Ah, a new year, and a new poll. (Like anyone didn't see this coming.) Anyway, the beginning of the year is always a time for me to think about the future, and what it will hold. Below is a poll covering a lot of different social and political topics, and I am asking for your opinions on when you think the following will occur - if ever. Some of them are mundane, and others would truly be earth shattering.

EDIT: I realize that one of the choices is "Within my lifetime" which is rather nebulous, as there are a variety of people of different ages here, and very few people have a firm grasp of approximately when they will die. So, if you feel like qualifying the statement with "I think this will happen in 50 years or so, and I am completely unsure whether or not that will be within my lifetime," feel free to note such in your replies.

Hope you enjoy it!

Poll Information
This poll contains 11 question(s). 59 user(s) have voted.
You may not view the results of this poll without voting.

Poll Results: What Does the Future Hold? (59 votes.)

Legalization of Marijuana (Choose 1)
* In 2005 - 7% (4)
* Within 10 years - 41% (24)
* Within my lifetime - 19% (11)
* Never/Not in my lifetime - 27% (16)
* It already is legal in my country of residence - 7% (4)

Gay Marriage (Choose 1)
* In 2005 - 5% (3)
* Within 10 years - 34% (20)
* Within my lifetime - 17% (10)
* Never/Not in my lifetime - 17% (10)
* It already is legal in my country of residence - 27% (16)

A Liberal U.S. President (Choose 1)
* In 2005 - 2% (1)
* Within 10 years - 39% (23)
* Within my lifetime - 37% (22)
* Never/Not in my lifetime - 22% (13)
* The President of the U.S. IS a liberal - 0% (0)

Human Travel to Another Planet (not the moon) (Choose 1)
* In 2005 - 3% (2)
* Within 10 years - 17% (10)
* Within my lifetime - 69% (41)
* Never/Not in my lifetime - 10% (6)

Colinization of Another Planet (Choose 1)
* In 2005 - 3% (2)
* Within 10 years - 2% (1)
* Within my lifetime - 34% (20)
* Never/Not in my lifetime - 61% (36)

Contact with Extra-Terrestrials (Choose 1)
* In 2005 - 3% (2)
* Within 10 years - 0% (0)
* Within my lifetime - 10% (6)
* Never/Not in my lifetime - 71% (42)
* We already have had contact with extra-terrestrials, and it's all a huge government conspiracy! - 15% (9)

Resolution of Conflict in the Middle East (not just the Iraq War) (Choose 1)
* In 2005 - 2% (1)
* Within 10 years - 8% (5)
* Within my lifetime - 31% (18)
* Never/Not in my lifetime - 59% (35)

A Nuclear War (Choose 1)
* In 2005 - 5% (3)
* Within 10 years - 2% (1)
* Within my lifetime - 37% (22)
* Never/Not in my lifetime - 56% (33)

Cure for Cancer (Choose 1)
* In 2005 - 2% (1)
* Within 10 years - 14% (8)
* Within my lifetime - 61% (36)
* Never/Not in my lifetime - 24% (14)

Cure for AIDS (Choose 1)
* In 2005 - 2% (1)
* Within 10 years - 25% (15)
* Within my lifetime - 58% (34)
* Never/Not in my lifetime - 15% (9)

Proven Existence of Dark Matter (Choose 1)
* In 2005 - 7% (4)
* Within 10 years - 8% (5)
* Within my lifetime - 32% (19)
* Never/Not in my lifetime - 19% (11)
* What in the hell is dark matter? - 34% (20)

Well I do not have much to comment my answers with by I do have a question. What the hell is Dark Mater? :confused:

Isn't that anti-matter? the opposite of matter.

Anyway first two already legalised in my country. We will land on another planet in my lifetime. We will not colonize. We will not see another nuclear war. We will see a liberal president. We will certainly not meet E.T. We will find a cure for both deseases within 10 years.

The first two questions depend on which country you're referring to. And is #3 even possible in 2005, given that the next US election isn't until 2008?

