What's a sci-fi thing you feel is achievable with our current level of technology that you'd love to see become a thing?
-
I'm going to go against the trend here and say that libertarian corporate city-states actually sound pretty cool. They're generally not portrayed positively in fiction but I think they might work well in practice. I'm a lot less optimistic about cooperating with all my fellow Americans in order to govern the whole country democratically than I used to be. Choosing to move to an independent city-state with a government that I agree with (albeit one I don't elect) might work better.
Anarcho capitalists freecities are a horrible idea. Wont take long before you can buy people in there, because the only rule is the golden rule.
-
Arcologies.
Dense housing with good soundproofing, atop commercial space, in a walkable neighborhood.
Wouldn't need rent control if there was more houses.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Except the arcologies part, that's not even sci-fi, it exists across east asia.
-
Oh look, another 'Murican "only the US exists" type comment.
Public transportation is common worldwide.
-
Whether big or small. We all have that one thing from Scifi we wished were real. I'd love to see a cool underground city with like a SkyDome or a space hotel for instance.
This whole thread is just Americans saying things that they don't have that is common elsewhere. And that isn't answering the question at all.
It's the ever present thing of 'Murican idiocy thinking only about the US and acting like anything else doesn't exist. -
Plants on buildings bring some architectural and safety challenges, depending on how large they are. You need to somehow get dirt and water up, and the dirt can be pretty heavy. If something falls down into the ground it could hit someone and injured them. And also, with time, roots could lessen the structural integrity of a building.
No doubt, but I love the aesthetic
-
so kill the shareholders, then they won't care about their value.
This is what frustrates me because in theory yes, you're right. But in reality those shareholders are not who you think they are. Many of them are your relatives through 401k and RRSP managed funds.
What I'm getting at is it would be great to Luigi a bunch of billionaires but the reality is the problem is systemic and no amount of murder is going to solve that.
We go back to the Levellers and the Diggers. My gut tells me we are going to everyone screaming for change ultimately get what they want which is someone will be beheaded but then in the aftermath you all have no fucking plan and guess what? In a few years we are going to be right back here again.
I hope I'm wrong, but history has a way of repeating the same beats over and over again.
-
The torment nexus
Just a few more billions and it'll be complete.
-
you start looking for ways to increase your margin on each tomato you sell
That happens unconditionally under capitalism, there's no set profit margin where the owner says "I've made enough money, time to lower prices and raise wages".
Competition only exists within a very narrow context within capitalism. If you want the capitalists to do x y z, you don't deregulate, you simply restrict them from doing anything else and prepare to use every means the government has at their disposal to punish the ones who violate the public trust.
There's a reason China manages to operate a healthier capitalist system within a very clearly defined bird cage.
Wrt your China example, I will default to my null hypothesis here - China is on the upswing from opening itself to global trade, and has 1 billion people. Any argument in favor of China's prosperity must demonstrate that they are doing well beyond what we would expect in these circumstances.
That happens unconditionally under capitalism, there’s no set profit margin where the owner says “I’ve made enough money, time to lower prices and raise wages”.
And sure. But eventually someone will start trying to undercut others by accepting lower margins.
And of course, this is why we should have and enforce laws against price fixing and collusion.
None of this changes the fact that, even if governments took on the construction of new housing themselves and dedicated themselves to solving the housing shortage, they also wouldn't be able to build enough new housing fast enough because of their own regulations on how housing must be constructed.
-
You can go to the hardware store and buy a screwdriver. Or go to walmart and buy a frying pan. Etc.
Unlike food and housing, a screwdriver isn't required to live. That's why food is subsidized and regulated. Whereas non essentials are allowed to compete in a free market.
-
Whether big or small. We all have that one thing from Scifi we wished were real. I'd love to see a cool underground city with like a SkyDome or a space hotel for instance.
