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

411–420 of 659 posts

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

#411

Post by throwawaygh »

gadders wrote: post #84

" A sight of the world today would surprise President Jefferson much more, I suspect, than the world of 2022 would surprise the little girl who sells candies at Grand Central Station. For Jefferson knew nothing of railroads, telegraphs, telephones, automobiles, aeroplanes, gramophones, movies, radium, &c.; he did not even know hot and cold bathrooms." I wonder what we would show the girl of 1922? Space travel and obv…

> I wonder what we would show the [candy selling] girl of 1922?

1. One of the banks of vending machines found in the train station where she used to work.

2. A high school classroom, as the alternative to her life of child labor.

You might also show her Spotify, Netflix, and take her on a two week flight around the world. But I feel that a machine which does her old job and a bookish life for working class youth would be the most likely to blow her mind.

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

#412

Post by wizzwizz4 »

queuebert wrote: post #343
wizzwizz4 wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Inflationary monetary policy” is wealth transfer to the government (which they're then supposed to spend on common infrastructure, and other collaborative projects that everybody agrees on but nobody wants to shell out for unless everyone else is too). If the government is supporting the upper class and leaving everyone else to rot, no monetary policy will fix the issue.

I think this is supposed to be true, but nowadays when the wealthy mostly hold assets that have real value, like real estate and equities, as opposed to USD in a bank account, I'm not sure how well it works.

That's what tax is for.

Sadly, my internet degree in armchair economics doesn't give me the ability to come up with a functioning tax system (however much I think I can beat the status quo) so I have no further pearls of wisdom.

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

#413

Post by jaclaz »

jpindar wrote: post #186
Macha wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Could anyone in 1990 have predicted the smartphone Yes. It was called a communicator in fiction of the day. Did they get the exact details right, or every use case (e.g. replacing flashlights and music players)? No. Some of them used holograms from watches or big old handsets with a screen instead of a keypad but still big ear cups. But a portable device that could be used for voice calls, video calls, information…

In the 1950s, comic book detective Dick Tracy wore a two-way wrist radio, which later included video.

For the record it appeared in 1946:

https://dicktracy.fandom.com/wiki/2-Way_Wrist_Radio

and the video in 1964:

https://dicktracy.fandom.com/wiki/2-Way_Wrist_TV

More or less both are (fictional) "miniaturization" of existing, known technologies.

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

#414

Post by NoGravitas »

thegrimmest wrote: post #344
wbsss4412 wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The absolute end to that line of reasoning is that there shouldn’t be any state at all. Why does the state need to “keep the peace”? It does so through a monopoly on force. Why can’t private individuals simply work things out on their own however they see fit? The idea of liberty, to me, is the idea that citizens have power over collective decision making, ie the rule of law, consent of the governed. I realize I am i…

No, the absolute end is that the state should enforce negative rights, not positive ones. Liberty is the freedom from interference by or obligation to other people. > Why can’t private individuals simply work things out on their own however they see fit? They can, so long as they do peacefully. What the state provides is simply due process for the resolution of disputes, and the expectation that this process will be…

“It is difficult for me to imagine what “personal liberty” is enjoyed by an unemployed hungry person. True freedom can only be where there is no exploitation and oppression of one person by another; where there is not unemployment, and where a person is not living in fear of losing his job, his home and his bread. Only in such a society personal and any other freedom can exist for real and not on paper.” - Ronald Reagan

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

#415

Post by toomanydoubts »

slg wrote: post #409
toomanydoubts wrote: post #388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Your entire point rests on this premise and once we accept this premise we acknowledge the entire government is already compromised. I agree. >Once that happens why does the central bank matter I guess it matters because public awareness is necessary for us not to allow history to repeat itself. As Ford once said: "It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if…

>I guess it matters because public awareness is necessary for us not to allow history to repeat itself. But it is a symptom rather than a cause of the corruption. The energy spent on raising public awareness about this would likely be better served drawing attention to what we both seem to think is the underlying problem, the outsized influence that the wealthy have on the government.

Fair enough.

