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)

#591

Post by hackernudes » Fri, Jan 07, 2022, 3:50 AM UTC

intrasight wrote: post #354

dougmwne wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of all our technology, I truly think the smartphone is one of the most impressive and futuristic things ever invented. It’s the kind of thing Star Trek thought was hundreds of years in the future and that most sci-fi failed to imagine. It is individually transformative in a way that space flight will probably never be. Our information tech is likely to continue racing forward and this current moment will look analog…

The future may be analog - if you look far enough. We are analog.

Or maybe the universe is digital if you could look small enough!

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

#592

Post by tsol » Fri, Jan 07, 2022, 4:00 AM UTC

fleddr wrote: post #563

thereddaikon wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Hunter gatherers worked at best 4 hours a day. Agriculture did not free up time, it costs more time. It also has been a catastrophe for the human diet, which was superior before. Besides food, living constantly next to cattle has caused all kinds of new diseases. Finally, agriculture established the concept of property. Almost all the negative behavior we commonly attribute to people...greed, competition, theft, envy…

It was a catastrophe for the human diet, back when most people ate grains for 90% of their meals. Now we benefit from having basically any food available to us consistently. Hunter gatherers had better diets than their farming descendents and we know this because of their skeletons. But what farming provides is a surplus of food. Extra food means you feel comfortable enough to have a bunch of kids and all sit around inventing things like computers and Hacker News

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

#593

Post by Notanothertoo » Fri, Jan 07, 2022, 4:16 AM UTC

cm2012 wrote: post #320

cscurmudgeon wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which part is wrong? Some parts are obviously correct. The US is definitely one of the most diverse large countries. India is probably more diverse along language lines. China is definitely not along any dimension. Even the EU states (that depend on US for defense and use oil to power their economies) are less diverse.

Some parts are correct, true. Mostly "It’s ALWAYS a safe bet to assume people will lose liberty." is really wrong. The US is a far more free country now than it was 100 years ago or at any point since the introduction of agriculture. Compared to one hundred years ago, there's political changes: - Minorities and women can vote - Labor rights - Consumer protections (No more debtor prisons, etc.) And tech changes: - Peo…

I agree with much of this as I think some of this has contributed to people's economic agency. But I think we should analyze the impact of these and not just chalk them up as actual improvements in people's liberty.

For example does enabling a person's ability to vote actually increase one's liberty in a corrupt/narrow system.

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

#594

Post by thegrimmest » Fri, Jan 07, 2022, 4:21 AM UTC

wbsss4412 wrote: post #482

thegrimmest wrote: post #456

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Contracts should have monetary penalties only - you can't sign yourself into slavery. If the doctor breaches a contract, and the contract has provisions for what he will pay in breach, then he must pay it or have it seized (with force). We've long banned debtors prisons for good reason. There's no holding a gun to anyone's head required unless they try to stop you from seizing property to which you have a lawful clai…

So as long as I write the laws and excite the laws I can do whatever I want. Taxation is lawful because the government duly passes laws asserting such claims. Taxation therefore cannot be theft. Unless there is some definition of “lawful” that exists outside of writing and enforcing the laws. Which begs the question according to who? In this instance that someone seems to be you.

Taxation isn't theft, it's robbery, since it involves the threat of force. The only remaining question is "What services is it ethical to rob people in order to fund?". My answer is "Not nearly as many as most people today suppose".

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

#595

Post by tsol » Fri, Jan 07, 2022, 4:24 AM UTC

dahart wrote: post #581

jlawson wrote: post #561

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not in our nature, it's in the rewards we desire. We desire the best mate possible. No industrial or computer advance has (yet) provided any of us with better mates. Mates are as scarce as they were hundreds and thousands of years ago. Mates choose each other according to relative status. By definition, there is no way we can increase everyone's relative status. So the reason people grind as hard as they used to…

I guess the immediate question I’d have in response to that hypothesis is: if seeking a mate is what’s leading people to grind, why doesn’t that behavior taper off after marriage?

Because divorce is still a possibility

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

#596

Post by xkgt » Fri, Jan 07, 2022, 4:29 AM UTC

I expected to see a bunch of failed predictions but most of the stuff is surprisingly accurate. I see some commenters remark that these were conservative predictions and that most of the technologies existed in some form in 1922.

But that such incremental advancement is more representative of progress than disruptive changes. I feel the short term disruptive development post WWII has clouded our perception of long term technical progress due to recency bias. I suppose that is why most of the Sci-fi predictions post 1960 feels wildly inaccurate about the current decade than predictions from 100 years ago.

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

#597

Post by xkgt » Fri, Jan 07, 2022, 4:35 AM UTC

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…

People often overlook how wasteful (both time and food wise) it is to cook for single person, except for non-fussy eaters who don't mind eating leftovers.

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

#598

Post by Nick87633 » Fri, Jan 07, 2022, 4:43 AM UTC

xkgt wrote: post #597

mstade wrote: post #58

Earlier 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…

People often overlook how wasteful (both time and food wise) it is to cook for single person, except for non-fussy eaters who don't mind eating leftovers.

Leftovers are the best. Home cooked food without the hassle!

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

#599

Post by Spooky23 » Fri, Jan 07, 2022, 4:47 AM UTC

Manuel_D wrote: post #569

LeFantome wrote: post #552

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody owes more money than the rich. This is true of countries as well. “Wealth” as most people think of it comes from power over money more than from the absolute value of net worth. I had a lot of credit card debt in University. I was the richest person my friends knew. That money gave me access to people and opportunities I would not have had otherwise. Today, I owe a million dollars ( mostly mortgage ) but am co…

I think you're mistaking wealth with purchase of luxury goods. If someone has no money, and borrows to buy a fancy set of clothes they might be perceived as wealthy by onlookers but they still have no money. Worse, even, as the interest on that loan will make them even poorer to the point of having a negative net worth. If you owe more than you own, you are not wealthy as you have negative net worth. Inflation someon…

Some debtors and people who own hard assets benefit from inflation.

People with more ephemeral assets and in service business are harmed by inflation. The service sectors in particular are full of low quality, debt-laden companies who can’t withstand interest driven financial stress.

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

#600

Post by vkou » Fri, Jan 07, 2022, 4:48 AM UTC

VirusNewbie wrote: post #546

vkou wrote: post #542

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If inflation robs the poor person of the $500 and helps the middle class person with a mortgage.... all other things being equal, we transferred wealth from the poor person to the middle class person. yay, with me so far? No, I'm not with you, because it's not the poor person who is fronting a million bucks in cash that the middle class person borrows, in order to buy the house. For the obvious reason that he doesn…

You need to stop viewing money in amounts and start viewing it as % of total available money in existence. In our contrived example, now the middle class person owns a bigger slice of the pie after the pie doubled in size due to their leverage.

Your contrived example very conveniently excludes what inflation buys (Infrastructure, public spending)[1], and also who pays for the majority of it (The lender - who happens to be neither of the two people in your example.)

So yes, if we have an incorrect contrived example that doesn't even attempt to serve as a proxy the ground facts, and we ignore half the consequences of it, yes, of course, we can draw whatever conclusion you want.

Still not with you.

[1] Yes, obviously, its possible for a government to spend that money on stupid shit. It's a good incentive to elect ones that spend it on useful things.