Thread: Why did the world of tomorrow never came to be?

I would like to know: As a 20 year old who is a sci fi obsessed person, I am really disappointed in the future today. I guess I grew up on way too much science fiction but I liked reading old magazines and articles on what people thought the future would be like. Especially if they were from the 1950s. I liked how they imagined that our lives today would have flying cars, jetpacks, video phones, underwater and lunar cities, robots, food cubes, and other wonderful inventions of the future. But the only thing that looks futuristic about the far flung year of 2014 is: Video games, Computers, the Internet, smartphones and tablets, a black president, no soviet union and that is about it. Why is our future so much lamer compared to the future that the 1950s or 1960s imagined it would be like? Why are we not like them?

Originally Posted by Gurgeh

I would like to know: As a 20 year old who is a sci fi obsessed person, I am really disappointed in the future today. I guess I grew up on way too much science fiction but I liked reading old magazines and articles on what people thought the future would be like. Especially if they were from the 1950s. I liked how they imagined that our lives today would have flying cars, jetpacks, video phones, underwater and lunar cities, robots, food cubes, and other wonderful inventions of the future. But the only thing that looks futuristic about the far flung year of 2014 is: Video games, Computers, the Internet, smartphones and tablets, a black president, no soviet union and that is about it. Why is our future so much lamer compared to the future that the 1950s or 1960s imagined it would be like? Why are we not like them?

There was a man who in 1939 walked out to an aircraft and put a piece of cloth on the wing and then some dope to repair it 6 years later he saw jets in the sky. In 1969 he saw a man walk on the moon from aircraft made of string and cloth to another 'planet' in 30 years -wow-why should he not believe it but the big things just didn't happen.

Originally Posted by Gurgeh

Why is our future so much lamer compared to the future that the 1950s or 1960s imagined it would be like? Why are we not like them?

Technically we live in the present, our future could still be pretty exciting from a technological point of view. As for why we aren't as advanced as science fiction predicted we would be by now, I can only say that it's a mix of reasons. Some of the things that were predicted in the 50's and 60's turned out to be impossible, some of it is still being worked on, and some of the things already exist just in different ways than was predicted (cell phones now are way more awesome than the communicators Star Trek predicted). The important thing to remember is that those works of science fiction are products of someones imagination, and when it's something imagined the laws of nature in our universe don't necessarily have to apply.

The main bummer for me is how after the Cold War ended the public's interest in space exploration dwindled. Although at the last Geological Society of America conference I went to (2010) there were a lot of presentations about work being done to develop Space suits and other devices for colonizing and terraforming Mars.

The Top 50 Inventions of the Past 50 Years

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...SC1PKmp6xKCMwg

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=..._9He3ZdfZjQMPg


https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...cPZdl-8igtC_yg


These are but a few advancements that the world has seen there are many more if you just look for them. Just because youraspirations didn't come to fruition doesn't mean others haven't.

I liked how they imagined that our lives today would have flying cars, jetpacks, video phones, underwater and lunar cities, robots, food cubes

Some things you've mentioned here already exist in some kind of form, but simply unpractical as a wide scale thing. There is no economic reasons why would people go in hordes to live underwater or on the Moon, for example. Flying cars and jetpacks would create to much problems for traffic control and lack space. Also you have to understand that humans are quite limited creatures and their creations are ultimately connected to their limited practical needs.

My thought today is human over population leading to mass extinctions and ultimately collapse. I'm not in a happy mood.
That is the future I see for today's world.

It looks like reality set in. The utopian visions didn't come true but if it's any consolation, neither did the dystopian ones, like 1984, or A Clockwork Orange.

People who are super wealthy live in utopia for they never have to worry much about anything but their money.

Originally Posted by Gurgeh

But the only thing that looks futuristic about the far flung year of 2014 is: Video games, Computers, the Internet, smartphones and tablets, a black president, no soviet union and that is about it.

And electric cars, and space stations, and cures for many diseases, and artificial organs, and genetic engineering, and parachutes that weigh a few pounds, and lithium ion batteries . . . . there's a lot of stuff that we've done.

And food cubes? You can get them at any camping place. Robots? They build our cars, operate on our bodies and are currently exploring Mars. Videophones? My son talks to his grandparents all the time on a videophone. We have a few jetpacks, but no one seems all that interested in them, so there are only a few of them.

Originally Posted by Gurgeh

2014 is: Video games, Computers, the Internet, smartphones and tablets, a black president, no soviet union and that is about it.

We have an autonomous mobile science laboratory...

... on Mars.

There's this thing called generational amnesia. It's essentially the process by which each new generation believes the world into which it is born is the baseline. As a 20-something, you're enamored (maybe a bit naively) of the romanticized version of the future given to us by popular entertainment. However, if you told 8 year old me that I would some day have a phone in my pocket that could surf the internet by means of a touch screen, I would have first said, "What's the internet?" then, after your cursory explanation, I would have squealed like a piglet. The fact is, our current world is pretty amazing. The only thing that keeps getting in the way and screwing things up is...well...us.

The world of the future did happen, just not quite like some people imagined it would.
Flying cars and jetpacks exist, they just are not very practical and are curiosities instead of common devices.
About the only things I can think of that are actually missing are the space aliens.

Edit:
Oops, missed seeing Billvon's post before I typed mine.

Originally Posted by Gurgeh

I liked how they imagined that our lives today would have flying cars, jetpacks, video phones, underwater and lunar cities, robots, food cubes, and other wonderful inventions of the future.

A funny thing happened. The population more than doubled, and all the marvelous wealth our technology was giving us had to be split up and divided.

Most of the things on your list are not technological fantasy. They're economic fantasy. Flying cars are within reach, but the fuel would cost way more than the fuel for a helicopter or an airplane. Lunar or underwater cities would cost an insane amount of money, and benefit the economy only barely. (Or well, the lunar colony might pay off, but it would require an unbelievably large initial investment first - which nobody can reasonably get.)

At least we got video phones.

