Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What the world will be like in a hundred years (1922)

loc.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 659 posts

Re: What the world will be like in a hundred years (1922)

#71

Post by NoGravitas »

Aardwolf wrote: post #40
thejohnconway wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hubris? I think he was right, and that the world of 1822 was more different from 1922 than 1922 is to now. Computers seem to be the primary novel invention in the last hundred years, but long-distance data transfer was normal - and the fax machine sending pictures was overseas was just two years away (1924). 1822 was a horse-drawn, gas-lit world that was in many ways the same as it had been for millennia. 1922 was a…

Of all the science fiction things that I knew when I was a kid in the 90s, only one actually happened, and that's handheld devices with touchscreens with all the world's information accessible through them. Many others, like humanoid robots (that can do actual stuff like independently clean a home), general AI, actual real space travel (where people live on different planets or giant space wheels), flying cars, repli…

As always, when this kind of things come up, I'd like to mention "Of Flying Cars and the Declining Rate of Profit" (2012), by the late David Graeber. There's a reason late 20th and early 21st century technological development went the way it did, rather than the way it looked like it would from the mid 20th century.

https://thebaffler.com/salvos/of-flying-cars-and-the-declini...

Re: What the world will be like in a hundred years (1922)

#73

Post by mc32 »

overthemoon wrote: post #35

It's interesting to compare this to the WEF future projections: https://www.forbes.com/sites/worldeconomicforum/2016/11/10/s... Especially with regards to this passage:: "In 2022 [economic development] will be as finished as it is to-day in England. American wealth will then be either developed or known, and all of it will belong to somebody. There will be no more opportunity in America than there is in England to-da…

The above sentiment is not altogether wrong.

Once people have certain comfort they cease to be productive and look for ways to while away their time. Sometimes its neutral, sometimes it may be a productive hobby and sometimes it's detrimental (as in they know what needs to change in the world and they will make it so).

It's also telling that at the dawn of the XX cent, the US was not a wealthy country. Per capita we were more or less on par with countries that are today still "developing". Out position isn't a foregone conclusion and needs active development to remain there.

Re: What the world will be like in a hundred years (1922)

#74

Post by sailingparrot »

mstade wrote: post #58
haunter wrote: post #15

>Similar reforms apply to cooking, a great deal of which will survive among old fashioned people, but a great deal more of which will probably be avoided by the use of synthetic foods. This is very interesting especially if you think "synthetic foods" not just literally but as take out, processed products and such. I know a lot of young professional people who technically never cook. Like almost never and whatever th…

> This is very interesting especially if you think "synthetic foods" not just literally but as take out, processed products and such. I know a lot of young professional people who technically never cook. Like almost never and whatever they have at home is just snacks, if you hungry > order. There are a lot people like these. Anecdata – I'm on of these people. I live in central Stockholm, Sweden, and almost any hour o…

> Why should I, when I can just as easily order in?

Because

> I really enjoy cooking, I can spend hours doing it

?

Also if you are even just an average/mediocre cook, you can usually cook more tasty and interesting food than what you typically find on Uber eats, unless you order from a different high end restaurant every single day.

Re: What the world will be like in a hundred years (1922)

#76

Post by scrollaway »

krono wrote: post #42
ceejayoz wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The “lunch will be a pill” stuff is always funny to me. There’s a major volume issue unless you’re gonna have me eat chunks of uranium or neutron star or something.

Thinking outside the box, that pill could be part of a more involved system where it triggers the release of nutrition that was consumed earlier. It doesn't have to be a completely self-contained solution.

I love where your head's at. Project: Chipmunk. Stuff those cheeks :)

Re: What the world will be like in a hundred years (1922)

#77

Post by tonyedgecombe »

viraptor wrote: post #9

The "less cleaning due to less coal" part is not something we really think much about these days, but the older limestone buildings can really show the difference. Here's a view with the old and either pressure-washed or redone wall: https://maps.app.goo.gl/Wso9gae4JPsN6NaG6 and that's on a residential side street... Imagine getting your clothes slowly covered with it every time you go out.

Years ago (1986) I worked on a project for one of the bigger power stations in the UK. We created a digital display which showed which way the wind was blowing so they could choose which coal to burn. They had been getting complaints about the dirt on peoples line dried clothes.

Re: What the world will be like in a hundred years (1922)

#78

Post by pindab0ter »

mc32 wrote: post #73
overthemoon wrote: post #35

It's interesting to compare this to the WEF future projections: https://www.forbes.com/sites/worldeconomicforum/2016/11/10/s... Especially with regards to this passage:: "In 2022 [economic development] will be as finished as it is to-day in England. American wealth will then be either developed or known, and all of it will belong to somebody. There will be no more opportunity in America than there is in England to-da…

The above sentiment is not altogether wrong. Once people have certain comfort they cease to be productive and look for ways to while away their time. Sometimes its neutral, sometimes it may be a productive hobby and sometimes it's detrimental (as in they know what needs to change in the world and they will make it so). It's also telling that at the dawn of the XX cent, the US was not a wealthy country. Per capita we…

What terrible phrasing is "they cease to be productive and look for ways to while away their time."

We don't live to work, we work to live. Once less work is required to live, more living can be done. Some people may 'while away their time', others do valuable things that don't produce monetary value.

Re: What the world will be like in a hundred years (1922)

#79

Post by nielsole »

avnigo wrote: post #67

What I understood from this article is that science and technology may be more accurately projected than society and politics; I would imagine because those seem to be more chaotic processes, but also more easily carry the bias of the writer. The article also highlights some shortcomings of the 1922 zeitgeist as there does not seem to be much thought about the positive or negative environmental impacts of technology,…

Pigou had just published the economics of welfare two years earlier. The tragedy of the commons would only be published in 1968. I wonder how much externalities were a commonly known concept in 1922.

Resource exhaustion of oil he got more right than club of Rome even in 1972.

Re: What the world will be like in a hundred years (1922)

#80

Post by mc32 »

pindab0ter wrote: post #78
mc32 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The above sentiment is not altogether wrong. Once people have certain comfort they cease to be productive and look for ways to while away their time. Sometimes its neutral, sometimes it may be a productive hobby and sometimes it's detrimental (as in they know what needs to change in the world and they will make it so). It's also telling that at the dawn of the XX cent, the US was not a wealthy country. Per capita we…

What terrible phrasing is "they cease to be productive and look for ways to while away their time." We don't live to work, we work to live. Once less work is required to live, more living can be done. Some people may 'while away their time', others do valuable things that don't produce monetary value.

Progress depends on people or, the economy in general, progressing. If everyone is happy where they are and want no more, there is no need to innovate and progress stops. That may be fine if we think we have achieved all we need to achieve as a society or species but most think we have a bit of a ways to go still before we can declare victory.
Post reply on HN