Dark matter (http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&lr=&oi=defmore&q=define:Dark+matter)

[ January 03, 2005, 21:13: Message edited by: Splunge ]

Splunge's link does more justice to the explanation of dark matter than I could ever provide.

@ Splunge - um, I'm referring in the first two questions to the country you live in. I thought that was evident by option 5.

You're right on question #3. The first and fifth choices are redundant. In order to have a liberal president in 2005 (option 1) then the current president would have to be liberal (option 5). My bad.

Aldeth - did you know that I'm on the official "don't bother calling him" list that polsters use? It's because I always give answers to questions without listening to all of the options. :shake:

Anyway first two already legalised in my country.Since when is marijuana legal in Holland? As far as I know, it is still only 'gedoogd' (I have to find an English word for that sometime. 'Gedoogd' means that it is still illegal, but the authorities won't do anything agaist it.) So, I didn't vote that it was legal in my country, but it will probably be legalised in the next ten years.

Gedoogd is just some word they use to keep the foreign opinions off our backs, it IS legal. How else would you explain getting marihuana at the apothecry as a doctor's prescription ?

Mes, Marijuana and other soft-drugs are legalized since IIRC 2001.

Aldeth, Dark Matter cannot be proven, if you see a star wobble around (and that can sofar known only be done by gravity), you wonder what matter that you cannot see causes the star to wobble, that matter can be planets, asteroid belts, etc. And they cannot be seen YET, seeing a planet by a distant sun is like spotting a firefly next to a lighthouse at a distance of 4000 miles with a telescope.

We only know that the matter exist by the effect they bring on the things we CAN see.

I'm assuming that much of the positive stuff will come with the second coming of Christ. It's not too far off. The negative means that the idiots will wreck things before that happens.

If they cannot put a person on the moon again (I do not believe that it even happened in the first place) then how can another planet be colonised?

As for nuclear war - a strong possibility within 10 years

Gay marriage - most people in NI will rebel against it but it will happen within 10 years.

A cure for all cancers (each person's cancer is unique) is needed as soon as possible, its just a shame that AIDS gets more funding.

Gedoogd is just some word they use to keep the foreign opinions off our backs, it IS legal. How else would you explain getting marihuana at the apothecry as a doctor's prescription? Mes, Marijuana and other soft-drugs are legalized since IIRC 2001.The only legal use of marijuana is for medical purposes, and only with a doctors prescription (since 17 March 2003). Holland isn't an exception in this, even the US (or parts of the US) allows marijuana for medical reasons.

Coffeeshops may sell marijuana, because it is tolerated (or 'gedoogd' for the dutch), but it is technically still illegal. Selling soft drugs in any other setting than the coffeeshop is still punishable (even if you sell to a coffeeshop). Possessing and producing marijuana is also illegal, but it is tolerated if you possess only small quantities, or if you don't grow more than 5 hennep plants.

All in all, it is illegal, but many forms are tolerated.

Here are some links for the dutch:
Dutch drug policy (http://www.justitie.nl/publiek/criminaliteit_en_preventie/drugs/algemeen/Nederlandse_beleid_op_het_gebied_van_drugs.asp?Com ponentID=4131&SourcePageID=33471#1)
Are drugs legal in Holland? (http://www.justitie.nl/publiek/criminaliteit_en_preventie/drugs/algemeen/drugs_Nederland_gelegaliseerd.asp?ComponentID=3412 9&SourcePageID=33471#1)
Policy on medical uses of marijuana (http://www.justitie.nl/publiek/criminaliteit_en_preventie/drugs/softdrugs/medisch_voorschrift_cannabis.asp?ComponentID=35068&SourcePageID=33472#1)

@ Morgoth

I worded the quesion poorly, mostly due to the lack of space you have to ask the question. Whilie what you say is true, science cannot currently account for all the "stuff" out there. Even when you include the possibility of super dense black holes, space dust, based on the attractive forces you see in galaxies, it seems like we only know of about 35% of the "stuff" out there. 65% of the matter in the universe has yet to be identified.