About the only things I can think of that are actually missing are the space aliens.

You should be just an unlucky one. Many people claim they met them...

Originally Posted by kojax

Originally Posted by Gurgeh

I liked how they imagined that our lives today would have flying cars, jetpacks, video phones, underwater and lunar cities, robots, food cubes, and other wonderful inventions of the future.

A funny thing happened. The population more than doubled, and all the marvelous wealth our technology was giving us had to be split up and divided.

Among whom? The wealthy and the wealthier? Even if the population were halved right now, I have a feeling 5% would still retain 50% of the wealth.

Originally Posted by Gurgeh

I would like to know: As a 20 year old who is a sci fi obsessed person, I am really disappointed in the future today. I guess I grew up on way too much science fiction but I liked reading old magazines and articles on what people thought the future would be like. Especially if they were from the 1950s. I liked how they imagined that our lives today would have flying cars, jetpacks, video phones, underwater and lunar cities, robots, food cubes, and other wonderful inventions of the future.

For some of these things, it was a matter of underestimating the cost/benefit ratio. Flying cars and jet packs are very expensive to operate fuel-wise. In a time when oil seemed cheap and plentiful, it was easy to imagine such things, but not so today. Underwater and lunar cities are also difficult and expensive to maintain. There just isn't enough need to justify them.

The last two items also faced the problem of social resistance. Not only do you need the ability to build and maintain such cities, but you need enough people who are willing to live there. Sometimes technology growth outpaces society's willingness to accept it. Social resistance is the main reason that video phones never really took off. The technology for them has existed for decades, however people just weren't that interested in them or some cases not comfortable with the idea (they didn't like the idea of answering the phone when they didn't look their best).

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Originally Posted by kojax

A funny thing happened. The population more than doubled, and all the marvelous wealth our technology was giving us had to be split up and divided.

Among whom? The wealthy and the wealthier?

Amazingly not. People living in sub-Saharan Africa are now putting in solar panels to charge their cellphones.

Originally Posted by billvon

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Originally Posted by kojax

A funny thing happened. The population more than doubled, and all the marvelous wealth our technology was giving us had to be split up and divided.

Among whom? The wealthy and the wealthier?

Amazingly not. People living in sub-Saharan Africa are now putting in solar panels to charge their cellphones.

I guess inflation hasn't hit them quite as hard.

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Originally Posted by billvon

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Originally Posted by kojax

A funny thing happened. The population more than doubled, and all the marvelous wealth our technology was giving us had to be split up and divided.

Among whom? The wealthy and the wealthier?

Amazingly not. People living in sub-Saharan Africa are now putting in solar panels to charge their cellphones.

I guess inflation hasn't hit them quite as hard.

Bread and circuses. The oligarchy are likely psychopaths, but that doesn't mean that they never studied any history.

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

My thought today is human over population leading to mass extinctions and ultimately collapse. I'm not in a happy mood.
That is the future I see for today's world.

While population continues to increase, the rate at which population is increasing is slowing down. The overpopulation issue might be one that will be solved without mass deaths. I'm more concerned about losing the war on antibiotics and losing a quarter of the population to MRSA-like pathogens.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

It looks like reality set in. The utopian visions didn't come true but if it's any consolation, neither did the dystopian ones, like 1984, or A Clockwork Orange.

Tell that to a North Korean.

I think majority of people experience little interest in Moon and Mars and other Solar System planets is because they are lifeless.
The most exciting thing about space exploration is extraterrestrial life.

Originally Posted by Stanley514

I think majority of people experience little interest in Moon and Mars and other Solar System planets is because they are lifeless.

We can change that.

We can change that.

Yes, but it would be the life as we know it, there is nothing to discover.
Currently NASA spends billions of dollars for Mars exploration, partially excused by "life searches". Hopeless, of course.
What is concerning to Mars terraforming, one of the largest problem - absence of planetary magnetic field. It means harmful radiation will destroy any earthly life, human included. Unless you will create some GM life forms, radiation resistant.
Problem N2 - low radiation in visible spectrum which means slow vegetation growth. In best case it would be something similar to Earthly Tundra.
Even at Mars equator, of course. The third largest problem - lack of oceans. It will means sharply continental climate everywhere on the planet, lot of deserts and extreme temperature shifts.

Originally Posted by Stanley514

Yes, but it would be the life as we know it, there is nothing to discover.

Probably a little too early to say that. And beyond life we've found some pretty cool stuff.

What is concerning to Mars terraforming, one of the largest problem - absence of planetary magnetic field. It means harmful radiation will destroy any earthly life, human included.

Unless you live indoors, which early settlers would have to do, and limit your outdoor exposure to a few years total - at least until the atmosphere starts to thicken. (And plants are far more resistant to radiation damage than humans are, so things like crops and/or terraforming organisms wouldn't have too much trouble.)

Problem N2 - low radiation in visible spectrum which means slow vegetation growth. In best case it would be something similar to Earthly Tundra.

Or earthly plants in Seattle, which get about the same amount of sun due to the persistent clouds.

The third largest problem - lack of oceans. It will means sharply continental climate everywhere on the planet, lot of deserts and extreme temperature shifts.

Agreed there.

Unless you live indoors, which early settlers would have to do, and limit your outdoor exposure to a few years total - at least until the atmosphere starts to thicken.

Atmosphere is more efficient in protection from ultraviolet, however magnetic field does lot of protection from solar wind and cosmic rays which include charged particles. Fore example ions or electrons. Some of this particles could have terrible energy. Therefore atmosphere would require some special substances which could compensate that property.

Or earthly plants in Seattle, which get about the same amount of sun due to the persistent clouds.

You should be joking? According to wiki Seattle receives 2,169 hours of Sun annually, much more than many other cities (in the World). For example Paris got only 1,661.
Seattle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Originally Posted by Gurgeh

2014 is: Video games, Computers, the Internet, smartphones and tablets, a black president, no soviet union and that is about it.

We have an autonomous mobile science laboratory...