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

#416

Post by Spooky23 »

thegrimmest wrote: post #315
wbsss4412 wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> inflationary monetary policy is wealth transfer to the upper class without people realizing it. Going to need some evidence to back up that statement. Without centralized banking you essentially have no set policy one way other the other. I can understand why one would take issue with the current governance structure, but I don’t agree that letting money randomly fluctuate with no mechanisms for intervention to be…

> no set policy one way other the other Isn't that the idea of liberty though? No central authority deciding what is a "good thing" - just keeping the peace.

That reductionist approach to liberty is a mirage for teenage boys and hermits. If I can do whatever I want, you can’t.

The United States would have been pushed into a deep depression, but for JP Morgan’s vacation plans being a little different. Early 20th century America was not a radical place, the fact that the Federal Reserve was created underlies how fubar the system was.

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

#417

Post by wbsss4412 »

thegrimmest wrote: post #394
wbsss4412 wrote: post #365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any centralized authority with a monopoly on force is going to have to levy taxes. Otherwise you’d end up with people just refusing to pay because they didn’t get the judgements they desire. If there is a state _at all_ there is force involved. I don’t really understand what you believe is possible here. What you’re discussing is tantamount to assuming that American traditions of due process just exist in a state of…

I believe it's possible to have a state whose powers and authority are fundamentally limited. I also believe that was the original intention of US. I agree taxes must be levied. I just disagree it's legitimate to levy them for most of what they are spent on today. If I ask myself "what should the state be allowed to do?", it's basically answered by "what would I be comfortable holding a gun to someone's head for?". T…

You would hold a gun to someone’s head over petty theft or the violation of a contractual agreement?

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

#418

Post by [deleted] »

scottLobster wrote: post #264
Retric wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A 1922s “middle class” experience is affordable for a most Americans today. As in shelter with heat, phone service, and electric lights but no appliances, no car, minimal access to effective healthcare etc. Upward mobility is still available and just as rare. The health, intelligence, and drive that allowed someone in 1922 to better themselves are the same things that still allow someone to better themselves in 2022.…

So? A middle class experience from 1622 is also affordable for most Americans today, and now we don't have to worry about raids from the natives! Clearly we have no right to complain /s I'm not arguing things are equivalent to 1922 on an absolute scale, but on a relative scale they're closer than they were in the recent past. The prosperity of the previous century has shifted the goal posts for what defines upper, mi…

[deleted]

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

#420

Post by throwawaygh »

adrian_b wrote: post #128
gadders wrote: post #84

" A sight of the world today would surprise President Jefferson much more, I suspect, than the world of 2022 would surprise the little girl who sells candies at Grand Central Station. For Jefferson knew nothing of railroads, telegraphs, telephones, automobiles, aeroplanes, gramophones, movies, radium, &c.; he did not even know hot and cold bathrooms." I wonder what we would show the girl of 1922? Space travel and obv…

Internet and computers are the most different from what existed before 1922, but already then everybody was familiar with telegraphy, telephony and wireless communications and various fiction works about intelligent robots had existed for millennia (starting with the Iliad). Space travel was also present in many fiction works, the best known being several novels of Jules Verne and of H. G. Wells. Antibiotics were a h…

I genuinely can't wrap my head around your perspective on genetics. Literally everything we know about genetics was learned after 1922. What we knew in 1920 might get you through the first half of a one or two week high school lesson on genetics.

> The main progress during the last 100 years has been in practical engineering, with much less progress in basic science.

I actually think the situation is entirely reversed.

The progress from 1822 to 1922 was largely engineering. The industrial revolution cause a violent and visceral change in the way that people experienced everyday life.

Take genetics. In 1922 we didn't know that DNA existed. Or, we kind of has a vague sense. Since then, we: discovered the structure of DNA, sequenced the first human genome, and now for less than a month's wages & a vial of spit you can get a whole genome fastq. And that's just genetic sequencing. We have also learned a mind-boggling amount about how DNA interacts with other biological processes. And that's just genetics. Proteins. Neuroscience. The vascular system. The list goes on and on. Just in life sciences.

And the (bio)engineering implications of that vast amount of scientific discovery are immense. More impactful but not as visceral as a railroad or an airplane.

Scientifically, the progress from 1922 to 2022 is incredible compared to the progress from 1822 to 1922, but the engineering progress of 1822 to 1922 was much more visceral. Not even more significant in terms of lived experience. Just more visceral.

Post reply on HN