Humanity's Limits

[Thaluikhain]

Also as planets that aren't bound to any star are quite common, it might be possible to use those as spaceships.

Er, what?

Anyway, yeah, colony on Mars wouldn't be beyond our reach...but there'd be no reason for it yet. I daresay the US could have put people on Mars by now if they'd really wanted it, but there was no reason to justify the massive expense.

I've forgotten the actual name of the planet type (or whether it even has one), but essentially they don't orbit a star, and they just fly around the universe going at pretty much whatever direction they feel like. It would take some advanced tech and a lot of luck to find one that has the right position and environment, but if humanity did hitch a ride on one, it'd essentially turn the whole world into a spaceship as it's moving in one direction.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2012/11/17/homeless-planet-found-wandering-near-earths-solar-system/

If a rogue planet just happened to pass very close to the solar system and if this is going to happen within the next few centuries, and if it's course just happened to be going to a star and if that star was one of the nearest ones.

Lot of ifs there. Space is big and empty. Even if we had lots of rogue planets going past people could travel on, odds are they wouldn't be going anywhere in particular, just out into the deep void.

 

[Hagi]

What is with you people and this incredibly bleak, defeatist attitude towards FTL? The laws of physics are exactly that: laws. And what do we do with laws? Obey, bend or break them.

Yeah...

the laws of physics aren't that kind of law...

There isn't a constitution of physics somewhere that was signed by God or anyone else. There's no physics congress making these laws, no physics police upholding them.

It is, by definition, impossible to break or bend the laws of physics. If something we thought a physical law was broken then that was only possible because it wasn't a physical law in the first place, it was merely something we mistakenly identified as such.

 

[Thaluikhain]

The void is not empty. Nothing can stay out of interstellar space forever unless it is completely stationary relative to at least one star on every axis

Not sure how that's relevant, but if you mean that an object will eventually get somewhere if it keeps going, sure.

In the general sense, though, if you're not going to get anywhere within a hundred thousand years, you're not going to get anywhere.

Case in point: The sound "Barrier". Before 1947 it was thought impossible but today it is broken on a daily basis and has even been broken on the ground!

Er, it wasn't. Nobody (at least no actual scientists) were saying that breaking the sound barrier was breaking the laws of physics. Bullets travelling faster than sound have been around long before 1947.

Any number of people might have said it was beyond the technical skill of people at that time to get a vehicle safely moving beyond that speed, but that's not teh same thing.

 

[Esotera]

If a rogue planet just happened to pass very close to the solar system and if this is going to happen within the next few centuries, and if it's course just happened to be going to a star and if that star was one of the nearest ones.

Lot of ifs there. Space is big and empty. Even if we had lots of rogue planets going past people could travel on, odds are they wouldn't be going anywhere in particular, just out into the deep void.

This would be as a long-term/very long-term approach to colonisation. Most of the time the planet would be ages away from anything, but eventually it would get near enough to have a few settlers approach some other planets and colonise them. The technology required to maintain something like this would be insane though, definitely won't be happening for at least a few thousand years if at all.

 

[Angie7F]

I actually think we would not go anywhere if it were not for political, social, and economic benefits. Maybe i am too skeptical.

 

[Liquidcool]

Humanity's limit is 99 OH HO HO. Little Dark Souls reference there.

On topic though if we can't achieve FTL speed then our space exploration-options are pretty limited I think. But I bet it's possible. Although Earth has served us well so far so I just hope that there aren't any nuclear winters in our future. I'd rather patrol the Mojave than endure one of those.

 

[Thaluikhain]

If a rogue planet just happened to pass very close to the solar system and if this is going to happen within the next few centuries, and if it's course just happened to be going to a star and if that star was one of the nearest ones.

Lot of ifs there. Space is big and empty. Even if we had lots of rogue planets going past people could travel on, odds are they wouldn't be going anywhere in particular, just out into the deep void.

This would be as a long-term/very long-term approach to colonisation. Most of the time the planet would be ages away from anything, but eventually it would get near enough to have a few settlers approach some other planets and colonise them. The technology required to maintain something like this would be insane though, definitely won't be happening for at least a few thousand years if at all.

Long term as in millions of years.