... on Mars.

There's this thing called generational amnesia. It's essentially the process by which each new generation believes the world into which it is born is the baseline. As a 20-something, you're enamored (maybe a bit naively) of the romanticized version of the future given to us by popular entertainment. However, if you told 8 year old me that I would some day have a phone in my pocket that could surf the internet by means of a touch screen, I would have first said, "What's the internet?" then, after your cursory explanation, I would have squealed like a piglet. The fact is, our current world is pretty amazing. The only thing that keeps getting in the way and screwing things up is...well...us.

Like.

Space travel is still in the exploration stage, expeditions that yield mostly scientific data. There will likely come a time when it suddenly becomes obvious that one or more valuable resources can be tapped by off-Earth colonies more cheaply than on Earth. Once the first such operations become established, it is likely the possibilities will multiply rapidly as experience brings costs down. It seems to me quite likely this boom will not involve planet based colonies. More likely to me would be harnessing the trillions of tons of rare (on Earth) minerals floating around in microgravity, the asteroids.

Originally Posted by danhanegan

Space travel is still in the exploration stage, expeditions that yield mostly scientific data. There will likely come a time when it suddenly becomes obvious that one or more valuable resources can be tapped by off-Earth colonies more cheaply than on Earth. Once the first such operations become established, it is likely the possibilities will multiply rapidly as experience brings costs down. It seems to me quite likely this boom will not involve planet based colonies. More likely to me would be harnessing the trillions of tons of rare (on Earth) minerals floating around in microgravity, the asteroids.

That is a good prediction of the future. What chances do you give of it being successful?

It seems like the predictions about the future that were made when I was a kid all fell into the wrong category - transportation, rather than communication and information sharing. Possibly because of the impact of automobiles and airplanes, people assumed things would keep changing in that direction. Cars are safer and arguably better, but no one is zooming around in jet packs, and public transportation has improved remarkably little, at least in North America. And the impressive success of moon landings also may have caused us to over estimate space travel. In some ways space exploration has mirrored exploration of the planet - important discoveries were made in the 1400s, 1500s, but then settlement proved a lot more difficult because of distances and a hostile, remote environment. There are so many problems with space - oxygen, extreme temperatures, radiation, gravity, and vast distances and the time required to travel. We've been much more successful in my opinion with unmanned travel. I sometimes wonder why people don't get more excited about things like the Curiosity rover. I can recall people actually wondering when I was little if the "canals" on mars were made by martians!

But the impact of the internet and computers shouldn't be underestimated, although might be less impressive to those who grew up with it, as Flick Montana says. It might seem like a superficial example, but I too would have been delighted and amazed if you handed me a device the size of a credit card that holds 1000 songs or more and told me I could toss all my vinyl records. Heck, when I moved to Canada in the 90s, it took 2 weeks to get a letter to Ohio, and two weeks to get one back. Email and texting still impress me. I'd also argue that we've made important advances in physics and the biological sciences, including a better understanding of genetics, neuroscience, and our own brains. Socially, although there is still violence and xenophobia and oppression, it's not really "accepted" or glorified in most parts of the world, and is seen as tragic. Even the military is viewed as a wasteful and regrettable necessity, not really a noble enterprise that advances mankind, as it once was.

Perhaps I am too optimistic about the progress of our species.

duplication - sorry

Originally Posted by DianeG

Perhaps I am too optimistic about the progress of our species.

Not at all. I think a lot more optimism would go a long way.

Originally Posted by Stanley514

Unless you live indoors, which early settlers would have to do, and limit your outdoor exposure to a few years total - at least until the atmosphere starts to thicken.

Atmosphere is more efficient in protection from ultraviolet, however magnetic field does lot of protection from solar wind and cosmic rays which include charged particles.

Agreed. But even the miniscule atmosphere that Mars has provides significant protection against charged particles. It is not as good as Earth's - which is why the radiation risk is higher.

In general the three biggest risks that Martian explorers will face from radiation is UV (stronger than on Earth due to the total lack of UV-opaque gases in the atmosphere) energetic solar particles and cosmic rays. On the surface, the planet will block half the radiation from all three sources, and the atmosphere will cut that down another 70% or so. However from the experiments done on Mars that 70% is very variable, thus there will be "good" and "bad" days for radiation.

However overall the total radiation is still rather low when compared to harmful doses. On the surface without a pressure suit an astronaut would receive about 30 usV of radiation per hour. Astronauts on the International Space Station receive about 18usV a day, and of course they can't "go underground" to escape that. So an astronaut who spent ten hours outside a day, and the rest in a buried habitat, would receive less radiation exposure than an astronaut on the ISS.
30 µSv per hour

Fore example ions or electrons. Some of this particles could have terrible energy. Therefore atmosphere would require some special substances which could compensate that property.

To block charged particles all you need is gas of any kind. Collisions with gas molecules cause the charged particles to lose energy, giving up that energy to other forms of radiation and heat.

Or earthly plants in Seattle, which get about the same amount of sun due to the persistent clouds.

You should be joking? According to wiki Seattle receives 2,169 hours of Sun annually, much more than many other cities (in the World). For example Paris got only 1,661.

No, that's my point. Seattle receives an average of 3.5 hours of direct sun a day (that's equivalent direct sun, so the equivalent of full sun on a clear day at noon.) The Central Valley of California, where most of our food is grown, receives 5.5 equivalent hours a day. That means Seattle gets 65% of the sun that the Central Valley gets - and plants still grow there.

On Mars plants will get about 70% of the sunlight they get on Earth. They will get a bit more due to the thinner atmosphere and somewhat less due to dust storms. But they will still certainly get enough sunlight to live, since plants in places like Paris (which as you mentioned gets even less sunlight than Seattle) still do fine.

Plants will require hydrogen and carbon. Is there enough hydrogen and carbon on Mars in any form?