This doesn't even begin to touch upon the fact that even though there are some galaxies that are getting closer together, the universe as a whole is expanding. That is the "repulsive force" but that would take this entirely off topic, as it has nothing to do with dark matter, unless of course the 65% of the mass we can't identify somehow pushes things further apart.

We had the trials on Marijuana, they ended and won't be continued. No chance of legalisation in Britain.

Gay Marriage in Britain, probable within the next 50 years if the world lives that long.

Liberal US president. I'd be very surprised if not within 50 years. Not sure within the next 10. A lot depends on the people put forward by the political parties.

I should think we could make it to Mars within 50 years, I doubt we'll colonise anywhere unless some Billionaire funds it for themselves to escape Earth. I will never find out if contact is made with ET's.

I don't think peace in the middle east will happen within 50 years.

I think there will be a nuclear device used as a weapon within 50 years, not sure if this constitutes Nuclear War though.

What definition of "Cure" is generally accepted? I would say that some cancers are already curable (by surgery/chemo or whatever) Least ways my Step Mother is "cured" of Breast Cancer and my Uncle is "cured" of Skin Cancer as there is no trace of the cancer left. I'm using the definition that you totally remove the cancer and leave a healthy person. Alas, there is a chance the person may develop cancer again in the future but it's not certain.

AIDS - More likely to be eradicated through a developed vacine (like small pox was) than to find a cure.

Dark Matter - some of the links include Black Holes under the heading of Dark Matter. (Matter that can not be seen, this is not Anti-matter) Is the existence of Black Holes not sufficiently proven yet?

I would consider a vaccine to be a "cure" for AIDS. True, we haven't found a "cure" for things like smallpox, but through world-wide vaccinations, we have effectively eliminated this disease from the face of the earth. So I'd say either would count. A "cure" could be defined as either being able to cure the disease once the person has been afflicted, or prevent the disease from happening in the first place through vaccination.

Here's another article on dark matter, one that states that 90% of all matter in the universe is unaccounted for. Read it here (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-sci-pioneer21dec21,0,3834452.story?coll=la-home-local)

[ January 04, 2005, 19:31: Message edited by: Aldeth the Foppish Idiot ]

One quick point...is marijuana really illegal in America? Sure...on the books it is. Get caught growing more than a couple plants and you are in deep du-du (although you will not do much time).

But...

I could have a bag of pot within a half-hour on any given day. As a teenager I have had cops "confiscate" my pot without pressing charges and I know numerous other people who have had the same experience.

My point is...well...hmm...i guess the general population really decides if something is "illegal" or not.


Edit...

Hey Aldeth...although I am sure some physists has done the calculations...I wonder what happens when you calculate the amount of energy required to accelerate all the matter of the universe (remember as well that the galaxies near the edge of the solar system are moving at a fraction of the speed of light...in other words...buku energy)...then convert that energy to matter through Einie's famous E=mc^2...that might provide some insight into the missing matter.

As you said LNT, pot is only illegal on the books. There are many ways to get pot in the U.S., and I'm sure the majority of Americans - especially those who went to college - have at least had the opportunity to try pot if they wished to. Still, if you're over 18 and get caught, there is going to be some penalty.

As far as the calculation is concerned - I'm a chemist, not a physicist. As you said, I'm sure someone has done it before anyway, but I certainly do not possess the knowledge needed to redo those calculations.

The Liberal government in Canada wants to de-criminalize small amounts of weed (up to 15 grams) for personal use. You can still get busted with more than that, or for gorwing or selling it.

This begs the question: What do you have to be smoking to vote for the Liberals in the first place?

Well, the only question I couldn't really answer is the one about there being a Liberal President of the US because I don't live over there and besides, I still have trouble remembering whether Howard is Liberal or Labor! :doh:

And as for the question about a Cure For Cancer, pessimistic though this may be, I don't think there will ever be a cure found and released to the public because if there ever WAS a cure found, that would be the end of the finances for research. And money holds power over some people. We can hope though. I'd say the same for AIDS but in a way I guess that's a disease that people are more aware of in general. But hey, what do I know?

