The construct of race will become less important as the world will now be overun by mulattoes, mestizos, coloureds, and other people of mixed race as a result of interbreeding between different race.

As society progresses towards perfection, I'm inclined to believe that asexuality will become idealised as the perfect sexual orientation and sexualism will fall out of favour. People will strive towards emotional and sexual neutrality to make themselves more efficient.

The declining populations of many western countries and East Asia due to low birth rates will prompt governments to legalise human cloning and. Developing countries will probably have developed sufficiently enough to reduce the need for people to emigrate. In time they too will start experiencing population decline.
At this point, it is possible that humans will start thinking about creating their "successors". They'll realize that the human race, in its biological form is imperfect and vulnerable.

To ensure the survival of the human race/legacy beyond the lifespan of the earth, people will invent ways of inserting their consciousness into machines/robots. As such we can be able to colonize other habitable planets millions of lightyears away because machines will be more proficient in terms of space travel.

What do you think?

PS. How do I change my username?

The fuck are you on?

Why are you obsessed with asexuality?

lawl

In a hundred years?
This sounds like a shitty si-fi movie, how about you base it off of a more practical reality.
1) Look at whats going on in the world today, and you could maybe base it off of that, though you never knowwhat could lead to what, in 20 years time something could vear the course time far away from any theory you make.
2) Why on earth would we idolize asexuality? Even in the Victorian era sex was still performed, despite population issues we have, we still need some way of reproduction.
3) I doubt in a century we would be able to transfer our conscious to machines, a century isnt as long as you think it is.
4) traveling millions of light years is also a mighty acheivment for a hundred years. In order to do that we would either need to find a way to go faster than light (which is theoretically impossible) or have a ship with a colony inside it so that in a few million generations we reach our destination (which doesnt work with the whole asexuality thing). Unless you want to go into the whole hybernation thing. Or it wouldnt matter if we were robots now (which is very unlikely.)

I think in the path we are going (which could change someday) in a hundred years the quality of life will get worse as we eventually use up all the oil we can easily get (if we disregard alternate fuels) and whats left its outragousley expensive, therefore only for the rich. The rich/poor gap will get wider and we might have some stupid anarchist uprising or something. Think of "The Road" without the climate change and canabalism.

Of course my theory might be as stupid, so feel free to pick at mine. And disregard my grammatical/speeling errors, my computer is doing that thing where if a erase some thing in the middle of my text, in stead of creating a new space it erases the next one over for a new character.

at no point in human history has race not been important for something, be it for discrimination, self-identifying, etc. so it seems unlikely that in a relatively brief span of 88 years that such a radical change will occur.
in my opinion...

@Nick0714
Even if all the oil is used up, I'm sure by then that electric/alternate fuel cars will be more efficient and affordable.
The general trend in western countries, and the world over, shows that people want less and less children and countries like Russia are experiencing population decline so what makes you think people in 2100 will want to reproduce at all.

With the way things are moving forward, tradditional gender roles will be shunned by feminist movements. Women will start to question why they should be obligated to have children or conform to certain behaviours. This is why I suggested that society will idealize being asexual as it is gender neutral. Already, women make up 58% of the asexual population.

Theres a difference between being asexual and being gender neutral. Just because your asexual doesnt mean you want to remove your own identity as it pertains to your gender. Use correct termenology. And dont think that when a trend goes up or down, it will keep going respectively up or down. when we reach a point at which we are lacking humans (lets say for example [a real one] that right before the Rennaisance of West Europe, we had a lack of populations. Villages upon villages became ghost towns and you would see people for miles upon miles, as a result of the black plague and other factors. Well, of course the population eventually rose up again.) Sure, we may experience population decline, but its not likely to be signifcant. It might even span the 88 years as you hypothesize, but it will eventualy go up again and continue to go up and down as it has for the 250,000 or so years we have been in existence. Might I also once again note that its very unlikely that we will ever remove our conscious from our physiological entities, therefore we will most likely reproduce (or have sex in general) more often again.
As for the whole feminist push, despite the fact that feminists push to remove gender roles, they cannot remove the specific insinct and brain funtion that comes with our genders. I dont want to sound sexist, but we instinctually take on gender roles, as in, men will autmatically and instinctually try to protect women, and tend to take on more angery and aggressive stances toward other men (this is pertaining to a general idea of straight men). Despite some women not wanting children, many have the instinctual need to have children, and ideally, their own biological children. That is how nature works, if animals (including humans) didnt have the need to mate, we would not be in existence. A feminist movement cant force women not to want children. It might not be popular for a time, but in general people will still want children, and probably want their own home made one to, not one floating in a glass tube. If you were to look at traditional gender roles, they stem from gender specific behavior. Im not saying that cavemen wore pants and cavewomen wore skirts, but more basic simple behaviors. Woman arent necessarily obligated anymore (in a contemporary point of view) but out of choice.

Wall of ramble text: over. have fun reading this piece of shit

I would say something like "OP is on crack!", but I've seen crackheads make more sense than that...

Pretty sure he just described the Borg.

You've forgotten to add some basics into the equation:

-People are fucking greedy, they do things for themselves not the betterment of the world. (See- "Big Oil, Pharmaceutical, and Government")

-People are stupid, the majority of them are still dependent on an outdated idea of religion, and thus will reject any other notion.

-It's biologically hardwired into our race to breed. (or try at least )

My prediction -

I'll be 108 and fabulous.
Fuck your theory.

Actually, in the future we'll all look like this:



Also, to change your username you'll need to PM a moderator.

Dear lord, this is a bit over the top, ridonculous, if you may.
I'd like to take the point of asexuality as a bit on the impossible side, due to years of evolution of the human nature have made us into a highly sexual being, there is a whole industry built around it, our whole lives are basically built around sexuality, at least for the pleasurable aspect of it and not necessarily because of the need of reproduction.
The cyborg I don't see that happening either, nor the cloning. The mitigation of migration is possible and might be relatively soon, but still a far way off.
What was the OP smoking? Lol

everything about this.

Salvia divinorum is fairly potent

ignore the haters I totally get what ur saying op.. people who think outside of the box are always ridiculed by the mindless masses. we are so totally on the same frequency.

i think op meant that the prevalence of asexuality in the present could mean that it is a genetic trait that would gain dominance in the future. people dont choose to be asexual. in respects to overpopulation, maybe asexuality could be a good thing after all.

Hopefully they invent the conscience robots sooner rather than later.