Mean annual sunshine hours:

Berlin: 1,625
London: 1,632
Amsterdam: 1,662
Warsaw: 1,571
Kiev: 1,954.5
Moscow: 1,731
St-Petersburg: 1,633
Stockholm: 1,821
Tokyo: 1,570 - 1,881
Prague: 1,667.9

Los Angeles: 3,254
San Francisco (downtown): 3,061
New York City: 2,534
Chicago: 2,508
Houston: 2,577
Detroit: 2,435

Originally Posted by Stanley514

Plants will require hydrogen and carbon. Is there enough hydrogen and carbon on Mars in any form?

Most of Mars' atmosphere is CO2, so there is certainly carbon present. As I understand it, most plants on earth get their carbon primarily from atmospheric CO2, I see little reason martian plants couldn't do the same.

Hydrogen is a different matter. Hydrogen is noticeably scarce in martian mineralogy, and essentially non-existent in the atmosphere. The general lack of water on mars goes hand in hand with the lack of hydrogen.

Both Venus and Mars lack hydrogen. But at least Venus has stronger gravity and magnetic field to keep water vapors in atmosphere from vaporizing into space. Probably Venus is better for terraforming then?

.

Originally Posted by Stanley514

Both Venus and Mars lack hydrogen. But at least Venus has stronger gravity and magnetic field to keep water vapors in atmosphere from vaporizing into space. Probably Venus is better for terraforming then?

It's a lot harder to get plants to grow at 800F than at 70F (warmest temps on Mars.) And insulation is a lot easier than refrigeration.

However, find a way to dump most of that atmosphere and it might be possible. A sunshade to condense out most of the atmosphere? A close encounter with another massive body?

However, find a way to dump most of that atmosphere and it might be possible. A sunshade to condense out most of the atmosphere? A close encounter with another massive body?

Total "nuclear winter" will freeze out all CO2 in Venus atmosphere and it will fall out. The new problem would be to "bind" all this CO2 and prevent it from vaporizing back. Best of all would be to break it down to C and O2. Some extremophile plants may help.

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Originally Posted by kojax

Originally Posted by Gurgeh

I liked how they imagined that our lives today would have flying cars, jetpacks, video phones, underwater and lunar cities, robots, food cubes, and other wonderful inventions of the future.

A funny thing happened. The population more than doubled, and all the marvelous wealth our technology was giving us had to be split up and divided.

Among whom? The wealthy and the wealthier? Even if the population were halved right now, I have a feeling 5% would still retain 50% of the wealth.

It's easy to be tricked by nominal wealth. Nominal wealth doesn't necessarily equal material wealth.

If you've got 20 billion dollars in the bank, and all you're doing with it is investing it to try and get more, then the economy doesn't actually have to produce anything for you. Until you convert it into actual goods and services, it's just a huge un-cashed check. It's possible for a billionaire to go their whole lifetime and never spend more than a tiny sliver of their money.

So 5% hold 50% of the currency, but they don't possess anywhere near 50% of the actual wealth. They could possess it if they wanted to, but they'd rather keep building imaginary castles in the sky. A lot of them are going to be really broken hearted if the price of gold suddenly bottoms out. Or if the Chinese Yuan suddenly appreciates to its natural, un-manipulated value.


Anyway, concentration of wealth hinders technological advancement. Mass production on a large scale makes it easier to afford high research and design costs. The state of the art in automotive engineering has been advanced way more by Toyota than it has by Lamborghini.

Originally Posted by kojax

Among whom? The wealthy and the wealthier? Even if the population were halved right now, I have a feeling 5% would still retain 50% of the wealth.

It's easy to be tricked by nominal wealth. Nominal wealth doesn't necessarily equal material wealth.

If you've got 20 billion dollars in the bank, and all you're doing with it is investing it to try and get more, then the economy doesn't actually have to produce anything for you. Until you convert it into actual goods and services, it's just a huge un-cashed check. It's possible for a billionaire to go their whole lifetime and never spend more than a tiny sliver of their money.

So 5% hold 50% of the currency, but they don't possess anywhere near 50% of the actual wealth. They could possess it if they wanted to, but they'd rather keep building imaginary castles in the sky. A lot of them are going to be really broken hearted if the price of gold suddenly bottoms out. Or if the Chinese Yuan suddenly appreciates to its natural, un-manipulated value.


Anyway, concentration of wealth hinders technological advancement. Mass production on a large scale makes it easier to afford high research and design costs. The state of the art in automotive engineering has been advanced way more by Toyota than it has by Lamborghini.

Like

Originally Posted by Harold14370

It looks like reality set in. The utopian visions didn't come true but if it's any consolation, neither did the dystopian ones, like 1984, or A Clockwork Orange.

George Orwell's vision of the future '1984' did not precisely come to pass. I mean if we don't have the letter of '1984' we certainly have the spirit. Is not our freedom, slavery? Is not our ignorance, our strength?

Originally Posted by Gurgeh

I would like to know: As a 20 year old who is a sci fi obsessed person, I am really disappointed in the future today. I guess I grew up on way too much science fiction but I liked reading old magazines and articles on what people thought the future would be like. Especially if they were from the 1950s. I liked how they imagined that our lives today would have flying cars, jetpacks, video phones, underwater and lunar cities, robots, food cubes, and other wonderful inventions of the future. But the only thing that looks futuristic about the far flung year of 2014 is: Video games, Computers, the Internet, smartphones and tablets, a black president, no soviet union and that is about it. Why is our future so much lamer compared to the future that the 1950s or 1960s imagined it would be like? Why are we not like them?

Shut up! You just want a freakin' flying car! No one can say why we aren't like 'them' beyond saying that predicting the future is a very tricky business and most prophets are wrong. Others can correct me on this, but as far as I know, in my life time the only two correct prophets were Brian Aldiss and... wait for it...Richard Nixon. Both of whom hinted strongly at the break up of the Soviet Union, and believe me my young friend, up to the day it happened, no one back in 1989 would have ever thought it possible.

