If anyone else is interested in the author who exerted such prescience, Wikipedia has an article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._L._George
What the world will be like in a hundred years (1922)
91–100 of 659 posts
Re: What the world will be like in a hundred years (1922)
#92Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
What about people who are made happy by innovating and progressing?
When social support for that goes away, it's only the "crazy" who would do that just because. But without societal support it's a dead-end.
There are countries with lots of people --but whose contribution to innovation is substandard. There is no societal support so innovation is stunted.
It’s like thinking justice will happen just because… No, it happens because society supports justice. Justice or innovation don’t just “happen”.
Re: What the world will be like in a hundred years (1922)
#93Earlier quoted context omitted.
From a technological perspective, I'm not sure they're wrong? 1922 had railways and cars and mass transit which had already started increasing urbanisation vs 1822, skyscrapers were already being built, passenger air travel was a go, telephones and electricity existed in cities. The internet and computing is certainly a big shift, but from a visible changes to the world perspective I think 2022 is more alike 1922 tha…
> The internet and computing is certainly a big shift, but from a visible changes to the world perspective I think 2022 is more alike 1922 than 1922 was alike 1822. Lolwat? Handheld devices that have the power to process millions of calculations a sec, to record Ultra HD videos, to establish a video conference instantaniously with anyone in the whole world. Thousands of satellites that orbit the earth constantly. Spa…
They had radio and video cameras in 1922, I don't think facetime would be all that shocking. 1822 had neither telephone nor electric light. Steam trains were just getting started; by 1922 they were running regular service at over 100 mph.
Evidently its debatable which century saw more change, from sailboats to Titanic, or gunpowder rockets to Apollo... certainly there have always been cynics and dreamers...
edit: GPS would be pretty shocking to either, I expect
Re: What the world will be like in a hundred years (1922)
#94Earlier quoted context omitted.
Too many smart (or smart-sounding) people either here or on Reddit claim casually that some X will take hundreds of years to do. Where X may be artificial intelligence, conquest of longevity or whatever else. The reality is that we do not know. Some things may be out of our reach forever, but contemporary world has by far the highest count of scientists ever and the talent pool is widening as countries such as Bangla…
> Too many smart (or smart-sounding) people either here or on Reddit claim casually that some X will take hundreds of years to do. Where X may be artificial intelligence, conquest of longevity or whatever else. > The reality is that we do not know Yeah, but it works both ways, I see a lot of people on reddit claiming aging will be solved in X years (usually in their lifetime) and it does not sound any smarter.
True, it does not sound any better, especially if you take into account the progress of other challenges in medicine.
We aren't anywhere close to, say, solving cancer, but we are conquering new territory inch by inch, with a massive difference of outcomes in last 50 years or so.
I suspect the same is going to happen in the longevity field. Dr. Gregory Fahy managed to rejuvenate the thymus in several individuals (TRIIM and TRIIM-X trials) and lower their epigenetic age. It might have well been the first baby step on that journey.
Re: What the world will be like in a hundred years (1922)
#95I wish the quality of prose as well as underlying journalism of today’s mainstream media and newspapers matched those of yesteryear. When reading the posted article, the decline in quality is shown to be immense.
Average quality, yes.
Total, and even max quality? Not so clear.
In number of articles/ books that are above a given quality bar? I wouldn't bet on 1922.
Re: What the world will be like in a hundred years (1922)
#96Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
I enjoy cooking, but I enjoy other things more, and time is not infinite. I notice that when my wife and I go on vacation we cook much more and try out new recipes because at the airbnb there are fewer competing tasks or activities. And while I can cook and bake decently, there are some dishes I don't always want to put the time in for, or I haven't quite gotten right yet, or require fresh ingredients that I can't buy within a 30min drive. But the thai restaurant a few blocks away will have fresh keffir lime leaves and lemongrass brought in in bulk every day.
Re: What the world will be like in a hundred years (1922)
#97When he mentions the lack of cables, he's pretty close with most of them being underground. But also he's incredible close if you consider the mess of cables that was the Stockholm telephone tower, functioning until 1913 https://www.amusingplanet.com/2017/09/the-stockholm-telephon...
It is an excellent article, I agree. However, it strikes me that the author was more likely female than male. (gender deliberately obscured in the author's name, 'W.L. George', for instance.). If a male writer, the article is even more impressive given the clear sensitivity to, and awareness of, women's issues and the likely impact of technology and social changes on women. That said, the author was likely a person o…
Author was male: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._L._George
Re: What the world will be like in a hundred years (1922)
#98Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yep. Penicilin, Heart transplants, Supersonic travel. Nuclear power, Nuclear weapons, Nuclear naval propulsion. Space exploration. Artificial Satellites, GPS, Succesful cancer treatments, NMR and other imaging diagnostic tools. Wireless bi-directional personal television (the 20's name for making a zoom call from your phone). And the list goes on.
Do any of those even come close to 1822-1922 changes of aviation, global telecommumications, ubiquitous electricity, cars, Quantum Mechanics, and so on? Space exploration, nuclear propulsion and satellites are great, but their impact on people’s daily lives is far smaller than the above, imo. I think the author was largely correct.
How not? Penicilin alone has a giant impact on the lives of people. What about anti-conceptionals too.
Re: What the world will be like in a hundred years (1922)
#99It'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…
> Welcome To 2030: I Own Nothing, Have No Privacy And Life Has Never Been Better
Let me translate
“you are slaves and you rent everything. We base your ability to purchase on a social credit score. But we let you rent houses in our artificially limited VR world.”
I don’t make much of predictions like these. It’s ALWAYS a safe bet to assume people will lose liberty. To the point the FED was created in 1913, research why it was created - not just wikipedia, get some books published between the 20 to 60s. When was public education first introduced at scale? When was eugenics promoted in the United States?
The 1910s - 1920s was the beginning of the major authoritarian and progressive movements in the United States. Read about the history of Woodrow Wilson.
At the end of the day, the United States during the 20s was losing its independence already. It was openly talked about on higher-class circles.
In that context all these predictions are really aspirations.
That said, I think the United States is still one of the most free and diverse countries on the planet. Has its issues and can 100% improve. But the same people and families who are part of the WEF are the same families / people in the 1910s - 1920s promoting the same general ideas.
Re: What the world will be like in a hundred years (1922)
#100Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yep. Penicilin, Heart transplants, Supersonic travel. Nuclear power, Nuclear weapons, Nuclear naval propulsion. Space exploration. Artificial Satellites, GPS, Succesful cancer treatments, NMR and other imaging diagnostic tools. Wireless bi-directional personal television (the 20's name for making a zoom call from your phone). And the list goes on.
In my earlier reply to GP, I had forgotten about space exploration, and I think that is a major technological advancement that would amaze someone from 1922. However, I still think that someone from 1922 would expect such things of 2022 in a way that someone from 1822 would not expect of 1922. 1822 - 1922 is the difference between being a barely-technological world to being a fully-blown one, in many, many fields.
Modern medicin would be nothing short of miraculous from the eyes of someone from 1920.