Interesting that the article lists global warming from carbon dioxide as one "unnervingly close to the mark". The first public written record we have of that possibility dates to 1912: https://qz.com/817354/scientists-have-been-forecasting-that-...
“Toward the Year 2018”, a speculative book from 1968
61–70 of 95 posts
Re: “Toward the Year 2018”, a speculative book from 1968
#62"Life X years in the future" has been a popular topic for books and other media for some time now. The predictors are usually quite wrong. However, in a few cases, they seem to hit the nail right on the head (cell phones). What I'd like to do is reverse engineer the insights or mindset the people who made accurate predictions so that they could be emulated. At the same time, I want to identify the prejudices or logic…
This Freakonomics podcast on forecasting may be interesting: http://freakonomics.com/podcast/how-to-be-less-terrible-at-p...
I wanted to post this exact reply and saw you had already posted it. Highly recommended, I think about this podcast episode a lot.
Re: “Toward the Year 2018”, a speculative book from 1968
#63Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well you pointed out one biggie: the known laws of physics. Anti-gravity may be possible, but there is no theory to explain it, and so it’s hard to predict in a positive way. By contrast advances in materials science, miniaturization, novel sources of energy, are more fruitful. It can also help to look at the state of current laboratory research. Look at where transistors were a ~100 years ago, and then now. Look at…
But then the question becomes 'literally anti-gravity', or more likely, 'personal flying devices'. Certainly not the same thing but, for the most part, the same effect.
Literal antigravity is almost a requirement for safe personal flying devices though.
Literal antigravity that doesn't take an enormous amount of energy or do anything hard to control even.
The closest thing we have to a real jetpack runs on nearly pure hydrogen peroxide. For about 30 seconds.
Re: “Toward the Year 2018”, a speculative book from 1968
#64Earlier quoted context omitted.
Many future predictions from the 1950s were based on the promise of unlimited electricity. Once this comes to pass, we can have hovercars and whatnot. Instead, we got "unlimited" information. Although this doesn't translate as well into physical products, the world still looks/feels wildly futuristic if you orient your perspective correctly.
You don't get hovercars just from too-cheap-to-meter electricity. If energy cost were the main obstacle, upper-income people would already have hovercars, because spending 4x more on fuel than people driving wheeled vehicles would be fine for them. Some 1968 futurology predictions seem like they might have come to pass had energy remained as relatively cheap as it was in 1968. Others of them were frankly ridiculous r…
> If energy cost were the main obstacle, upper-income people would already have hovercars, because spending 4x more on fuel than people driving wheeled vehicles would be fine for them.
They do, they’re just called “helicopters”.
Re: “Toward the Year 2018”, a speculative book from 1968
#65Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don't get hovercars just from too-cheap-to-meter electricity. If energy cost were the main obstacle, upper-income people would already have hovercars, because spending 4x more on fuel than people driving wheeled vehicles would be fine for them. Some 1968 futurology predictions seem like they might have come to pass had energy remained as relatively cheap as it was in 1968. Others of them were frankly ridiculous r…
> If energy cost were the main obstacle, upper-income people would already have hovercars, because spending 4x more on fuel than people driving wheeled vehicles would be fine for them. They do, they’re just called “helicopters”.
It isn't like helicopters were unknown in 1968.
Re: “Toward the Year 2018”, a speculative book from 1968
#66"Life X years in the future" has been a popular topic for books and other media for some time now. The predictors are usually quite wrong. However, in a few cases, they seem to hit the nail right on the head (cell phones). What I'd like to do is reverse engineer the insights or mindset the people who made accurate predictions so that they could be emulated. At the same time, I want to identify the prejudices or logic…
Well you pointed out one biggie: the known laws of physics. Anti-gravity may be possible, but there is no theory to explain it, and so it’s hard to predict in a positive way. By contrast advances in materials science, miniaturization, novel sources of energy, are more fruitful. It can also help to look at the state of current laboratory research. Look at where transistors were a ~100 years ago, and then now. Look at…
Transistors weren't anywhere 100 years ago. The first practical, working transistor was in 1947. The theoretical foundation (quantum mechanics) wasn't particularly solid until the 1920s. So to get from where we were 100 years ago to where we are today, there were both changes in the known laws of physics, and also practical advances.