As a young person, I think you are under-appreciating the Internet. I have lived many years in so called 'developing' countries, and as late as 1995 I barely knew what the Internet was, and I didn't use it on a daily basis until about 2002. So when I was your age, if I wanted to know something, I had to slog down to the public library, go through the card catalog or periodicals and hunt down the indicated clay tablet in the stacks - where evil spirits and homeless perverts often dwelt.



Nowadays when the net is down, just like everyone else, I feel like it's about 1871. Why even bother having electricity? To watch Match Game 2014 on television!?

As for video phones, I think we did have them briefly in recent years, but nobody really saw the point. Fancy that!

So never mind about 'what might have been'. You may still get your flying car someday. In any case there are sure to be undreamed of wonders in your lifetime, or even mine. We cannot know ahead of time. It's as Khalil Gibran said, "Your children are your arrows that you shoot into the future. And the future is a place you can not visit - not even in your dreams."

I used to have a large library of actual books.
Now I have the internet and terrabytes of hard drive.

So never mind about 'what might have been'. You may still get your flying car someday.

I think all modern ways of propulsion are unsuitable for mass-produced flying cars. Such as propellers or reaction engines. They are simply too noisy and bulky. Probably, it will require invention of cheap and efficient "levitation" to fulfill dream into reality. Also I wish to know if some type of "vibration propulsion could be created. For example a device similar to common audio speaker creates air vibrations (beyond human hearing) and in this way the thrust is generated?

Originally Posted by Stanley514

So never mind about 'what might have been'. You may still get your flying car someday.

I think all modern ways of propulsion are unsuitable for mass-produced flying cars. Such as propellers or reaction engines. They are simply too noisy and bulky. Probably, it will require invention of cheap and efficient "levitation" to fulfill dream into reality. Also I wish to know if some type of "vibration propulsion could be created. For example a device similar to common audio speaker creates air vibrations (beyond human hearing) and in this way the thrust is generated?

Beyond human hearing, but what about other animals? I knew a guy with a dog whistle app on his iphone. He tried it one day on the street. The dog we were testing ran away like the devil was after him. Of course, we couldn't hear a thing.

As it is, do you know the low hum of ships' engines are said to interfere with whale communications? For their sensitive ears the sound is audible dozens of miles away, maybe hundreds of miles, and there are so many ships in the sea! The noise interferes with their mating songs, migration calls and just general whale conversation, I suppose. I think it muffles their communications over distance. Not quite sure - I only read a short article.

So if even ship engines interfere so much, what effect are millions of vibration propulsion engines going to have on terrestrial fauna? And I don't know, it could be that long-term, constant noise so loud we cannot hear it could be detrimental to human ears.

Originally Posted by Gurgeh

I liked reading old magazines and articles on what people thought the future would be like. Especially if they were from the 1950s. I liked how they imagined that our lives today would have flying cars, jetpacks, video phones, underwater and lunar cities, robots, food cubes, and other wonderful inventions of the future. But the only thing that looks futuristic about the far flung year of 2014 is: Video games, Computers, the Internet, smartphones and tablets, a black president, no soviet union and that is about it. Why is our future so much lamer compared to the future that the 1950s or 1960s imagined it would be like? Why are we not like them?

Early last century, the rate of change was much greater. I mean serious game-changers, like telephone, automobiles, electricity in the home. People then predicted what would , say, 1990 look like if progress continued at the same rate, of say 1910-1950. So fathom the leap from horse-and-buggy to automobile, then predict an equally huge leap obsoleting the automobile should occur by 1990. And likewise for all technology.

Originally Posted by Pong

Early last century, the rate of change was much greater. I mean serious game-changers, like telephone, automobiles, electricity in the home. People then predicted what would , say, 1990 look like if progress continued at the same rate, of say 1910-1950. So fathom the leap from horse-and-buggy to automobile, then predict an equally huge leap obsoleting the automobile should occur by 1990. And likewise for all technology.

I wonder if that isn't also hindsight, or affected by ones current perspective. There must have been years where a few people had phones, and many didn't, or when cars were only starting to be popular, or when vast expanses of the US still didn't have electrification, and the overall impact of those changes weren't quite felt, and the long term consequences of them still unforeseen. I think change is happening so fast now, we don't even know, we can't keep up, with everything people are doing with computers and the internet, let alone imagine whats coming down the pipe.

Originally Posted by Pong

Originally Posted by Gurgeh

I liked reading old magazines and articles on what people thought the future would be like. Especially if they were from the 1950s. I liked how they imagined that our lives today would have flying cars, jetpacks, video phones, underwater and lunar cities, robots, food cubes, and other wonderful inventions of the future. But the only thing that looks futuristic about the far flung year of 2014 is: Video games, Computers, the Internet, smartphones and tablets, a black president, no soviet union and that is about it. Why is our future so much lamer compared to the future that the 1950s or 1960s imagined it would be like? Why are we not like them?

Early last century, the rate of change was much greater. I mean serious game-changers, like telephone, automobiles, electricity in the home. People then predicted what would , say, 1990 look like if progress continued at the same rate, of say 1910-1950. So fathom the leap from horse-and-buggy to automobile, then predict an equally huge leap obsoleting the automobile should occur by 1990. And likewise for all technology.

Yes. I read that when Wall Street business men first heard tell of the telephone they said they wouldn't be needing them because they had perfectly good messenger boys!

Originally Posted by DianeG

Originally Posted by Pong

Early last century, the rate of change was much greater. I mean serious game-changers, like telephone, automobiles, electricity in the home. People then predicted what would , say, 1990 look like if progress continued at the same rate, of say 1910-1950. So fathom the leap from horse-and-buggy to automobile, then predict an equally huge leap obsoleting the automobile should occur by 1990. And likewise for all technology.

I wonder if that isn't also hindsight, or affected by ones current perspective. There must have been years where a few people had phones, and many didn't, or when cars were only starting to be popular, or when vast expanses of the US still didn't have electrification, and the overall impact of those changes weren't quite felt, and the long term consequences of them still unforeseen. I think change is happening so fast now, we don't even know, we can't keep up, with everything people are doing with computers and the internet, let alone imagine whats coming down the pipe.

