will humanity still exist 50,000 years from now?

Japan is an island and will be around for many millenia. The U.S. will be gone by the end of the century. The U.S. is on land stolen from Mexico and is being recovered now by Mexican Freedom Fighters crossing the border each day. For each Mexican baby that is born in the U.S. it the swings the vote by one more for Mexico. Viva La Raza ! Viva Mexico !

Mexico wrote:

Japan is an island and will be around for many millenia. The U.S. will be gone by the end of the century. The U.S. is on land stolen from Mexico and is being recovered now by Mexican Freedom Fighters crossing the border each day. For each Mexican baby that is born in the U.S. it the swings the vote by one more for Mexico. Viva La Raza ! Viva Mexico !

I shouldn't feed a troll, but...

What language do they speak in Mexico? Spanish, right? Why Spanish? Because Spain colonized Mexico (and most of South America). So Mexico was stolen from the indigenous people that lived there before Spain came in.

Everyone is pretty much sitting on "stolen" land. Mexico isn't special, you just don't like gringos, that's all.

well, maybe not wrote:

Even if it takes 1,000 years to reach the next habitable planet, it would be less than 10 generations.

'fewer' than 10

Don't be so apathetic. We feel sorry for you. You will be allowed to take Spanish classes.

There is an Earth-like world roughly 20 light years away. If we built a ship based on the Orion concept, we could conceivably rach a top velocity of 10% of the speed of light, or 30,000km/sec (18,600mi/sec). This would get the space vehicle to the star in roughly 200 years. Doable. Now, we'd have to figure out how traveling at 10% of light speed would affect the passage of time for those on board with respect to those of us at home. I don't know it off the top of my head.

I looked it up:

at 0.10c, the time dilation factor is 0.5045%, so 200 years on the ship would be 201.09 years on Earth.

To be fair,

The US NEVER lost a battle in the Vietnam conflict. Not one. Every engagement eventually resulted in some way or another, in the US's favor. We lost that war as a result of policies decided in Washington.

When I first saw that film, Soylent Green, God, way back in 73 - I thought it was a good science fiction movie.

Now, especially with the current air pollution debate, it’s starting to become less fictional and rather more horrifically realistic.

The US NEVER lost a battle in the Vietnam conflict.

That's a cheap liars excuse accepted only by historical revisionists. The truth is, the US lost the war in Vietnam one small battle at a time. In the hamlets, in the villages, in the big citites, the Vietnamese Army and Viet Cong defeated the United States Army and United States Marine Corps. The Vietnamese slaughtered the United States. It was a test of the mettle of men and individual courage. The war was so lopsided, the US abandoned 10,000 men and women and left them to die in the jungle. The so called "MIA" Missing In Action. It's a disgrace to leave you own on the battlefield to die without sending someone to pick them up, dead or alive. The US was so badly beaten in many areas of Vietnam, the officers were afraid that their own men would kill them (aka "fragging") that the would not order recovery and combat mission (aka "sandbagging") as many of the officers were only in combat for 1 month, the minimum requirement for their career advancement (aka "ticket punching").