The 21st Century: What should Humanity's main objective be?

[Sanctissima]

So I've been thinking. The world we live in isn't great. It's politically divided, wars go on, suffering continues...

But all things considered, it's a hell of a lot better than it used to be. The bubonic plague is virtually non-existent, the average human lifespan has been considerably expanded, and for all the things that go on, genocides and massacres happen far less often than they did in the past. So, in hindsight, things aren't all that bad.

But this leads me to a question. What does the future hold? Or rather, what should it hold?

Humanity has, as a species, developed many marvels in the past that have improved life globally (more or less). What I mean by this are inventions or developments that exponentially improved humanity's knowledge and quality of life: agriculture (which aside from the first few thousand years, ended up being a lot more useful than it was detrimental), writing, the printing press and electricity, just to name a few. But what's next? What will be the next major development that will propel our species into the future?

So that's my question, NSG. What do you think will (or rather, should be) humanity's next major development/focus for the 21st century?

I realize many of you would probably have several things you'd like to see done, but for the purposes of this topic, please just choose the one you think is the most important.

Personally, I've got my fingers crossed for space travel.

[Teemant]

Just keep doing it's thing as it does now. Everything seems okay I think.

[Meryuma]

Ending the mass extinction we started.

[Second Blazing]

The colonization of Mars and the outer solar system.

[Romalae]

I don't understand why it has to be a single main objective. Some of these options are interconnected, some will have short time frames while others will have longer ones, and I don't think any have to be mutually exclusive. It's possible for humanity to focus on multiple goals at once.

[Scomagia]

Not killing ourselves.

[Sanctissima]

I don't understand why it has to be a single main objective. Some of these options are interconnected, some will have short time frames while others will have longer ones, and I don't think any have to be mutually exclusive. It's possible for humanity to focus on multiple goals at once.

As I said, this poll is just for which development you think is the most important one.

[Meridiani Planum]

I don't think that "humanity" should have an objective. Individuals should have objectives. Some of those will match, and so groups of individuals may find themselves with similar objectives, but there may be a variety of them.

There can be no "main" objective for humanity. It is for individuals to prioritize their personal objectives.

[Sanctissima]

I don't think that "humanity" should have an objective. Individuals should have objectives. Some of those will match, and so groups of individuals may find themselves with similar objectives, but there may be a variety of them.

There can be no "main" objective for humanity. It is for individuals to prioritize their personal objectives.

History contradicts you.

[Romalae]

I don't understand why it has to be a single main objective. Some of these options are interconnected, some will have short time frames while others will have longer ones, and I don't think any have to be mutually exclusive. It's possible for humanity to focus on multiple goals at once.

As I said, this poll is just for which development you think is the most important one.

The poll question is "What should be Humanity's focus, as a species?"

To which I would answer all of the above. Or most of the above, anyway.

[Sanctissima]

As I said, this poll is just for which development you think is the most important one.

The poll question is "What should be Humanity's focus, as a species?"

To which I would answer all of the above. Or most of the above, anyway.

As I said in the OP, the question is not how many things you want to see done, it is which do you think is the most important.

[The Sotoan Union]

Solving problems on Earth like poverty. I think some people have a weird obsession with technology as if just having more advanced technology makes us a better species, but not if it doesn't have any practical purposes. Ohh a bunch of old people landed on Mars. Doesn't do a lot of good when people who have a hard time putting food on the table vote for the party that promises to cut the space program's funding.

[Sanctissima]

Solving problems on Earth like poverty. I think some people have a weird obsession with technology as if just having more advanced technology makes us a better species, but not if it doesn't have any practical purposes. Ohh a bunch of old people landed on Mars. Doesn't do a lot of good when people who have a hard time putting food on the table vote for the party that promises to cut the space program's funding.

Probably has to do with ensuring humanity's survival.

I mean, sure, we could cut funding to our space programs and concentrate on more imminent problems. But let's say we do that, and solve poverty.

Then a giant asteroid comes out of nowhere, wipes out humanity and boom, all for naught.

[Scomagia]

Solving problems on Earth like poverty. I think some people have a weird obsession with technology as if just having more advanced technology makes us a better species, but not if it doesn't have any practical purposes. Ohh a bunch of old people landed on Mars. Doesn't do a lot of good when people who have a hard time putting food on the table vote for the party that promises to cut the space program's funding.

Yeah, the Apollo program totally didn't cause massive boosts in various technological fields, which later became available to the public and made life easier.

[The Sotoan Union]

Solving problems on Earth like poverty. I think some people have a weird obsession with technology as if just having more advanced technology makes us a better species, but not if it doesn't have any practical purposes. Ohh a bunch of old people landed on Mars. Doesn't do a lot of good when people who have a hard time putting food on the table vote for the party that promises to cut the space program's funding.