The cures for AIDS and cancer, I think, will be found in my lifetime. However, there will be other things that will replace them, and I'm sure we'll come up with new carcinogens to pump into the biosphere.

Weed ain't gonna be legal in Australia for a LOOOOONG time, I'm guessing, although maybe there will be a policy of tolerance and discretionary enforcement aimed at actually reducing drug related harms. After decades of research, who'd have thought that could be a possibility? Oh wait, all those hippy pot-smoking small-L liberal elitists...

Gay marriage - not soon, but hopefully within the next 10 years in Australia. I don't see why it's even an issue, but they said there'd never be a gay archbishop running a diocese only fifteen years ago...

Peace in the Middle East - Not any time soon. Within 50 years, maybe. Not within the next 10, unless you count "liberating" countries as establishing peace (sorry everyone, couldn't help it).

Nuclear war - I said "never", but that's more out of hope than anything else. So long as everyone remembers that everyone loses in that event, we should be safe from nuking ourselves, although I'm sure us humans will find another way to annihiliate everything.

Colonising Mars - not in my lifetime. Landing on it, maybe, but I very much doubt that too.

Contact with aliens - as has been said before, the surest sign that intelligent life exists in the universe is that it hasn't made contact with us yet. Not in my lifetime, although I think it could almost be the best thing to ever happen to this planet.

Dark Matter - WTF? Well, unless you can see it or detect it, you can't necessarily prove it. There may well be an influence from it that is detectable, but the likelihood of people unanimously agreeing on an invisible phenomenon is lower than the odds of me moving to Texas and starting an "anti-anti-death penalty advocates" advocacy group.

@ Aldazar: I get confused about Howard too - the difference between Liberal and Labor is so slight here that you almost can't see it, especially when forestry unionists are voting for the Liberals.

And as for the question about a Cure For Cancer, pessimistic though this may be, I don't think there will ever be a cure found and released to the public because if there ever WAS a cure found, that would be the end of the finances for research. And money holds power over some people. Ah, but the people who came up with the cure, be that a vaccine, treatment, whatever, would patent the formula and become filthy rich selling it to hospitals. So, yeah, the money for research would stop, but the fact that those responsible for the cure would become very rich, there would be no motivation for them not to come public with the results.

I'd like to hear from the person who said we would colonise another planet in 2005! How is that going to happen?

And I would like to see who said that there is no chance of ever being a liberal president again.

Yes, all seven of you.

its just a shame that AIDS gets more funding.Oh, what a shame. A chance to cure millions more than there are affected by cancer.


Let me guess, it's their own faults, right?

[ January 12, 2005, 00:10: Message edited by: Caleb* ]

Maybe I read that wrong, but are you implying that more people die from AIDS than die from cancer?

Even though mortality from Human immuno deficiency virus disease (HIVdisease)has not been on the list of 15 leading causes of death since 1997 (24) , it is still considered a major public health problem. In 2002 a total of 14,095 persons died from HIV disease. The age adjusted deathrate(4.9 per 100,000 standard population)declined for the seventh consecutive year, decreasing 2.0 percent from the rate in 2001. The rate of decline in mortality from this cause has slowed considerably and the death rate appears to be stabilizing. Taken from the CDC (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr53/nvsr53_05acc.pdf). I highly recommend looking at the chart on page 5 of the .PDF. I'm assuming that Malignant Neoplasms (the #2 killer) is probably cancer. Curse those medical people for not speaking English.

As to do the HIV sufferers deserve to die, because they did it to themselves, probably not. Even I can't be that heartless. However, when you look at the statistics of what is most likely to kill someone (heart disease, cancer, Alzheimers, the flu) the HIV people should be lucky that they get any research at all. If it wasn't for having a very vocal lobby, nobody would care.

