Clever People Imagine Which Scientific Beliefs We Hold Today Will Be Mocked In The Future

[rebelmouse-image 18346150 is_animated_gif= dam=1 expand=1]

Science is ever-advancing. There's no way we have all the answers right now and the scientifically evolved people of the future will definitely make fun of us.

StephenRodgers asked Reddit:

What's a scientific belief we hold today that will be laughed at in 100 years?

Here are some theories.

General Hospital

[rebelmouse-image 18347116 is_animated_gif= dam=1 expand=1]

Modern medicine in general

'They used to stitch wounds closed with a needle'

'It was only a hundred years ago that we treated cancer with radiation and poison'

'Can you imagine what life was like before antivirals? You'd catch one little case of rabies and it'd practically be a death sentence.'

Dark Matter

[rebelmouse-image 18347117 is_animated_gif= dam=1 expand=1]

"You guys couldn't find dark matter? What did you use? A lit match?"

Wires

[rebelmouse-image 18347118 is_animated_gif= dam=1 expand=1]

Modern othodontistry is pretty f-cked. We're still using metal wires to fuse people's teeth together.

Below Quarks

[rebelmouse-image 18347120 is_animated_gif= dam=1 expand=1]

Probably the thought that Quarks are the smallest possible thing. Scientists thought that about protons/neutrons then we figured out that they are made of Quarks.

The Apocalypse

[rebelmouse-image 18347121 is_animated_gif= dam=1 expand=1]

AI helping humans

in 100 years, no one will be laughing, because there will be NO ONE

Radiation

[rebelmouse-image 18347123 is_animated_gif= dam=1 expand=1]

Linear-No Threshold hypothesis (LNT) that says any radiation dose, no matter how small, can cause cancer.

LNT is not compatible with the scientific evidence. It's already very controversial in the scientific community, adds burdensome and unnecessarily high costs, and foments needless fear of low dose radiation among the general public.

Consequences

[rebelmouse-image 18347124 is_animated_gif= dam=1 expand=1]

Our naive trust that genetic monocultures aren't a problem in agriculture when CRISPR technology is involved.

That's a dense statement so to unpack it, a genetic monoculture happens when everything in a field is a clone of everything else. The great Irish potato famine, that was a genetic monoculture: once a fungus came along that could exploit a weakness the entire country's crop failed. The Irish had been propagating potatoes asexually so every potato in Ireland was a virtual clone of every other potato.

Yet there's never been a great Peruvian potato famine even though potatoes are native to that part of the world. That's because the Peruvians cultivate a huge variety of potatoes. So if a blight comes along and destroys a few plants, the other potatoes in the field are different enough that they don't have the same vulnerability.

Europeans had actually been cloning potatoes for the better part of a century before the Irish famine. A single shipment during the eighteenth century had introduced the plant to European agriculture and it became a staple in some areas because it produces a high yield nutritious crop that can be grown in a small space. Nobody really considered genetic variation as a risk factor.

Other agricultural monocultures have led to crop failures: the French wine industry nearly collapsed from a blight during the late nineteenth century until they started grafting their vines onto root stock from California. Now another blight is slowly taking down the French wine industry again.

The world's banana production collapsed in the mid-twentieth century for similar reasons: banana plants are reproduced asexually. The Gros Michel banana succumbed to a fungal disease and every Gros Michel banana plant was vulnerable. The Cavendish banana took its place for commercial cultivation. Cavendishes are also reproduced asexually. It's taken about fifty years for a different fungal disease to devastate the Cavendish, but right now the reason bananas are still on grocery store shelves is that the new fungus hasn't spread to the Caribbean and Latin America. Asian and African banana export farming has been ruined.

So genetic monoculture farming has short term and medium range advantages in terms of crop yield, shelf stability, etc. Yet on a time scale of fifty to a hundred years it's prone to catastrophic collapse.

What are we doing with GMO crops now? We're patenting them, which ensures they get raised as genetic monocultures.

This doesn't necessarily mean GMOs are bad per se. It's an implementation problem. The OP asks about a hundred years. Suppose the Midwestern prairie states are raising genetic monocultures seventy years from now.

It's a risk our generation is capable of anticipating, and that we're capable taking steps now to prevent. Prevention would involve making genetic modifications of several different varieties of staple grains so that if one variety ever falls to a blight we'll have enough backups implemented to prevent real devastation.

Yet this type of precaution would be slightly more expensive to implement now.

Culture

[rebelmouse-image 18347125 is_animated_gif= dam=1 expand=1]

In all likelihood, it's going to be something that isn't actually "scientific" in this day and age.

See, a lot of the things that we take for granted as "scientific facts" -- particularly those having to do with cultural mandates -- haven't actually been studied or examined in any meaningful way. For example, it used to be that corporal punishment was regarded as the only effective means of disciplining a child, and everyone "knew" that other options would result in adults who were spineless, entitled twerps. Along similar lines, everyone "knew" that homosexuality was the result of either abuse or some other sort of mistreatment... and not only was it potentially contagious, it was also psychologically harmful to anyone who was exposed to it.

