globalization.

Economically, sure, but I disdain the prospect politically.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2009 7:16:48 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/23/2009 7:12:26 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 10/23/2009 7:03:22 PM, ToastOfDestiny wrote:
I'm hoping for globalization.

Economically, sure, but I disdain the prospect politically.

Its probably more realistic than you'd like to think. As the economy becomes more and more integrated across the world, along with culture, language and etc., it only makes sense for there to be larger and larger entities governing wider swaths of territory.

I doubt anything like one-world government, but I see something similar to a worldwide EU.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2009 7:21:53 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
By the year 3000, there will be an all-powerful regime who virtually contols the world. Whoever can control space first wins... the world. Once other nations do not have the ability to launch warheads of any kind at you, and you can hit them at will, all it takes is will to take over the world. Of course, once you control space, you control virtually all the technology in the world. Hopefully though, the country who does discover this technology to conquer the world first, does not use it. However, I find this doubtful. I'd be suprised if humanity still exists in year 3000, weapons and technology will be so advanced, any one country could plausibly destroy the world - no matter how powerful they are compared to the rest of the world. This is the exact reason why the US should fund heavily in missile defense, nanotechnology, and take a huge portion out of the military budget to fund projects that can control the world through technology, hacking, and high-tech weaponry - rather than more troops and force.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2009 7:28:08 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Thats pretty far-fetched Nags. You have to consider though; reality isn't like Star Trek, and the world won't be on the same level just because there is access to advance technology. Geopolitical, sociological and economic factors will continue to dominate the world even far off in the future like that, so I fail to see how that kind of situation will arise.

Besides, the US should invest in that stuff, but not for the reason of stopping world domination by the year 3000, or furthering their goal of world domination by the year 3000.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2009 7:36:29 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Gundam 00 will happen, except without the gundams.

(space elevator, array of solar energy collectors connected to the elevators, middle east goes to civil war because they run out of their main export, etc.)
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2009 7:40:24 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/23/2009 7:16:48 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 10/23/2009 7:12:26 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 10/23/2009 7:03:22 PM, ToastOfDestiny wrote:
I'm hoping for globalization.

Economically, sure, but I disdain the prospect politically.

Its probably more realistic than you'd like to think. As the economy becomes more and more integrated across the world, along with culture, language and etc., it only makes sense for there to be larger and larger entities governing wider swaths of territory.

I doubt anything like one-world government, but I see something similar to a worldwide EU.

There are trends in both directions. Many nations are splitting into smaller ones (Bosnia, Yugoslavia, USSR), while some others are combining (EU).

91 sovereign nations in 1949:
http://wapedia.mobi...

193 in 2009:
http://wapedia.mobi...

P.S. The links provided enumerate all sovereign states each year. Very interesting.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2009 7:46:27 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
And I thought I was arrogant. Such predictions are silly.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2009 7:46:44 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/23/2009 7:40:24 PM, JBlake wrote:
There are trends in both directions. Many nations are splitting into smaller ones (Bosnia, Yugoslavia, USSR), while some others are combining (EU).

91 sovereign nations in 1949:
http://wapedia.mobi...

193 in 2009:
http://wapedia.mobi...

There is major differences there though; in 1949, colonialism was still rampant, and it wasn't until basically the 1970s when it was stamped out. It no longer exists in the modern age, and the further devolution of large states has slowed down drastically; Yugoslavia can barely devolve anymore, and the chances of any more states breaking off from Russia is slim to nil. Most federated states like the US, Canada, England, Germany and etc., have strong federal governments that will keep control, even in times of major crisis.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2009 7:21:24 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/23/2009 7:21:53 PM, Nags wrote:
rather than more troops and force.

1 word: China

I totally agree with Nags. There's no way that America can hope to win a war by pouring money into training troops. Imagine an army of hackers all acting at the same time? That can lead to more devastation than an army of soldiers 100x larger in size. Nags has the right idea here.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2009 7:34:47 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Oh hush! We'll go through a new age of colonialism once space can be inhabited. Thankfully, it will come at a time when the Earths resources are stretched to the limit with populations. Once Mars becomes colonised, the possibilities are near endless.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.