I lost my mother to lung cancer (she was a smoker) and Mrs. Snook for the past two years has been fighting with her second bout of breast cancer. It looks like she has beaten it, but now it is a life long fight. She will be undergoing treatments for the rest of her life (may it be sixty years). Luckily, breast cancer is one of the lucky diseases that gets a lot of government and public support. I would hate to have something that no one cared about.

I think I said that there would be a liberal president within the next 10 years. I think that if the Democrats are ticked off enough at George W. they will try to rally all their supporters to get more people voting in hopes that they will outnumber the Republicans...

I lost my mother to lung cancer (she was a smoker)Do you mean that it isn't dangerous for others in the closest vicinity if you smoke?

This poll is great. It really shows how much crap is going on. If human kind is on the right track, we should be able to answer 2005 to all questions, except the nuclear war-thing, of course ;)
BTW: 13% so far believe that we have aliens on Earth - :D

Let me guess, it's their own faults, right? I am sorry if anyone mis-understood my comment. Regarding my full post I said it was a shame that it gets more funding than cancer (there are many types of cancer that are un-preventable) not that it gets any funding and in some cases it is peoples fault. If you sleep around, know about the dangers of STD's and don't use protection then it is your fault or share needles with strangers. However I also believe a lot of people contract HIV accidently through no fault of their own.

Regarding living on Mars would anyone really want to do such a thing? Our own planet has many beautiful places.

AIDS could have a cure already, but theres nothing to interest private Drug companys to develop anything, as most of the AIDS sufferers live in Africa, and the drug companies would get very little money from selling the drug to these countries as they couldnt afford it.

Cesard, you are forgetting or just delibirate ignore the point that there is not known around large parts of Africa that you get AIDS from sex, some see it as their God's punishment, other as an accident, and some know the truth, but not all do.

During college, I could get my hands on pot and hash whenever I liked. Still, I dont see it being legalised. Most of our laws still refer to pre-1900 years.

Gay marriage aint never gonna be legalised. Not in a country where the uneducated, ignorant plebs consider marriage outside your cast illegal and gangrape the young wife for her crime .

I dont think Jeff Bush (?) is gonna be the next presidential candidate. So in the next 10 years.
Mind you, that does not necessarily mean for the next 10 years.

I think Mars will mark a human footprint sometime during the next 50 years. Though it will take a lot to push us into properly colonising even the moon.

I believe in MiB :p

So long as there still is oil in the region, the US will never stop its interferance in middle-eastern matters. And the locals cant even seem to get to the same table without ****ing things up.

If you mean the type on which the Terminator series is based, then no. True Lies could happen.

Nope. Cancer and HIV are just too virulant and widespread for there to be a single cure for them. And I think we can forget about immunisation. The poor and developing countries will mess up that program.

Final proof, no. General scientific acceptance and inclusion in calculation/theories, yes.

Caleb, and in the parts that do know AIDS comes from sex, the husband blames it on the wife, calling her a w***e.
And when asked if they should not use condoms for personal safety, the men answer, "do you eat candies with the paper still wrapped around it?"

A cure for cancer within your lifetime? Haha, think again. HIV, yes possibly. Cancer is *preventable*, but curable? Don't bet on it.

There will be no cure for aids anytime soon. No disease caused by a virus had ever had a cure found for it. The best that anyone can hope for is a vaccine. But if some one has hiv or aids right now, it will kill them.
Now if people could learn to control their behavior, aids could have been almost eradicated by now.

The big reason why many diseases will never be "cured" in a hurry is that the pharmaceutical companies make far more money from various drugs that address symptoms and must be taken for years than they would from a cure that only needs to be taken once. Conspiracy theorists would suggest that a cure for cancer has already been found but has been covered. Those pharmaceutical giants wield such immense power that who knows.

The most f'd up thing I got was from an investment company that offered shares in companies that had the only cures for certain diseases.

As for gay marriage I think it should/could be legalised soon. Bush says it de-values the sanctity of marriage but what about adultry?