I get your point, and its true in 1930 many people still used the washboard and bucket, then in 1950 many people still used wringer-washers.

But I stand by my claim that by the middle of last century, when a lot of those predictions of the OP were made, practically every activity in life had changed radically, in living memory. The leaps we see now are few and objectively modest compared to earlier ones. Even your best example, the internet: weigh the difference between a pigeon with a note strapped to its leg vs. telephone; and the difference between telephone vs. internet. Internet is one giant leap, but please put it in perspective!

I could give thousands of examples of radical progress witnessed early last century, that stopped progressing. Like that all your life you're automatically reached for a light switch when entering a room. You don't expect that to change anytime soon, but to people in 1920 that was just another advance in a recent series of advances, they guessed would last a few decades before the next advance replaced it. The future dates given in their science fiction prove their expectations.

It seems that the 20th century was defined by the arrival of new scientific theories, which opened up frontiers hitherto not imagined. Everything since has just been the perfecting of the original concepts. Propellers gave way to rockets, but rockets just plain stayed rockets. Better and better rockets, certainly, but still just rockets. Kind of like how the horse and carriage progressively became improved over time during the previous era.

The internet is just a logical extension of the basic technology of computers and/or transistors (depending on which you credit the most with the computer age.)

I think sometimes that science came to a screeching halt after the atom bomb was detonated. The scientists of the time were also humanists, and I think it shook them to realize just how bad for humanity some of their achievements might turn out to be. If they kept going, anyway.

So now scientists today just focus on more trivial stuff. Searching for the Higgs Boson. Smashing subatomic particles together to see what comes out of it (might as well, now that nuclear warfare is already a real thing.) Trying to imagine and re-imagine the behavior of very far away objects like black holes, or an expanding universe. (Stuff that's interesting to study, but ultimately harmless, because those black holes are light years away from Earth and nobody has any idea how to get out there in a realistic time frame.)

Originally Posted by kojax

It seems that the 20th century was defined by the arrival of new scientific theories, which opened up frontiers hitherto not imagined. Everything since has just been the perfecting of the original concepts. Propellers gave way to rockets, but rockets just plain stayed rockets. Better and better rockets, certainly, but still just rockets. Kind of like how the horse and carriage progressively became improved over time during the previous era.

The internet is just a logical extension of the basic technology of computers and/or transistors (depending on which you credit the most with the computer age.)

I agree that the automobile was a game changer, but saying the internet was just a logical and somehow predictable extension of computers and transistors is definitely a stretch. No one saw that coming and it has changed life on a personal scale but also a broader one - economics, science, international affairs - everything. And while interfaces like Windows were tweaks, they also changed everything. My first computer was, I must confess, a giant paper weight.

I think sometimes that science came to a screeching halt after the atom bomb was detonated. The scientists of the time were also humanists, and I think it shook them to realize just how bad for humanity some of their achievements might turn out to be. If they kept going, anyway.

So now scientists today just focus on more trivial stuff. Searching for the Higgs Boson.

That's trivial? Are you sure?

Smashing subatomic particles together to see what comes out of it (might as well, now that nuclear warfare is already a real thing.) Trying to imagine and re-imagine the behavior of very far away objects like black holes, or an expanding universe. (Stuff that's interesting to study, but ultimately harmless, because those black holes are light years away from Earth and nobody has any idea how to get out there in a realistic time frame.)

No offense but you sound like Shania Twain singing "That Don't Impress Me Much." That stuff definitely impresses me!

There's an article in this months journal Nature about science fiction and predictions of the future -"Verne and Beyond" http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...l/513169a.html and also one in Scientific American Asimov that are interesting reads. It's strange to read about a prediction of what 2000 would be like written centuries ago ("Bergerac's 1657 Comical History of the States and Empires of the Moon" or "Sebastian Merceir's 1770 Memoirs of the Year Two Thousand Five Hundred."

One topic that popped up repeatedly in the last 50- 100 years or so was that automation would do all of our work for us and most of us would be extremely bored. But they neglected to consider economic or social factors that haven't changed - people wouldn't become bored and lazy - just poor and displaced. No one is going to pay you or feed you to sit around and do nothing.

When I first starting work as a lab tech, half my day was spent transcribing numbers from one sheet of paper to another, from work sheets or instrument print outs to reports or cards for card readers, answering the phone, giving out preliminary results that were in a computer but couldn't be accessed by a doctor across town or two floors up in the hospital. Even when faxes were invented, it was still time consuming. In a few years, technology eliminated the clerical work and improved the efficiency of laboratory testing as well, but even though I became twice as productive, it didn't mean I got paid twice as much or only had to work half the hours for the same pay. Those savings were passed on to others, or absorbed by other mounting healthcare costs. And because they really needed fewer techs, we were probably even in a worse position.

I'm sure this happened in many other fields. There hasn't been the economic or social changes to match the technological ones. We still have an either exploitative nature to view people as means to ends, or Puritanical mind set that says "idle hands are the hands of the devil."

Originally Posted by Gurgeh

...the only thing that looks futuristic about the far flung year of 2014 is: Video games, Computers, the Internet, smartphones and tablets, a black president, no soviet union and that is about it.

According to H.G. Wells in The Shape of Things to Come:
One of the major aspects of the creation of the World State is the abolition of all organised religion—an act deemed indispensable to give the emerging "Modern State" a monopoly over education and the complete ability to mould new generations of humanity.
The abolition of Islam is carried out by the Air Police, who "descend upon Mecca and close down the main holy places", apparently without major incident. Eventually, Islam disappears, its demise accelerated by the decay of Arabic and its replacement by "an expanded English".

2014...Iraq War 3 now taking place in the air.

