What the world will be like in a hundred years (1922) • Hacker News Board

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

#231

Post by dukeofdoom » Thu, Jan 06, 2022, 4:29 PM UTC

lettergram wrote: post #99

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…

> 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 w…

Many non renewable resources are past peak production, and declining fast. Austerity will be next. But it will be disguised as saving the environment. So that not only do you do not blame your politicians for being poorer. You will be blamed for over consuming and destroying the environment.

Energy crisis, like running out of heating gas is already hitting Europe. And shortages of fertilizer will be here this spring. China and Russia are not exporting. US doesn't make enough. Farmers will be planting without it. Expect higher food prices and possibly food shortages.

Things are running short in the supply chain, from chips to little bits and pieces. When things break, they will break fast. Make a plan B people. The wave is coming.

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

#232

Post by stocknoob » Thu, Jan 06, 2022, 4:29 PM UTC

thereddaikon wrote: post #109

pindab0ter wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is also not a new phenomena but something that has been slowly increasing over human history. Before agriculture, humans spent almost all of their time hunting and gathering. Agriculture freed up some time and every major technological revolution has in some way made society more productive and efficient allowing us for more time not working. At some point in the 19th century the concept of leisure time came aro…

There still are hunter gatherer societies, and they don't spend all their time hunting and gathering.

https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2017/10/01/5510187...

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

#233

Post by jugg1es » Thu, Jan 06, 2022, 4:29 PM UTC

The most striking to me are passages like this:

"It is practically certain that in 2022 nearly all women will have discarded the idea that they are primarily "makers of men". Most fit women will then be following an individual career."

...

"But it is unlikely that that women will have achieved equality with men."

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

#234

Post by slg » Thu, Jan 06, 2022, 4:29 PM UTC

zionic wrote: post #226

Spooky23 wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s probably a waste of time to argue this, but the arguments for central banking were the same as the arguments put forth by Alexander Hamilton. More stability, greater resilience, etc. The arguments against it were vague references to tyranny, orchestrated by people whose wealth is generated from resource extraction and inherited wealth.

Central banks and their role in tyranny is hardly “vague”. They can siphon off the wealth of an entire nation by printing money. It’s an irresistible temptation that I don’t trust any man to resist long term. That kind of power shouldn’t be in the hands of any one person or organization.

>They can siphon off the wealth of an entire nation by printing money.

There are a countless other ways a country can do this and most of those are more targeted. The tax code is the most obvious example. Inflation is a flat tax of a few percentage points. If the goal is to wield power, it is much more important to control the tax code and move the income tax from 0% (generally true before the 16th Amendment in 1913) to 91% (1954-1963) or from 91% back down to 37% (the current rate). Blaming central banking as the primary cause for these issues just doesn't make sense to me.

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

#235

Post by webmaven » Thu, Jan 06, 2022, 4:30 PM UTC

giantg2 wrote: post #20

hwers wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a funny one since Huel and Soylent kinda came about because of the 1920s meme idea that pills would replace meals in the future. A lot of these might just be self fulfilling prophecies.

That's generally how things work. Sci-fi and stuff influences the thoughts of others to help make the ideas turn into creations. I think they even made a documentary about all the Star Trek props that became a reality, but I don't remember. https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/16/world/gallery/science-fiction...

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

#236

Post by sologoub » Thu, Jan 06, 2022, 4:30 PM UTC

idiotsecant wrote: post #203

hooande wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They will have rebelled against long hours; the chances are that in 2022 few people will work more than seven hours a day, if as much. honestly, with remote work, seven hours a day seems about right. A lot of that isn't even lost productivity, it's cutting back on the general time overhead of working in an office. I don't think that Americans are so prosperous that we've become less enterprising due to class immobi…

>honestly, with remote work, seven hours a day seems about right. This is, with the most possible respect, a position of great privilege. Most people in the US are not remote workers that get to work 7 hours a day. They are expected to be physically present doing things like retail service work, manufacturing, healthcare, construction, etc. The average HN user is in a very specific demographic that has benefited enor…

> Most people in the US are not remote workers that get to work 7 hours a day. They are expected to be physically present doing things like retail service work, manufacturing, healthcare, construction, etc.

This is not entirely accurate — as much as 69% of all full-time employees worked remotely during the pandemic: https://news.gallup.com/poll/355907/remote-work-persisting-t...

While we certainly do have professions that require in-person presence, it’s not every role in those professions and certainly many more people can enjoy the benefits of remote work. Those who cannot should be rewarded for that and added enjoy benefits/guarantees to compensate.

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

#237

Post by mistrial9 » Thu, Jan 06, 2022, 4:34 PM UTC

dukeofdoom wrote: post #231

lettergram wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 w…

Many non renewable resources are past peak production, and declining fast. Austerity will be next. But it will be disguised as saving the environment. So that not only do you do not blame your politicians for being poorer. You will be blamed for over consuming and destroying the environment. Energy crisis, like running out of heating gas is already hitting Europe. And shortages of fertilizer will be here this spring.…

this is horribly misguided to say "disguised as saving the environment" .. it is conflating real environmental crisis with political posturing.. It is intellectually lazy to blur two big topics like this..

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

#238

Post by weakfish » Thu, Jan 06, 2022, 4:35 PM UTC

thereddaikon wrote: post #109

pindab0ter wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is also not a new phenomena but something that has been slowly increasing over human history. Before agriculture, humans spent almost all of their time hunting and gathering. Agriculture freed up some time and every major technological revolution has in some way made society more productive and efficient allowing us for more time not working. At some point in the 19th century the concept of leisure time came aro…

No post body was provided.

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

#239

Post by rossdavidh » Thu, Jan 06, 2022, 4:35 PM UTC

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,…

Well some of it is what your current standard is. Replacing the horse, which puts feces on the road (albeit less smelly than human feces, still really bad in the quantity of a city's traffic), with the automobile, was actually a great improvement in the environment. We don't think of it as such, because we never saw horses in the quantity that a modern city has of automobiles. But what kind of toxic sludge we would have gotten from that much horse manure in a city is difficult for the modern mind to imagine.

Similarly, the environmental impact of coal, when it was the dominant method of heating a home, was not in some decades-off global warming, it was in things like the London Fog (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pea_soup_fog), a pretty horrific environmental situation. Moving to non-coal methods of heating the home (which he mentions) is a big environmental improvement.

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

#240

Post by smcl » Thu, Jan 06, 2022, 4:36 PM UTC

Karawebnetwork wrote: post #155

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…

It's important to remember that 77 percent of U.S. adults take dietary supplements. We all eat "corned beef hash and pumpkin pie" yet the majority of people already use supplements as pill as needed. Living in the north, everyone I know uses Vitamin D pills. This is a must to survive the winter and I can't imagine how it would be if that wasn't as available.

Interesting, I didn’t imagine there would be such a noticeable effect. Can I ask what sort of difference do you see if you don’t take it?