Nobody does, it's never existed. That's why there's palpable anxiety or fear as AI and automated machines are very rapidly being introduced by major corporations to automate industries that employ hundreds of thousands of workers.

It doesn't matter if the handful of billionaires also collect the $3000 a month or whatever, as long as they are being taxed appropriately. The effect of monies going to those who don't need it would be negligible.

What would be the motivation for them to pay anyone?

Do you think that will occur? I've worked with companies making them, and I don't think the majority of people will want it after experiencing and acknowledging all the negative consequences of smartphones and mobile internet. My #1 reason I'll likely never use one is privacy. A corporation or government will literally be able to see what you see and have even greater insight into your every waking moment to sell you ads and propaganda. I think it will remain a niche product.

Researchers think daily brain uploads will be available in the 2040s.

I'm pretty sure you're just describing closing your eyes and thinking.

Annual rates are irrelevant. Long term trends are more important. A smaller percentage of my fellow citizens own homes than they did 25 years ago, or 15 years ago. Home ownership here has morphed into a corporate business opportunity, a commodity that's repackaged and resold over and over to raise prices. I also don't think the 66% figure means much here, be a use homes are so expensive that virtually all of those "owned homes" are actually under mortgages and only technically belong to the resident - the actual owner is the bank, until the mortgage is paid off. Any recession that impacts mortgage payments for a few months, and the home is no longer owned by a resident (that happens here with great regularity every 10-15 years).

Disagree! Prices for everything are likely to rise precipitously as climate change and global consolidation of resource ownership continues unabated. We have done nothing to slow or stem any of our biggest problems. Home ownership is dropping in my country. I simply don't believe technology will make wood cheaper to build with or eliminate the greed that stop our homebuilders from making smaller homes in America.

Until jobs start disappearing by the millions. That's what's predicted for the next 10 years in technology.

Sorry, OP cannot possibly be over the age of 16. This post doesn't make any sense or give any justification for its premise.

Ok good luck!

If the wormhole was "open", there would be a pressure gradient and stuff would get sucked through to equalize, destroying both ends.

Creating a wormhole would require multiple stars worth of energy. You're definitely not gaining anything.

Most of the world's climate scientists disagree with you. Society will collapse. It is almost one inevitable now. I don't know how you can look at the data, combined with our own first hand observations of daily occurrences, and believe that the systems we have today will be functional in 50 years.

"no" is hyperbole. True. "Few" is accurate. Every time a western nation makes a pledge, it couples it with opposite actions like increased oil drilling or natural gas exporting (for duh economy). Emissions are still rising each year. Local leaders are still pushing development in rapidly declining desert ecosystems. Building housing developments in hurricane alleys and floodplains. There is progress, but it is almost always one step forward, two steps back, with the trend line unchanged.

You're simply unwilling to accept the facts as determined by data. When you call peer-reviewed data-based analysis "extreme", you make clear you're not serious.

Reality is not a viewpoint. It is a set of conclusions arrived based on the analysis of data. It's not formulated based on emotion or hope, fear or prejudice.

You just described scientists' estimates based on the best available information and data to be "an extreme". If you don't listen to scientific consensus, where does your basis for futurology come from? Please reevaluate your perceptions.

Nobody doubts that life will go on. The discussion is about human society.

People working in climate science are not optimistic, and they are now very vocal about it. Sometimes reality isn't positive. A species can be a negative force on its planet.

Ah the old "optimism is almost always a lie sold to us by the people running society" problem.

If there is a concrete positive development that unequivocally bodes well for the future of our species, planet, or any particular topic, it wouldn't be downvoted. The thing is, we are at a point in society where everything moves too fast for anyone to even understand what is happening, and we are at such a high level of material consumption that any new "innovation" that doesn't expressly reduce waste, emissions or resource use is actually probably a bad thing. An honest, science-based futurology sub would have daily discussions about tearing down all the status quo systems because they are creating a dystopian future. Reddit users won't be the ones getting the technology to become immortal or going to live on luxury spaceships.

You sure know how to avoid saying "all the world's scientists agree we fucked up the whole planet, and no policy makers are listening, so realistically a futurology sub should discuss what is actually being predicted about our future based on the best data available, and not pie in the sky hopes and dreams from corporations selling robots to deliver tacos or whatever the fuck"

edit: not meant as an attack - just a reality check on why the sub attracts both users and content that appears "negative", when in fact it is just reality.

What does production have to do with geoengineering a whole planet? Yes, it will take thousands of years, at least, to create a habitable planet for humans and other earth life. Changing an entire planet is not something that happens quickly. The only reason we are able to have such an effect on our planet is because there's 8 billion of us and there are fossil fuels to burn and turn into chemicals. Other planets do not have either of those. Getting the necessary machinery to another planet might not even be possible. Geoengineering other planets is a far-off pipe dream idea at this point.

The whole enterprise is questionable. It would take multiple human lifetimes just to get there, and people and government are hesitant to invest large sums in super long term projects that have no return for the people funding it (taxpayers). Likewise, a business wouldn't take the risk because the cost is very high and the chance of success provides no value to earth or the company.

Ok... So you do that. Then what? The mind is stuck inside the tiny machine, what's the next step?

Nothing can travel at the speed of light. As of today, that is one of the foundations of physics. The fastest theoretical speed scientists think can be achieved for micro spacecraft with light sails is about 20% the speed of light (and I've heard nothing about them being able to slow down). Transporting actual materials to build with is unlikely be a use of the astronomical energy required to move something large that fast, and the high opportunity for space debris to destroy it, again, because of the speed.