It's not obviously feasible, so if colonizing a planet belonging to another star is a serious suggestion, then you should suggest a feasible way to do it. That's my point.

At 70, my future is a lot shorter than my past. I'm fine with that. Ten more years would be about right--twenty, too long. But I could be dead this afternoon. There aren't any big exciting events on my schedule, so that would be alright too. — Bitter Crank

Well, I hope it will be a while longer, just so that you can post here and share the wealth in wisdom and knowledge.

I do not see a techno-utopia in our future, but certainly more machines and AI. Some people expect life-altering, paradigm-redefining technology. I do not, because I expect that little new technology will be developed first and foremost for the benefit of humankind as a whole. IF retinal replacements, enhanced memory and thinking implants, or body replacements made to order turn out to be practical, they will be standard fare for only a small elite. — Bitter Crank

While this is true, there's one exceptional person out there that has already taken the steps to 'democratize' technological progress through making it open source and available to all. He's Elon Musk. He's a really smart guy and I think he will take the world in a completely new direction with his many startups.

Not sure. Do you mean that most people have a bias towards the future, which fits in well with our culture's sense of progress? But, not everyone. — Cavacava

Well, I mean that any conception of 'the future' is dependent on some concept of the past by an individual. So, to answer my own question, so it would seem, that to have a concept about the future, some point of reference is necessary.

Thus, this somewhat justifies my sentiment that most philosophers are committing an error in omitting what the future may be like with respect to the past, and instead propose monolithic and idealistic conceptions of society and governance.

It's not obviously feasible, so if colonizing a planet belonging to another star is a serious suggestion, then you should suggest a feasible way to do it. That's my point. — Bitter Crank

Well that doesn't really address anything I've said. We are perfectly capable of beginning space colonization, first the inner solar system, then in the outer, and within another couple centuries we'll likely be able to begin venturing beyond the solar system into interstellar space. My point is that this is necessary to ensure our long term survival, we don't have a choice.

Thus, this somewhat justifies my sentiment that most philosophers are committing an error in omitting what the future may be like with respect to the past, and instead propose monolithic and idealistic conceptions of society and governance. — Question

Any "general thinker" should try to get a grip on as much past and future as he can manage: understand where we have come from (not an easy task) and where we seem to be headed (a more difficult path). Some cataclysm can create altogether new and unexpected possibilities for the future (like the meteoric hit in the Yucatan that ruined things for the big lizards and created an opening for us mammals). Cataclysms are rare, though.

I like the analysis of the industrial revolutions (which began a bit before the steam engine and ends in the early 20th century, 200 years later (give or take a few). We now know the limits of matter and energy. (No, that doesn't mean that everything has been discovered and invented, only that we now know what we have--and don't have--to work with.)

We can be confident that this terrestrial ball is ALL THERE IS for us. We either survive here, or we don't survive at all. Decamping to a planet around another star is a fantasy. Setting up a shop on the moon or Mars is technically feasible for a few dozen people, maybe, but as a "new territory" for the species they are both non-starters.

We can be confident that if we do not preserve and enhance the environment we have (even though somewhat degraded) we reduce our chances of biological and cultural survival into the longer-term future. If our biological survival is quite likely--sex and DNA will take care of that--our cultural survival is only as certain as generation-to-generation maintenance. A full set of culture has to be successfully transmitted from one generation to the next. When the transmission is less than complete, the culture can be gone in as few as 3 generations -- maybe less.

When the western Roman Empire went out of business, a millennium was required to recover the cultural goods that had been everyday fare in the empire. A collapse of our culture--happening rapidly or slowly--might take longer to recover, likely not much less.

Any "general thinker" should try to get a grip on as much past and future as he can manage: understand where we have come from (not an easy task) and where we seem to be headed (a more difficult path). Some cataclysm can create altogether new and unexpected possibilities for the future (like the meteoric hit in the Yucatan that ruined things for the big lizards and created an opening for us mammals). Cataclysms are rare, though. — Bitter Crank

Yet, you have some of the most prominent philosophers appealing to idealistic notions of governance or appealing to emotions (most notably Marx) about work conditions for the poor (despite the pretty accurate observation that a rising ride lifts most boats, even those of the poor). Clearly, this is a sign of a lack of balance between what a person thinks ought to be and what it actually is. Historicism, I don't know; but, Hegel did get the dialectical method spot on despite his most notable student perverting it.