We understand that both of those beliefs are ridiculous nowadays, but we haven't gotten any better at approaching things from an actually scientific perspective. Chances are that there are several things which we "know" today which are actually false... and furthermore, it's equally likely that many of those suppositions are difficult to challenge, simply because questioning them goes against the societally mandated grain. For example, what if someone suggested that rape only caused mental harm because we expected it to?

That's obviously absurd, but look at the way you reacted.

Now, think about other things that might make you react in similar ways. Have you ever read any scientific papers on those concepts? Have any impartial, peer-reviewed studies even been done on the topics in question? Do you have any evidence that supports your beliefs, other than personal anecdotes and culturally reinforced feelings?

It wasn't too long ago that transgenderism was looked at as being a mental illness, and there are still people who approach it from that perspective, despite the actually scientific evidence to the contrary. Popular points of view are difficult to shift, and they're even more daunting to challenge... and yet, chances are that something we all take for granted is completely and utterly wrong.

Just don't ask me what it is. I won't know until after I've seen studies.

Climate Change

[rebelmouse-image 18347126 is_animated_gif= dam=1 expand=1]

That by 2100 the world will just be beginning to suffer the more truly globally calamitous consequences of climate change.

Because by 2050 that s*** will have already happened.

New Meat

[rebelmouse-image 18347127 is_animated_gif= dam=1 expand=1]

How we used to get meat. 100 years from now, it will all be grown in vats on an industrial scale.

iPhones Are Old Hat

[rebelmouse-image 18347128 is_animated_gif= dam=1 expand=1]

Every belief about how small, efficient, powerful, etc any given technology can get. It will all be beyond anyone's current expectations.

We Are Not Alone

[rebelmouse-image 18347131 is_animated_gif= dam=1 expand=1]

The number of known species of organisms. It will have greatly increased in 100 years

Mind Probe

[rebelmouse-image 18347132 is_animated_gif= dam=1 expand=1]

That human conciousness and perception is somehow special and distinct from that of every other animal.

Alone In The Universe

[rebelmouse-image 18347134 is_animated_gif= dam=1 expand=1]

The premise of our universe being the original, and not contained within some larger structure, whether as a simulation or a bubble in a fractal patter of multiverses. From the big bang to the laws of physics, there are a lot of clues that are universe isn't everything...

Caffeinated Bliss

[rebelmouse-image 18347135 is_animated_gif= dam=1 expand=1]

That caffeine isn't super harmful.

I wonder if we're going to look back in a hundred years, incredulous there were so many products that you could legally buy with caffeine in it. Similar to how we look back at legal products containing cocaine and heroine from the early 1900s.

Screws In Your Knees

[rebelmouse-image 18347136 is_animated_gif= dam=1 expand=1]

That we use metals to hold together the damaged bones. That we are not able to develop any collagen that have density of bones and can function like a bone.

Dietary Needs

[rebelmouse-image 18347137 is_animated_gif= dam=1 expand=1]

That meat and (post infancy/non-human) dairy products are actual dietary requirements, rather than cultural preferences or economically dominant industries.

Mental

[rebelmouse-image 18347138 is_animated_gif= dam=1 expand=1]

I suspect a lot of the ways mental illness is viewed and approached. Scientists don't even know what things like bipolar disorder actually are in any physical sense, other than the cluster of symptoms presented. So really, you could even expand this to - many of our current views of the brain/mind. It's really uncharted territory.

Lists

[rebelmouse-image 18347139 is_animated_gif= dam=1 expand=1]

Not beliefs per se but things we do today...

Amputations of any kind "They used to cut off their legs and stick metal ones on that they couldn't move".

Organ transplants "They'd harvest organs from the dead and place them in sick people!"

Longevity "People used to only live to around 80 on average, that's like a child now!"

Meat "people used to slaughter animals for food and not grow it in a lab!"

Migraine Warfare

[rebelmouse-image 18347141 is_animated_gif= dam=1 expand=1]

"Back in the early 2000s, people just had to live with migraines. They treated them with painkillers- which, as we know today, is ineffective against the root cause of the migraine. In those days, if the painkiller didn't work, the person just had to live with the migraine, sometimes for days or weeks at a time."

Brooke Cagle/Unsplash

Remember way back when the internet wasn't a flaming dumpster fire?

Yeah, us either.

The internet has always been a mess, but it's also always been beautiful.

Keep reading... Show less
Photo by UX Gun on Unsplash

No one wants war.

Keep reading... Show less
Pexels.com

So let's talk about how a dog owner on Facebook learned her dog's "adorable" behavior was, in fact, furious masturbation.

Readers, if you know anything about me you know I love a good plot twist and I love chonky puppers.

Yesterday, life combined my two great loves in a hilarious and inappropriate way.

I was mindlessly scrolling through my dog groups on Facebook when a video with a few hundred laugh reacts but almost no comments caught my eye.

The still from the video was a pudgy little Frenchie, so obviously I had to read and watch.

Keep reading... Show less
Photo by Jason Leung on Unsplash

Have you ever fantasized about what it would be like to win the lottery? Having money for the rest of your life, as far as the eye can see, to cover your expenses.

And have you thought about all the things you would buy if you could really afford them? Are they ALL practical things, or are some of them silly?

We always love to fantasize about what life would be like if money were no object. And you are not alone!

Keep reading... Show less