Originally Posted by DianeG

Originally Posted by kojax

It seems that the 20th century was defined by the arrival of new scientific theories, which opened up frontiers hitherto not imagined. Everything since has just been the perfecting of the original concepts. Propellers gave way to rockets, but rockets just plain stayed rockets. Better and better rockets, certainly, but still just rockets. Kind of like how the horse and carriage progressively became improved over time during the previous era.

The internet is just a logical extension of the basic technology of computers and/or transistors (depending on which you credit the most with the computer age.)

I agree that the automobile was a game changer, but saying the internet was just a logical and somehow predictable extension of computers and transistors is definitely a stretch. No one saw that coming and it has changed life on a personal scale but also a broader one - economics, science, international affairs - everything. And while interfaces like Windows were tweaks, they also changed everything. My first computer was, I must confess, a giant paper weight.

Arpanet (the military project that later became the internet) was actually set up in 1969.

ARPANET - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by DianeG

When I first starting work as a lab tech, half my day was spent transcribing numbers from one sheet of paper to another, from work sheets or instrument print outs to reports or cards for card readers, answering the phone, giving out preliminary results that were in a computer but couldn't be accessed by a doctor across town or two floors up in the hospital. Even when faxes were invented, it was still time consuming. In a few years, technology eliminated the clerical work and improved the efficiency of laboratory testing as well, but even though I became twice as productive, it didn't mean I got paid twice as much or only had to work half the hours for the same pay. Those savings were passed on to others, or absorbed by other mounting healthcare costs. And because they really needed fewer techs, we were probably even in a worse position.

I'm sure this happened in many other fields. There hasn't been the economic or social changes to match the technological ones. We still have an either exploitative nature to view people as means to ends, or Puritanical mind set that says "idle hands are the hands of the devil."

Yeah. We just have to remember everything is being traded for something else. The economy is full of "bottleneck" products. Products that everyone wants, and there simply isn't enough of.

The fundamentals of an economy are food and shelter. I think literally half of my salary goes into my apartment right now. Food costs are variable if you can content yourself with beans and rice. The discovery of DNA, and subsequent improvements to agriculture have helped a lot to lower food costs in the first world, but then the world wide population explosion brought them right back up.

Ultimately you can't pay workers an amount of money that would allow them to buy more food and shelter than what is available. So, unless the new technology makes those things more plentiful, worker salaries will not go up (at least not after accounting for inflation).

We just have to trade more and more of (insert product here) to get the same amount of food and shelter.

Originally Posted by kojax

Arpanet (the military project that later became the internet) was actually set up in 1969.

I have read that, but I don't think the military designers, or even the university people sending funny messages across campus envisioned anything like what it is now, it's size and breadth, the way it affects every corner of life on a large and small scale.

Ultimately you can't pay workers an amount of money that would allow them to buy more food and shelter than what is available. So, unless the new technology makes those things more plentiful, worker salaries will not go up (at least not after accounting for inflation).

We just have to trade more and more of (insert product here) to get the same amount of food and shelter.

Why? I don't get it. All you need is "enough" food and shelter and it's not a limited commodity like gold. There are limits to how many houses you can live in or food you can eat, all you can do is upscale them a bit. But if society is genuinely more productive, doing more work with in less time and with less effort, creating more goods and services that we all want, then it should become wealthier, or have more leisure time. If it doesn't, then something is wrong, no?

What made my situation as a tech different from say, a farmer who bought a tractor in 1930, was I didn't own the technology. The farmer was capitalist and labourer. I was only labour. Of course the farmer still had to deal with banks, as well as the effect of supply and demand on his product, but at least he shared in some of the benefits and profits from those technological advances, where as I'd argue that a lot of workers today haven't.

PS It probably looks like I have gone way off topic, into economics and an anti-capitalist rant. My point was actually that those predicting the future focused on technological changes, and didnt ask whether human behavior would adapt as easily. Economics is rooted in some pretty primitive mental processing about things like fairness, rewards, entitlement, etc that even infants and chimps and dogs respond to and understand. I don't think the 40 hour week is going to disappear any time soon, even if we have to make up tasks that accomplish almost nothing to fill it.

Originally Posted by Pong

I could give thousands of examples of radical progress witnessed early last century, that stopped progressing. Like that all your life you're automatically reached for a light switch when entering a room. You don't expect that to change anytime soon . . ..

At work lights turn on when I walk into a room and most doors open when I get close to them. Seems like a significant change.

Originally Posted by DianeG

Why? I don't get it. All you need is "enough" food and shelter and it's not a limited commodity like gold. There are limits to how many houses you can live in or food you can eat, all you can do is upscale them a bit. But if society is genuinely more productive, doing more work with in less time and with less effort, creating more goods and services that we all want, then it should become wealthier, or have more leisure time. If it doesn't, then something is wrong, no?

What made my situation as a tech different from say, a farmer who bought a tractor in 1930, was I didn't own the technology. The farmer was capitalist and labourer. I was only labour. Of course the farmer still had to deal with banks, as well as the effect of supply and demand on his product, but at least he shared in some of the benefits and profits from those technological advances, where as I'd argue that a lot of workers today haven't.

The main issue is that, if you are producing something that society has the option to live without, but you want to trade your labor for something society can't live without, then you are trading a non-essential for an essential. You're going to get screwed in that deal.

Food scales with arable land. As the population increases, the supply of lab techs will go up, but the supply of arable land will stay constant. Agriculture tech may or may not continue to improve. If it does improve and the population doesn't continue to grow, then the salary of a lab tech will become larger also. If population outpaces the improvements, then the salary of a lab tech will go down.

The brute fact is that food production is always finite. It also always "could be better", because 100% efficiency is never reached, but once you reach 50% efficiency you know the best you can do is double it. Production of non-essentials, on the other hand, can theoretically go as high as the available labor force. If nothing else, people can produce entertainment, or back rubs, or other services, ad infinitum.

Originally Posted by billvon

Originally Posted by Pong

I could give thousands of examples of radical progress witnessed early last century, that stopped progressing. Like that all your life you're automatically reached for a light switch when entering a room. You don't expect that to change anytime soon . . ..