We can be confident that if we do not preserve and enhance the environment we have (even though somewhat degraded) we reduce our chances of biological and cultural survival into the longer-term future. If our biological survival is quite likely--sex and DNA will take care of that--our cultural survival is only as certain as generation-to-generation maintenance. A full set of culture has to be successfully transmitted from one generation to the next. When the transmission is less than complete, the culture can be gone in as few as 3 generations -- maybe less. — Bitter Crank

I have thought about this, and to be honest we are barely touching the potential resources of this plant. There are precious minerals in abundance in the ocean. We have barely tapped the surface of this planet in regards to minerals and other natural resources. There's enough deuterium and tritium in the ocean to power us for an ungodly amount of time. I really do believe that the American ethos of progress, change, and expansionism has not been exhausted in any way by the lack of available goods at our disposal. Rather, it is the sick self-serving elite that has perverted the focus on the US to serve a small minority of people on the top.

When the western Roman Empire went out of business, a millennium was required to recover the cultural goods that had been everyday fare in the empire. A collapse of our culture--happening rapidly or slowly--might take longer to recover, likely not much less. — Bitter Crank

Yes, this is true. Globalism though has mitigated that fear along with the abundance of information at one's fingertips. I don't think a cataclysm would set back us as a civilization that dramatically.

I guess this is just me whining about why people tend to appeal to ideals when the fact of the matter is that historically idealistic notions of governance don't stand the test of time. Perhaps only democracy, yet the concept of 'democracy' seems at odds with idealistic beliefs about governance.

We have barely tapped the surface of this planet in regards to minerals and other natural resources. — Question

There is something problematic about this statement:

First, there is a difference between easy to get and hard to get. It takes a mammoth amount of energy to obtain the "easy to get" resources. Think of the huge open pit iron and copper mines. Those resources were easy. for the most part, those resources have been extracted and used.

Second, the "hard to get" mineral resources are dissolved, very deep (too deep), or very dispersed and diluted--even on dry land.

There may be a lot of oil in the ground, but when it takes more energy to suck it out than is available in the oil, then the extraction process is over. All resources have to be "affordable" to be useful.

There are megatons of minerals to be had, but they have to be had at a reasonable cost and with only manageable damage to the environment. Strip-mining the ocean floor for mineral nodules might not be a great idea.

I guess this is just me whining about why people tend to appeal to ideals when the fact of the matter is that historically idealistic notions of governance don't stand the test of time. Perhaps only democracy, yet the concept of 'democracy' seems at odds with idealistic beliefs about governance. — Question

I guess, but I am not sure what you are trying to get across here. Clarify, perhaps.

Yes, this is true. Globalism though has mitigated that fear along with the abundance of information at one's fingertips. I don't think a cataclysm would set back us as a civilization that dramatically. — Question

Question, think! Most of the information at your fingertips is dependent on a continuous supply of electricity. Delete the electrical supply (lots of cataclysms would do that) and the information at your fingertips disappears, some of it/most of it forever. Turn off the electrical supply and don't turn it back on again... how long do you think it would take the next generation, or the one after that, or the one after that, to figure out what all those little black boxes had been for? How long to figure out how to reconstruct modern science--from near scratch?

In a post cataclysm novel A Canticle for Leibowitz it takes roughly 1000 years to figure out electricity again. Sounds about right to me.

Well, I mean that any conception of 'the future' is dependent on some concept of the past by an individual. So, to answer my own question, so it would seem, that to have a concept about the future, some point of reference is necessary.

Do you agree that there are two concepts of future:

1) The future that entails making that dentist appointment, being somewhere at some later point in time, the future as being part of the flow of time.
2) Chronological future, the history of events, I think future here is more anticipatory, one event does not cause the next , rather they are just ordered in a certain manner.

Think about how these respective points of view must vary. The POV of being in the flow is the ego, no ego, immediacy and no flow. The POV of chronology is scientific, god like, transcendent.

My question, Question is whether or not a synthesis of these two POVs is possible or not, what would that entail. Can something to be experienced imminently and transcendently at the same time. Maybe the effect of a work of art where the universal particular lives, in which the observer adopts the POV of the work.