Mind you, if a rogue planet blundered past and you could colonise that, you may as well do that anyway, worry about reaching the next star system in a few million years when it happens.

 

[IBlackKiteI]

Solving all of the worlds problems and having mankind come together in glorious union won't automatically fix everything and have us go so far as to cure cancer and colonize the moon within a generation or two. It would be a massive improvement sure, but if that actually happened for the most part people would probably just get (even) more fat and complacent.
We are currently and will always be limited most by our own inherent human shortcomings, namely our fragility and general dickery that just persists regardless.
What would world peace and total obliteration of all prejudice look like anyway? It'd probably be something much like your typical Western city. There'd be improvements of course, but we'll still litter and still act like douchebags.
If you really want humankind to get a massive level up, you need to change how we're raised. Make it so every kid grows up striving to do the best they possibly can all the time, make it so they're raised to just be excellent to each other.
Be a bit difficult eh?

It's worth noting that many of the biggest scientific breakthroughs and developments of mankind, particularly in regards to areas like aviation, medicine and engineering were brought on by conflict. The need to arm your guys quicker so they can kill the other guys' guys sooner brought on better manufacturing methods. The need to have your guys survive injuries and diseases so they can have a better chance at getting back to killing the other guy's guys brought on better medicines and medical methods. The need to kill a bunch of the other guys' guys without putting your guys at risk brought on innovations in aircraft, rockets and robotics.

Of course that's probably a bit of a simplification. Not all forms of crisis deal with the need to kill guys. But times of crisis bring out a kind of need to really really get shit done that just doesn't exist otherwise. Think of whenever you've got a big huge essay coming up. If its a couple months away you'll probably sit back and chill. When you forget about it, realise you've got a week left and haven't started yet, you'll go 'Oh shit!' and go into overdrive mode.
And you'll get that damn essay DONE.

Basically, remove conflict and you're removing the primarily driver of our progress.

 

[CrazyCapnMorgan]

Strangely enough OP, such a thing was theorized roughly 25 years ago:

 

[bug_of_war]

Personally, I think we would actually slow down in development. If we're all working together, then the goal would not be as worth while. Think about the Space Race, the USA and the USSR wanted to beat each other so badly that they put all their resources into making it into space. While wars are tragic, we as a species seem to thrive on competition as our main reason to continue trying. History shows that we work at our best when we have a goal set in mind which will make us look better than someone else. The only way the whole world working together would push humanity to our limits is if we knew there were another species out in the universe with a similar intelligence that had yet to do whatever it is that would be left to be done.

TL;DR: Competition will always push people to their limits much quicker than full cooperation. Without competition, there is no dire need for anything. In my opinion of course...

 

[bug_of_war]

Basically, remove conflict and you're removing the primarily driver of our progress.

Agree completely

 

[Hagi]

What is with you people and this incredibly bleak, defeatist attitude towards FTL? The laws of physics are exactly that: laws. And what do we do with laws? Obey, bend or break them.

Yeah...

the laws of physics aren't that kind of law...

There isn't a constitution of physics somewhere that was signed by God or anyone else. There's no physics congress making these laws, no physics police upholding them.

It is, by definition, impossible to break or bend the laws of physics. If something we thought a physical law was broken then that was only possible because it wasn't a physical law in the first place, it was merely something we mistakenly identified as such.

Case in point: The sound "Barrier". Before 1947 it was thought impossible but today it is broken on a daily basis and has even been broken on the ground!

The sounds barrier never was and has never been a physical law.

Even if we used to believe that somehow it was then by breaking it we've proven that we were mistaken.

It's in the definition of a physical law that it can not be broken. Just like it's in the definition of a circle that it's round or that ice is solid.

Broken physical laws are as impossible as square circles or liquid ice.

 

[Cabisco]

If history has taught us anything it's that whatever we think our limits are, we will exceed them.