I don't forking understand why in 2025, taking pills is still the only way for me to get better for some illness. As someone who gets pretty bad anxiety about taking pills and who sometimes almost chokes on them, I seriously can't understand how we have pocket PCs but we don't have a way to just treat things without pills. Hell, I'll drink something that tastes horrible if it means I don't gotta test my gag reflex.
-
UBI will be necessary when the combination of AI and robotics creates a permanent 35+% unemployment rate. We will have to institute UBI, or reduce the population by that much. Which objective will each party choose to support, and how will they accomplish it?
wrote last edited by [email protected]Which objective will each party choose to support, and how will they accomplish it?
One leading party often seems willing to accept war as a means to ends they care about.
In a total lack of contrast, the other leading party seems roughly equally willing to accept war as a means to ends they care about.
The bigger question that bothers me is how much war exactly will they feel is needed for any population reduction they feel is necessary?
And will it be more war than the amount of war I would have otherwise participated in, in my lifetime?
-
Unlike food and housing, a screwdriver isn't required to live. That's why food is subsidized and regulated. Whereas non essentials are allowed to compete in a free market.
Food is subsidized because of farm lobbying, which is why there are far more subsidies for the corn that goes into Doritos than there are for spinach and blueberries.
Food is regulated because it can create public health crises. Afaik, most food prices are not regulated beyond anti-gouging and anti price fixing laws, which also apply to screwdrivers.
Food, and screwdrivers, are cheap because they are commodities in a competitive market. Any given tomato or screwdriver is more or less like the next, and customers can always go from Home Depot or Kroger to Lowes or Walmart across the street.
Regardless, you are failing to engage with my actual point, which is that unnecessary restrictions on the production of goods will drive manufacturers to produce only the most high-margin options, which is why developers never seem to build affordable housing.
Now, I'm not unsympathetic to your argument - maybe it really is impossible for profit-seeking entities to build affordable housing under ideal conditions (though then you need to explain how we built affordable housing in the past...). But my argument is: there are some very obvious regulatory and tax reasons for why housing is in such short supply, and these hurdles would need to be overcome by anyone building housing - public or private. So, we should remove these barriers first and see what happens.
-
Whether big or small. We all have that one thing from Scifi we wished were real. I'd love to see a cool underground city with like a SkyDome or a space hotel for instance.
I think a moon colony was possible at minimum the mid 90's. I only think bureaucracy got in the way along with a very stunted space shuttle.
-
I don't know why I haven't thought about terraforming earth until I read it in a sci Fi book and it seemed like the simplest and best thing to do, over terraforming mars or Venus. We have the tech for bioengineering, cloud seeding (I think), chemicals to help stimulate growth of natural plants (at least for the ocean).
Oceans don't need seeding, they just need us to stop fucking bottom trawling for, like, 5 minutes
-
Which objective will each party choose to support, and how will they accomplish it?
One leading party often seems willing to accept war as a means to ends they care about.
In a total lack of contrast, the other leading party seems roughly equally willing to accept war as a means to ends they care about.
The bigger question that bothers me is how much war exactly will they feel is needed for any population reduction they feel is necessary?
And will it be more war than the amount of war I would have otherwise participated in, in my lifetime?
War is a useful tool to reduce populations, but fairly inefficient until they start throwing bombs around. It can't be the only strategy.
Another good strategy is to restrict access to medical care. Make it incredibly expensive, so costly that many people will choose to die, rather then burden their families with the cost.
Another good one is to end childhood vaccines. A good pandemic can wipe out millions. Of course, this is only happening in America, so the wealthy will be able to afford vaccines from foreign countries, and survive any strategic pandemics. I wouldn't be surprised if Stephen "PeeWee Himmler" Miller released a deadly virus on purpose, something like Ebola, just to speed the process along.
Then there is Climate Change, which is wreaking havoc on our environment, and causing far worst storms and floods. Restrict or even end FEMA, and our annual natural disasters can claim victims with much more efficiency.
