What lies in store for humanity?

I don't think humanity has ever thought clearly (if it's even possible), so I don't think war and crime will ever not exist. Curing disease isn't as profitable as not curing disease, so I don't see that happening anytime soon (not to mention how much over-populated the world would be). I think humanity will keep being humanity as it always has; raping the environment, disagreeing on morals, religion, science, government and everything thing else individuals disagree about. Just more of the same as it has been for the last 6,000 or so years. But that's just my opinion, so I'm probably wrong.

For all we know, we may be at the absolute apex of what most living, evolving creatures ever get in this universe. Perhaps the conditions which allow a dominant species to become a “dominant species” ALWAYS creates a self-destroying Frankenstein Monster, so to speak.

We humans here on planet Earth seem to have evolved technologically to the point where we can, if we choose, annihilate ourselves and our planet…and we have done so without having evolved philosophically to the point where we definitely will not do so.

Not a good scenario.

We may wipe ourselves out.

Maybe every dominant species wipes itself out before getting past this point.

Maybe only a miniscule percentage of evolving species ever gets beyond this point.

We’ll see.

I know you mean this sarcastically, but war, crime and disease are a part of life, clear thinking or a lack thereof on the part of humanity notwithstanding.

War and crime are the result of the inherent conflict within humanity's moral dynamic.

I don't see humanity self-destructing because of this conflict. There's an equilibrium that's achieved in that dynamic.

The idea that because humanity cannot cure all know diseases it will self-destruct is a non sequitur.

Disease may destroy humanity, but it will not have done so without a fight.

So far it's going well, but then again the world's been going to hell for as long as someone's been around to bitch about it.

I'd be interested to know more about the 'equilibrium'Sorry, I didn't mean to link the question about disease with the idea of self destruction. It just came out that way.

Humanity has always had a conflict between doing good and doing bad. Wars have always been the natural outcome of conquest and control. We now call that politics and religion.

However, man has always succeeded more in killing than saving lives.

With the advance in technology, the future will be a mixture of great scientific knowledge and growth, but the world's majority will still live in poverty and need.

Is there hope? Yes, for the top 10 to 20% of humanity who can accumulate enough wealth to live comfortably; those who don't need to worry about food, water, and shelter.

Who knows; with the warming of the planet, many of earth's ecology will be destroyed. How far is the 64-trillion dollar question.

$64,000,000,000,000.00?
You're pretty well off, CI. Can you help?

We will always have wars when the haves refuse to share with the have nots. Not everyone wants to be a billionare. Most people want a job that pays a living wage with enough left over for a little enjoyment. the problem is the greedy types who want it all. But when a man watches his family start starving the haves had better start to worry about the lives of themselves and their own families. Thats when the have nots will start killing and their are not enough police to control the 90% of have nots.

RE: 'Will our clear thinking ...'
I doubt that most of the people are thinking at all ... let alone clearly.
RE: 'Cure all diseases?'
When and ... if we find all the causes of the diseases, rather than treating syntomatics, maybe. But diseases are part of the game, called life. This is malfunction or disfunction of metabolism by some cause and at some stage of degradation. This is as if to ask: may I have a computer or a car ... that will never fail and will be properly functional forever?
RE: 'Will we self-destroy?
The question is neither 'will we', nor even 'when'. The question is 'Are we self destroying here and now?'

No - because its historically the same we and unlikely to change except by mutation.

No - because germs mutate.

Quite possibly - but we are more likely to be wiped out by a natural disaster as in the case of the dinosaurs.

Depends who you are. The "Western World" consumes up to 25 times per capita of the Earth's resources compared to the poorest nations. The next significant conflicts are likely to be over water rights.

Yeah. I read somewhere that the richest 300 people in the world have an income equal to the poorest 3 billion people.

The trend of the have's and have not's grows larger because the people who control pay and benefits have lost sight of what makes any economy strong; the middle class.

I'm afraid if you're not in the right profession or getting the right education, the future struggles will be tougher than ever.

However, what's interesting about this growth in the divide between the top 10% and the rest of humanity in the US, many pockets in the US are showing pretty good average income.

Take a gander at this Wiki article on Average Per Capita Income By County.
It will surprise most of you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-income_counties_in_the_United_States

Virginia seems to be doing something right!

We live in Santa Clara County (CA) - #19 on the list.

Rabel222 has given us the final word, as I see it.

No
Some, not all.
Most likely.
Depends on your criteria.

IMHO we are a violent, competitive species.

Right on brother, I pretty much agree, but usually that overthrow only results in a different ruling class, often much worse. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

Yep. Nothing changes. the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. The majority of the rich were rich 100 years ago familywise.

True!!!

Extinction.

A future Vacuum Metastability Event is inevitable. Even though it is likely far in the distant future, nothing that we will ever be able to do will save us when the time comes.

I don't know about inevitable. But it is on the list.

http://vadakkus.com/2011/11/04/universe/

Other options also. I found it interesting that they used the term 'Kingdom Come".

RE: The Extinction
Yes, but it is not one and the same whether this will happen in 50 years ... or in 50 mln. There is a huge difference.
We are really faced to extinction, and the name of the extinction is not an exotic event from the outer space, but is called CO2. There is a limit within which we can pump CO2 in the air, beyond which the things will start to become interesting.
The problem is that CO2 is directly related to our metabolism & to the metabolism of the flora and fauna on the planet ... and also to the industrial energy sources, which means that if we cannot pump more CO2 in the air, we will be faced to biological catastrophy and energy crises - a jam of 7th star magnitude.
The dilemma is: either to resolve the energy crisis as fast as possible and to switch-over to clean fuels and energy (Hydrogen, Helium 3, solar, wind, geothermal, etc.) ... or we continue to make business as usual and fall deeper and deeper into the abyss of the CO2 trap.
As we cannot disconnect our metabolism from the CO2, if we don't succeed to diconnect the industrial energy from the CO2 ... we are dead on arrival as species ... literally.