 

[Reece Borgars]

as a species humans are already way more capable than we seem. We have the technology to send people to mars - we have done for decades. Its just Americans have a tendancey to spend money on guns rather than space travel. As a result of this trips to mars were delayed and we sent a robot up there, rather than a team of people, plus their equipment. This is the same situation for a lot of things - the technology is available, but people wont release/use it until the opportunity arises which is the most cost effective, next gen consoles have always been a good example, as the gaps between the releases dont tend to reflect the advance in the tech itself.
As for what we could have achieved without conflict amongst ourselves, probably little more than we already have done, for the exact reasons i just mentioned. Admittedly, if less money were spent on weapons then NASA and similar institutes would get more funding, but no matter which way you look at it, the money will always be limited, and so, research will be limited, until a more cost effective way of researching becomes apparent

 

[Saregon]

I'd say one of four things:

-Either we'd have started some serious space exploration and other advancements on the Kardashev scale, OR
-Be where we are, except with improved ways of life all around, OR
-Do something dumb, like make sentient/self-aware computers, or in any case, computers powerful enough to create new, even better computers, basically Skynet, OR
-Have encountered alien lifeforms, and if they're friendly, formed alliances, or if they're not, we'd pretty much be screwed, as they would be far more advanced, seeing as how they would have mastered interstellar travel, while we'd presumably still be locked within our own solar system.

Definitely hoping for the first one.

 

[Reece Borgars]

Just a point to anyone who thinks we may have achieved FTL travel by now - we wouldnt, for the simple fact that anything with a mass cannot achieve it.
We can come very close (in theory) but it is impossible - as you approach the speed of light you begin to contract. The closer you get the light speed, the more you contract, to the point where, when you reached light speed, you would have exactly 0 length. This essentially means you would not be made of matter if you reached light speed, and that, if we reverse it, nothing with a mass (ie, all matter in the universe) can reach light speed.
sorry to burst your bubbles.

on a slightly more positive note though, instantaneous travel (like tardis materialisation) is theoratically possible, as it requires no velocity at all. the problems lie around the issue of working out how the hell it might work

 

[spartan231490]

Alright, if Humanity as a whole got rid of all its political, social, and economic boundaries and actually worked together in peace, how far could we reach?

So, you're question is, once humanity is without limits, what will we be able to accomplish.

 

[Gigano]

If humanity got rid of all ideological and social boundaries and individual/group interests, in favour of collective efficiency, it'd no longer be humanity, but have magically transformed into whatever species communism mistakenly assumed it be.

As for how far such species would get, that depends on how pliable physics turn out to be, and whether the ways to utilize it are actually happened upon. A trillion minds working on theories are much more likely to find something useful, but they could fail to do so. And a single human in an imperfect world happen upon the right train of thought instead... then use to annihilate/enslave the opposing groups. Competition for one's very survival is quite the motivation, and if the entire world generate resources which are then largely pooled in a few wealthy nations, that much more can be spent on research.

 

[IamLEAM1983]

That would be cool, but war comes from economic imperatives in most developed countries. I think we're headed for a micro-scaled version of Warhammer 40K, personally, with new races or clans forming on other planets and keeping up with the ages-old human tradition of getting our own sons and daughters slaughtered for the stupidest of reasons or to line some warlord's already fat pockets.

 

[serious biscuit]

Alright, if Humanity as a whole got rid of all its political, social, and economic boundaries and actually worked together in peace, how far could we reach?

Do you think we could possibly create colonies on distant planets today if we worked together? Could we find a cure for cancer? What are our real limits?

I believe the only thing stopping us from exploring the galaxy is each other. (obviously) If we combined forces imagine the great advances we could make in every field.

So I'm asking you guys, how far could we go within the next 30 years if we all worked together? Or how far do you think we would be if we made this decision several hundred years ago? And that begs another question, could humanity actually unite itself in this way?

Sorry to disappoint, but there's no way that humanity will ever come together, its our nature to fight mainly because of opinion and because on a whole we are very self centered anyone who has a different view to you is wrong, and therefore you wouldn't want to associate with them. Furthermore getting rid of the boundaries mentioned would just cause more problems, for instance no politics means no government and no government means no laws which means total anarchy, people need to be told what to do/think and they need to be governed otherwise primal intrinsic will kick in and with no consequences you'll start doing whatever you feel like because it isn't right or wrong; this would also create a bigger wedge in society where people will group off and start their own 'utopias' with their own ideal laws.
And with no economy how do you expect for people to work for the common goal? Because no matter how good it is for all of us, no one will do it for free because everyone wants some short term return on their work.