Re: “Toward the Year 2018”, a speculative book from 1968
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well you pointed out one biggie: the known laws of physics. Anti-gravity may be possible, but there is no theory to explain it, and so it’s hard to predict in a positive way. By contrast advances in materials science, miniaturization, novel sources of energy, are more fruitful. It can also help to look at the state of current laboratory research. Look at where transistors were a ~100 years ago, and then now. Look at…
But then the question becomes 'literally anti-gravity', or more likely, 'personal flying devices'. Certainly not the same thing but, for the most part, the same effect.
My vote is on quantum levitation. Wings, jetpacks and mini-helicopters are all already hitting the limitations of their physics and still far away from anything you would casually carry around.
Re: “Toward the Year 2018”, a speculative book from 1968
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
The numbers suggest that we could live 1950-style lives working only eleven hours per week[0]. Instead, we inflate our consumption and keep working 40 hours, living in houses more than twice as large[1], commuting ever-longer distances[2], paying daily (or more than daily) for others to prepare food we could have prepared ourselves, and just generally choosing to live many times as large. We adapt so quickly that we…
Instead, we inflate our consumption and keep working 40 hours "We"? I'd happily work at software rates for 20 hours/week. And, yeah, I understand the fundamental shift in a lot of things before that's a practical option. I'm not even disagreeing with you, I think you're spot on. But those that have simple, inexpensive lifestyles still don't have the option of working less. So though even I consume more than I used to…
Housing is the main cost, and it scales with average take-home income — which is why two-income-no-kids families aren’t as well off as one might expect from looking at single-income families from the 1960s. If you can somehow disregard housing as a cost, and have health insurance anywhere except the USA, 20 hours per week is fine.
I’d manage on 10 hours per week minimum wage in the UK, but that doesn’t really count because the UK government effectively subsidies everyone earning less than (I think) £24k/year with things like NHS healthcare and a functional police, fire brigade, and army.
Re: “Toward the Year 2018”, a speculative book from 1968
#69Interesting that the article lists global warming from carbon dioxide as one "unnervingly close to the mark". The first public written record we have of that possibility dates to 1912: https://qz.com/817354/scientists-have-been-forecasting-that-...
The initial public record is not that relevant. More importantly, during the 50s scientists had already begun to agree global warming is a serious, occurring issue.
Compared to other issues, however, like the depletion of the ozone layer later on, measures against climate change have had to deal with the oil industry the entire world is still relying on.
Re: “Toward the Year 2018”, a speculative book from 1968
#70"Life X years in the future" has been a popular topic for books and other media for some time now. The predictors are usually quite wrong. However, in a few cases, they seem to hit the nail right on the head (cell phones). What I'd like to do is reverse engineer the insights or mindset the people who made accurate predictions so that they could be emulated. At the same time, I want to identify the prejudices or logic…
I think a lot of what people get wrong in these predictions is the social element. Dad's telecommuting to work in the study and smoking Lucky Strikes while Mom - aproned and barefoot - cooks in the kitchen, that sort of thing. What this misses - aside from the basic incorrectness itself - is that shifts in social perception and overall conscientiousness are major drivers of innovation. So, look at the intersection of…
That's what I was thinking too.
When I think about failed predictions, the flying car almost immediately comes to mind. You could see them regularly on 50s-60s pop-science and SF magazines covers.
Back then there was the idea that flying machines would soon become affordable on an individual level, and that most people would want to buy their own helicopter or small plane. Quite a few SF novels assumed it was a definite possibility, with the inevitable abandon of cities.
And it made a lot of sense at the time. I remember reading City by Clifford Simak as a kid, which is based on this premise, and thinking that it would soon come. The concept was very tempting.