Probably has to do with ensuring humanity's survival.

I mean, sure, we could cut funding to our space programs and concentrate on more imminent problems. But let's say we do that, and solve poverty.

Then a giant asteroid comes out of nowhere, wipes out humanity and boom, all for naught.

And what the couple hundred people on Mars are going to continue humanity all by themselves? I hear this argument a lot but it really doesn't apply until we get much more advanced technology. Long after the 21st century. Until then humanity is very much doomed if Earth is wiped out. We can try to redirect the asteroid but even that might not work, so it's not like any reasonable technology we could have in the 21st century could save us if Earth was wiped out.

A more probable scenario for Earth being uninhabitable is something we do to it. So wouldn't it be better to try to deal with those problems? Even then should people continue to suffer in poverty because the resources might be needed for some theoretical struggle? Some what if is more important than the problems staring us in the face right now?

[British Home Counties]

Opposing Palestine and colonizing near-by planets and satellites.

[The Sotoan Union]

Solving problems on Earth like poverty. I think some people have a weird obsession with technology as if just having more advanced technology makes us a better species, but not if it doesn't have any practical purposes. Ohh a bunch of old people landed on Mars. Doesn't do a lot of good when people who have a hard time putting food on the table vote for the party that promises to cut the space program's funding.

Yeah, the Apollo program totally didn't cause massive boosts in various technological fields, which later became available to the public and made life easier.

And that's great.

My problem is with people who want more technology solely for the purpose of having more technology. Not for a practical application. It's one thing to look at technology as a solution to a current problem, but it's another thing to look at it as a stepping stone for more technology. Because at what point does this technology benefit us. Some people think life is some weird game of civilization and if we climb the tech tree we win. They forget that those techs are supposed to help us now, and also think that everything that doesn't lead to more "science" is pointless.

[Sanctissima]

Probably has to do with ensuring humanity's survival.

I mean, sure, we could cut funding to our space programs and concentrate on more imminent problems. But let's say we do that, and solve poverty.

Then a giant asteroid comes out of nowhere, wipes out humanity and boom, all for naught.

And what the couple hundred people on Mars are going to continue humanity all by themselves? I hear this argument a lot but it really doesn't apply until we get much more advanced technology. Long after the 21st century. Until then humanity is very much doomed if Earth is wiped out. We can try to redirect the asteroid but even that might not work, so it's not like any reasonable technology we could have in the 21st century could save us if Earth was wiped out.

A more probable scenario for Earth being uninhabitable is something we do to it. So wouldn't it be better to try to deal with those problems? Even then should people continue to suffer in poverty because the resources might be needed for some theoretical struggle? Some what if is more important than the problems staring us in the face right now?

Fair point.

Although given how technology seems to be increasing exponentially on a decennial basis, I think colonizing planets isn't as "far into the future" as it sounds.

But yes, I suppose poverty and other current major dilemmas should be dealt with first.

[Senkaku]

I think for now we can just work on not killing ourselves with climate change or a nuclear holocaust. Once we've got that maybe work on, you know, not having ever single human in history be born and die on Earth, since having all your eggs in one basket isn't usually a great plan.

For not the "not-killing-ourselves" part is probably the priority, though. Political unity would probably be the biggest thing we could do in terms of that, because a state that can make policy based on the needs of the entire planet would be very, very helpful.

[The 502nd SS]

Killing ourselves is one of the best ways to advance technology. Thats how we got the jet and nuclear energy. So onward to another massive European war!

[Ragnarum]

One of those options can lead to improvements or progress in all the other things, co-operation is key.

If humanity could focus all its resources without disturbance from national differences, then we would progress much faster in that area.

[Kaboomlandia]

Eliminating poverty worldwide.

[Meridiani Planum]

I don't think that "humanity" should have an objective. Individuals should have objectives. Some of those will match, and so groups of individuals may find themselves with similar objectives, but there may be a variety of them.

There can be no "main" objective for humanity. It is for individuals to prioritize their personal objectives.

History contradicts you.

Oh? Please elaborate.

[Sanctissima]

History contradicts you.

Oh? Please elaborate.

Pretty much every organised State that's existed in the course of human history.

If you consider those to be nothing more than groups of individuals with similar objectives, then those are some pretty big groups.

[Scomagia]

Yeah, the Apollo program totally didn't cause massive boosts in various technological fields, which later became available to the public and made life easier.

And that's great.

My problem is with people who want more technology solely for the purpose of having more technology. Not for a practical application. It's one thing to look at technology as a solution to a current problem, but it's another thing to look at it as a stepping stone for more technology. Because at what point does this technology benefit us. Some people think life is some weird game of civilization and if we climb the tech tree we win. They forget that those techs are supposed to help us now, and also think that everything that doesn't lead to more "science" is pointless.

Can you provide some examples of "technology for technology's sake"?