Criminalize EVERYTHING, and throw more people in prison, where the mortality rate is much higher. Allow the military/ law enforcement to fire on protesters. Allow police to kill without consequences.
Prohibit Birthright Citizenship, allowing the deportation of millions of American citizens. Don Jr, Ivanka, and Eric are all Birthright Citizens, so they should be deported as well, but we all know that Aristocrats won't be included.
And if doing all this, and more, doesn't reduce the population fast enough, we can always go down the proven path of Death Camps.
-
Food is subsidized because of farm lobbying, which is why there are far more subsidies for the corn that goes into Doritos than there are for spinach and blueberries.
Food is regulated because it can create public health crises. Afaik, most food prices are not regulated beyond anti-gouging and anti price fixing laws, which also apply to screwdrivers.
Food, and screwdrivers, are cheap because they are commodities in a competitive market. Any given tomato or screwdriver is more or less like the next, and customers can always go from Home Depot or Kroger to Lowes or Walmart across the street.
Regardless, you are failing to engage with my actual point, which is that unnecessary restrictions on the production of goods will drive manufacturers to produce only the most high-margin options, which is why developers never seem to build affordable housing.
Now, I'm not unsympathetic to your argument - maybe it really is impossible for profit-seeking entities to build affordable housing under ideal conditions (though then you need to explain how we built affordable housing in the past...). But my argument is: there are some very obvious regulatory and tax reasons for why housing is in such short supply, and these hurdles would need to be overcome by anyone building housing - public or private. So, we should remove these barriers first and see what happens.
Regardless, you are failing to engage with my actual point, which is that unnecessary restrictions on the production of goods will drive manufacturers to produce only the most high-margin options,
Yet you gave the example of food being cheap which has regulations. It's cheap because it is subsidized. Farmers aren't the only industry with lobbiests.
how we built affordable housing in the past.
-
We killed the existing land owners so there was a surplus of land.
-
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_Act_of_1949 (required cheap housing to be built to replace any cheap housing torn down.)
So, we should remove these barriers first and see what happens.
The only barrier is the people who vote. If a community votes against a developer, that's their constitutional right. Which is why I said the supply is the problem. Giving more money to renters does not change the supply. If more housing was built, the price would go down and ubi wouldn't be needed.
-
-
Wrt your China example, I will default to my null hypothesis here - China is on the upswing from opening itself to global trade, and has 1 billion people. Any argument in favor of China's prosperity must demonstrate that they are doing well beyond what we would expect in these circumstances.
That happens unconditionally under capitalism, there’s no set profit margin where the owner says “I’ve made enough money, time to lower prices and raise wages”.
And sure. But eventually someone will start trying to undercut others by accepting lower margins.
And of course, this is why we should have and enforce laws against price fixing and collusion.
None of this changes the fact that, even if governments took on the construction of new housing themselves and dedicated themselves to solving the housing shortage, they also wouldn't be able to build enough new housing fast enough because of their own regulations on how housing must be constructed.
wrote last edited by [email protected]You don't need need to explicitly collude (though many compabies do) for companies to realize if they lower prices or invest in better technology, so will other companies, and then they'll all be worse off. We observe this in any mature industry under capitalism.
-
AR. Being able to just pop into someone's AR world and walk around as if I was in tge same physical location.
Bikes/Ebikes/motorcycles replacing cars for single-person transport in cities.
VR chat.
AR is more complicated.
-
VR chat.
AR is more complicated.
Yes, I want to pop into a live recreation of the world around somebody (as a sparkly wolf dragon with a 3million polygon ass obviously). We have the technology, just not the hardware and software.
-
I think a moon colony was possible at minimum the mid 90's. I only think bureaucracy got in the way along with a very stunted space shuttle.
Agreed, a lot of sci-fi infastructure is technically feasable its just the logistics and our lack of organisation as a species that gets in the way. We could also technically start on a dyson swarm and a lunar space elevator (not an earth one though) with modern technology and materials.