At work lights turn on when I walk into a room and most doors open when I get close to them. Seems like a significant change.

I think you're right. You'll be absolutely right the day people so take it for granted they forget to list it as a change. If it remains a change we're conscious of, it hasn't fully changed us.

Originally Posted by Pong

Originally Posted by billvon

Originally Posted by Pong

I could give thousands of examples of radical progress witnessed early last century, that stopped progressing. Like that all your life you're automatically reached for a light switch when entering a room. You don't expect that to change anytime soon . . ..

At work lights turn on when I walk into a room and most doors open when I get close to them. Seems like a significant change.

I think you're right. You'll be absolutely right the day people so take it for granted they forget to list it as a change. If it remains a change we're conscious of, it hasn't fully changed us.

I have long thought that it's rather stupid when I hear news like "The city of Lower Boondock elected its first black mayor today..." and the newscaster is so pleased with his white race for being so liberal and free of prejudice. Change will have really occurred when a black person is elected and no one sees it as an occasion to comment on the newly elected candidate's skin color. It's not that they would be quiet about because it's not politically correct to remark upon it - they just would think nothing of it.

Originally Posted by kojax

Originally Posted by DianeG

Why? I don't get it. All you need is "enough" food and shelter and it's not a limited commodity like gold. There are limits to how many houses you can live in or food you can eat, all you can do is upscale them a bit. But if society is genuinely more productive, doing more work with in less time and with less effort, creating more goods and services that we all want, then it should become wealthier, or have more leisure time. If it doesn't, then something is wrong, no?

What made my situation as a tech different from say, a farmer who bought a tractor in 1930, was I didn't own the technology. The farmer was capitalist and labourer. I was only labour. Of course the farmer still had to deal with banks, as well as the effect of supply and demand on his product, but at least he shared in some of the benefits and profits from those technological advances, where as I'd argue that a lot of workers today haven't.

The main issue is that, if you are producing something that society has the option to live without, but you want to trade your labor for something society can't live without, then you are trading a non-essential for an essential. You're going to get screwed in that deal.

Food scales with arable land. As the population increases, the supply of lab techs will go up, but the supply of arable land will stay constant. Agriculture tech may or may not continue to improve. If it does improve and the population doesn't continue to grow, then the salary of a lab tech will become larger also. If population outpaces the improvements, then the salary of a lab tech will go down.

Land may be finite, but the amount of food isn't strictly determined by the amount of arable land. We certainly haven't come close to exhausting it in North America. Providing there is "enough," ie not a food shortage, the price of food becomes like any other commodity - do you want to eat steak every night or save your money for an i-phone? Is it more profitable to use that land for farming or building a shopping mall? At any rate, the extent to which labour profits from advances in technology depends on their ownership of it - like using a website to market your own product. Or it depends on other things like demand for certain skills or collective bargaining which both force management to share the economic benefits of new technology that increased productivity and efficiency.

Originally Posted by DianeG

Originally Posted by kojax

Originally Posted by DianeG

Why? I don't get it. All you need is "enough" food and shelter and it's not a limited commodity like gold. There are limits to how many houses you can live in or food you can eat, all you can do is upscale them a bit. But if society is genuinely more productive, doing more work with in less time and with less effort, creating more goods and services that we all want, then it should become wealthier, or have more leisure time. If it doesn't, then something is wrong, no?

What made my situation as a tech different from say, a farmer who bought a tractor in 1930, was I didn't own the technology. The farmer was capitalist and labourer. I was only labour. Of course the farmer still had to deal with banks, as well as the effect of supply and demand on his product, but at least he shared in some of the benefits and profits from those technological advances, where as I'd argue that a lot of workers today haven't.

The main issue is that, if you are producing something that society has the option to live without, but you want to trade your labor for something society can't live without, then you are trading a non-essential for an essential. You're going to get screwed in that deal.

Food scales with arable land. As the population increases, the supply of lab techs will go up, but the supply of arable land will stay constant. Agriculture tech may or may not continue to improve. If it does improve and the population doesn't continue to grow, then the salary of a lab tech will become larger also. If population outpaces the improvements, then the salary of a lab tech will go down.

Land may be finite, but the amount of food isn't strictly determined by the amount of arable land.

The maximum potential is determined by the amount of Arable land. You can achieve that amount or less, but never more.

We certainly haven't come close to exhausting it in North America. Providing there is "enough," ie not a food shortage, the price of food becomes like any other commodity - do you want to eat steak every night or save your money for an i-phone? Is it more profitable to use that land for farming or building a shopping mall?

There's always someone somewhere in the world starving. So it's hard to say whether there is "enough" food in the world economy at any given time.

If you mean there is enough in the USA, then well.... there will always be enough in the USA. Even if half the world were starving to death, the USA would probably still have enough food.

At any rate, the extent to which labour profits from advances in technology depends on their ownership of it - like using a website to market your own product. Or it depends on other things like demand for certain skills or collective bargaining which both force management to share the economic benefits of new technology that increased productivity and efficiency.

Collective bargaining can help quite a lot. With non-essentials, it isn't absolutely necessary for the price to go down when food gets scarce. The price could remain constant and people could simply use less of the non-essential. (So fewer workers get jobs in that field, but they make a better living.)

The free market won't choose that option on its own, though. It has to be coerced a bit.

Originally Posted by kojax

If you mean there is enough in the USA, then well.... there will always be enough in the USA. Even if half the world were starving to death, the USA would probably still have enough food.

FYI: You may be correct that the USA would have enough food, but would even Americans be eating it?

Here's a quiz you can take to learn more. That's right. Take it from a teacher. Quizzes are learning tools not testing tools.

Sublime Utopian visions are embedded in the human Psyche but contingent on the disappointment of a universe decaying to the second law of thermodynamics.

Originally Posted by GTCethos

Sublime Utopian visions are embedded in the human Psyche but contingent on the disappointment of a universe decaying to the second law of thermodynamics.

Stupid second law of thermodynamics!