Which engineering breakthroughs will happen before 2050?
Basic
40
8.1k
2050
96%
Gene Editing Therapies
·
1mo
92%
Brain-Computer Interfaces
·
1mo
91%
Human-level AGI
·
19d
89%
Bioprinting
·
1mo
82%
Regenerative Medicine
·
1mo
74%
Solar panels with 40% efficiency
·
1mo
66%
Quantum Computing Applications
·
1mo
60%
Lunar Bases
·
1mo
56%
Commercial fusion power
·
1mo
45%
Space-to-Earth power stations
·
18d
40%
Commercial asteroid mining
·
25d
12%
Human Mind Uploading
·
23d
7%
Commercial cold fusion
·
22d
7%
Time travel to the future
·
21d
4%
Time travel to the past
·
21d

Resolves YES for any number of technologies that are widespread enough in 2049 but not in 2024.

Resolution criteria:

  • Significant Adoption: The technology must be adopted to a degree that indicates it has moved beyond the experimental or niche phase.

  • Operational Efficiency: The technology should demonstrate reliable and efficient operation in real-world conditions.

  • Regulatory Approval: If applicable, the technology must receive approval from relevant regulatory bodies.

  • Economic Viability: The technology should be commercially viable, with clear economic benefits.

  • Independent Verification: The breakthrough should be independently verified by reputable sources.

If it is unclear whether any given technology meets these requirements before 2050, resolves to some subjective percentage value.

Get Ṁ600 play money
Sort by:
Time travel to the future

@JuJumper Aren't we travelling to the future all the time? If you want to speed it up, would cryonics qualify? What about relativistic time dilation?

Those do not count. It has to be time-machine-like and match general criteria for this market. (e.g. relativistic time dilation would count if it allowed to move something to the future usefully instead of it being an engineering problem)

So, it's a box for which someone pays to stay in to fast forward to some time in the future? Does hotel room qualify?

Just in case, I want to clarify that I'm not trolling. I genuinely think that it would be very difficult to define a "forward time machine" that would exclude things like cars, hotel rooms or cryonics tanks.

Inside a "forward time machine" must pass usefully less time than outside as measured by a physical clock, not just subjective perception. It seems to me your examples do not fit this definition.

Thank you for the clarification. So, the only realistic device that we know of that fits this description would be a spaceship that accelerates to relativistic velocity specifically to speed up the time for those inside.

@JuJumper commercial fusion is redundant

@Lemming elaborate please?

bought Ṁ150 Time travel to the f... NO

It was entered twice in this market under slightly different names

cold fusion is pretty different from "regular" fusion power

Bioprinting is kinda almost here. Dermatological use cases are much simpler than fully printed organs.

Would it be worth adding the "organ bioprinting" option? Not sure what the original asker intended

Sure

2050 is such a long time I can't imagine betting no on any of these. But some of them are already beyond the research project phase

You are welcome to add some less plausible technology!

Lunar Bases
bought Ṁ100 Lunar Bases NO

Do I understand correctly that Lunar bases built primarily for research purposes will not count, since they will not be economically viable?

I would say Lunar research bases should count as long as they proved some viability. Not necessarily self sufficiency.

Research stations usually are payed for by the government, and are not commercially viable, are they? Is Amundsen–Scott South Pole Station viable?

The base should supports continuous human presence for at least one year by the end date. The habitats and other infrastructure are (at least somewhat) permanent instead of temporary. It should also include some commercial elements. Amundsen–Scott South Pole Station is not "viable" according to this definition: for that to be the case, it would need to be partially funded by regular tourist visits.

Gene editing and brain-computer interfaces exist right now and it is plausible that they will keep developing largely incrementally. What are the thresholds after which they will be resolved to YES?

Something like "approved by a regulatory body of several major countries as non-experimental treatment for 2 or more different conditions and proven to be somewhat cost effective".

Is it not the case for both of them?

For BCI there’s a multitude of devices from those used from locked-in syndrome to cochlear implants, not to mention consumer products.

For gene editing, don’t GMO count?

BCIs might be already here, I'll have to either resolve this YES or give stricter criteria, will figure it out.

GMOs are not gene editing therapy as far as I understand?

Comment hidden

Ah, sorry, I missed the word “therapy” :)

Ok, for BCIs I mean something like this: the device interfaces with multiple specific neurons in the brain, allowing for complex and nuanced interactions (controlling external devices, cognitive enhancements, etc).