To Calab* I was talking about countries that should know better. Do you really think that everyone in Africa does not know about HIV and AIDS? As for it being Gods punishment people could say that about many things from Aids to breaking your arm when slipping on ice. AID's does deserve funding but I think that treatment for cancer should get more priority. It comes to the ago old 'differences in opinion'.

Answered "not in my lifetime" to almost, everything, except "nuclear war", which got a "in my lifetime". Oh yes, and dark matter got a "what the hell?"

Concerning cure for cancer, it's not a matter of conspiracy theories and pharmaceutical companies wanting to make money (they do make money - HUGE amounts of money - but that's not the issue). I don't know how to explain it to someone who isn't at least partially involved in this type of research, but if you actually see how it's conducted, you'd understand why I don't think it will happen anytime soon. The approach needs to be completely rethought.

Gay marriage? Nope, not anytime soon. The world is becoming MORE conservative, and fanatisicism is on the rise. Those two things don't exactly make it likely.

A liberal president in the US? That *is* the funniest joke ever :)

Ok, so I'm a pessimist...

@ Ziad

With regards to cancer research, yep that's exactly it. We all know the current routine is a waste of time, but we still do it. The whole system needs to be completely revamped.

@Tassadar: Yes, this is the expression I should have used. A waste of time. You take a chemical and you use it to treat human cancer cells in a test tube. It works. Then, in order to prove that it doesn't kill normal cells, you take MOUSE cells and show that they're not affected by the chemical. You then go on to publish that you have discovered a new treatment for cancer X that is in no way toxic...

This is just bad. And it's done everyday. A month ago a colleague was defending her thesis, and that's exactly what she was doing. And the scary thing is, there were a dozen professors in that room, and not one said a word, not one stopped to say, "look guys, isn't this logic slightly flawed?"

Of course, this chemical will never be approved for clinical testing, so it's not really a danger or anything. It's just money and time wasted on a research that basically goes nowhere. Sad.

@ Ziad

Which lab are you working in?

Too bad she will need to go through that exact process for approval in the first place by the FDA, etc, before clinical trials. And then they'll find out it doesn't work in humans because all the screening was done in mice. If it actually does work (and most likely in one very specific and rare tumour), they'll say "told you so", without questioning whether results were simply coincidence or a total fluke. But at least her thesis is done. :)

I'm sure the research at the moment is sound, the procedures just need to be changed. We are possibly missing millions of potential compounds with the way we are doing things, and promoting ones that are duds or perhaps only moderately effective.

Perhaps instead of looking for the "magic bullet" we should instead concentrate our efforts on the actual mechanisms of unregulated cell growth. Perhaps we should first concentrate our efforts on the actual mechanisms of regulated cell growth. I only had two semesters of biology before devoting myself fully to chemistry, but my textbook (which is in my dorm room...sigh...so I'm going on year old memory) described a cyclical cascade of reactions as the "clock" of the cellular cycle. I believe the acronymn started with a C...like CAPs or something. I also remember the book mentioning that it was a system not fully understood (or even close to fully understood if I recall).

I also read about a bit of a mystery. The ends of DNA have long segments called telometric ends (i hope i got that right). These are required because with each replication of DNA a small segment at each 5' end (again, i hope i got that right) is lost due to the fact that DNA can only be replicated in one direction. So with each replication, the telometric ends get shorter and shorter.

Here's the mystery: cancer cells have their ends restored. I don't know enough to offer a reasonable hypotheses, but my gut tells me this is significant.

@ Late-Night Thinker

Yes indeed, many cancer cells do have their telomeres restored, by telomerase. Their telomeres are very short, less than the threshold that causes normal cells to senesce. However, tumour cells keep dividing regardless and you get nasty chromosomal breakages and random fusions. Looking at the chaotic genomic map of any tumour cell is enough to make one wince.

I also agree there won't be a magic bullet. Glivec was an isolated case, but we need to completely understand the regulation of cell cycle before we even start to develop drugs. At the moment it's like sending soldiers into a minefield blindfolded.