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

Isaac Asimov's predictions for what the world will be like in 2014

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 175 posts

Re: Isaac Asimov's predictions for what the world will be like in 2014

#161

Post by dredmorbius »

waterlesscloud wrote: post #117
dredmorbius wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given that we've not been able to create a self-contained biosphere on Earth, the prospect for long-term environmental support on the Moon seems low. The IIS gets regular resupplies to keep its environmental support systems operational and habitable.

There's no requirement that a lunar colony be self-sustaining in order to qualify as a lunar colony.

There's no requirement

Cost per kg from Earth to Lunar surface argue otherwise.

A multi-national consortium can barely manage to sustain operations of a 6 man crew in low-Earth orbit.

Re: Isaac Asimov's predictions for what the world will be like in 2014

#162

Post by dredmorbius »

lambda wrote: post #139
dredmorbius wrote: post #109

Let's judge... The piece is less optimistic and cornucopian than I'd expected. The first part is pretty light, but it turns a shade dark, especially for. The prediction record includes a few failures but surprisingly more hits than I expected. men will continue to withdraw from nature Yes and no. Our environments are more artificial, but we're not living in hermetically sealed enclosures. Electroluminescent panels ..…

> Robots They're rather less common or good than Asimov supposed. As with cooking gadgets, it turns out that it's difficult to design something that can navigate a home (including stairs and uneven surfaces), perform tasks, usefully, and not cost a bundle. Especially when competing with low-cost maid services. He did say they'd be uncommon and not very good. What he didn't forsee is that they would not be humanoid ro…

Calling a Roomba a robot ... is somewhat on par with calling a blade of grass a tree. A Roomba randomly careers across a floor probabalistically providing sufficient coverage to fully vacuum or mop it.

Yes, we've got more intelligent robots, but they're a tad more expensive. Industrial manufacturing robots exist, but the reprogramming costs exceed the manufacture cost of the robots themselves. They make sense in very high-value, generally high-volume production. They're not particularly adaptive, though they can switch between different modes (programs) fairly well.

Flying through empty space is a reasonably simple problem. We've had ICBMs for ages. Navigating through complex terrain (ground-based robots, autonomous vehicles) is a markedly more complex domain space.

Most robots we've got at present are very, very highly specialized. Or incredibly stupid, though good enough for the task at hand.

Re: Isaac Asimov's predictions for what the world will be like in 2014

#163

Post by dredmorbius »

VLM wrote: post #136
dredmorbius wrote: post #109

Let's judge... The piece is less optimistic and cornucopian than I'd expected. The first part is pretty light, but it turns a shade dark, especially for. The prediction record includes a few failures but surprisingly more hits than I expected. men will continue to withdraw from nature Yes and no. Our environments are more artificial, but we're not living in hermetically sealed enclosures. Electroluminescent panels ..…

"Processed yeast and algae Vegemite and nori flakes aside, not so much. And I really don't see the cultured burger going very far." Soy is a cheaper raw material. Not his fault. Given that, he turned out 100% correct. "Undoubtedly, the world of A.D. 2014 will have agreed on the [lowering the birth rate]. Sadly, not." images.google.com world birth rate graph, when he wrote this the world's total fertility rate is the…

Soy is a cheaper raw material.

Let's look a bit closer at that: why?

The answer has a lot to do with addressing our energy challenges, if you want to take biofuels into account.

Plants are roughly 1% effective at converting sunlight to stored hydrocarbons (mostly cellulose). Sometimes we can bump that up by a factor of 2-3. Photovoltaics are much more effecitve, about 20% in production, with theoretical maximums of 40%, which translates to even higher with multi-layer cells. But that just gets you electricity, not storage.

Algae are roughly 10x more productive than plants in converting sunlight to biomass. Which is pretty useful. However where a farm is a pretty lightly engineered environment (provide irrigation, even tillage is optional these days), if you're going to grow algae, you've got to provide a hell of a lot of services plants otherwise self-service: support, pest control, nutrient transport, and the like. Yes, your primary productivity goes up 10x but your capital investments are even higher. I've followed the field from a distance, and most pilot projects have been abandoned.

So instead of harvesting protein from algae and yeast, we get them from acres of soybeans. It's just cheaper. And the technology is too expensive.

Population

Yes, growth rates have declined, but we're still dangerously over long-term sustainable levels. And unfortunately, it's poorer areas where kids are most prevalent. In advanced societies, children are a net cost, in poor ones, starting at an early age, they can help with household tasks and chores.

Re: Isaac Asimov's predictions for what the world will be like in 2014

#164

Post by dredmorbius »

leeny wrote: post #16

I guess he never anticipated that "the best minds of [our] generation are thinking about how to make people click ads."[1] [1] http://www.smh.com.au/business/world-business/why-this-tech-...

Catabolic Collapse and Rent Seeking are largely the same thing:

http://www.ecoshock.org/transcripts/greer_on_collapse.pdf

Ads, FIRE industries, intellectual property feudalism, and microcode: it's where the fiscal hoarding opportunities are. They're creating little if any real wealth.

Re: Isaac Asimov's predictions for what the world will be like in 2014

#165

Post by solistice »

officemonkey wrote: post #128
solistice wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

x EL panels No, but they're to expensive for usage on every wall. Personally, I think they'll be pushed towards fringe applications by a technology Asmimov didn't predict. High efficiency LEDs. x Smart glass Yes, but again a cost question. There's this [ http://money.cnn.com/video/technology/2012/01/10/t-ts-samsun... ], by Samsung. I don't see why you couldn't replace your windows with such screens if you had the spa…

There are several lighter than air gasses. Helium is rare, Neon is rarer, and Hydrogen is explosive and has really bad press. Methane is explosive as well. Ammonia, Hydrogen flouride, and Diborane are either reactive or toxic. Helium, Hydrogen and hot air are the most popular options, but none of them are as safe or cheap as plain old planes.

I know that technically blimps make little sense except in fringe applications. But they're majestic, and I like that.

Re: Isaac Asimov's predictions for what the world will be like in 2014

#166

Post by Houshalter »

contingencies wrote: post #101
Houshalter wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn't make a lot of sense. People don't work because they want to support someone else, they work because they want to support themselves.

That comment is at once so amazingly wrong and quintessentially American, it's almost a work of art.

Right because people obviously work for the sole purpose of supporting their manager. Not to feed themselves or anything, that's silly American stuff.

Re: Isaac Asimov's predictions for what the world will be like in 2014

#167

Post by qu4z-2 »

Houshalter wrote: post #166
contingencies wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That comment is at once so amazingly wrong and quintessentially American, it's almost a work of art.

Right because people obviously work for the sole purpose of supporting their manager. Not to feed themselves or anything, that's silly American stuff.

What about building nice things, or making the world a better place? (Although that's probably truer of the hacker profession than some others)

Re: Isaac Asimov's predictions for what the world will be like in 2014

#168

Post by coldtea »

hugs wrote: post #152
coldtea wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He meant humanoid robots, not fancy industrial automation.

When a general-purpose robot (aka "something that looks like a human") is refined and improved for a particular task, it won't look like a robot anymore. Therefore, "robots" will never be good at anything, because once they're good, they're no longer robots. (e.g. dish washers, washing machine, coffee makers, laser cutters, CNC machines, etc.)

That's incorrect.

It assumes that the task is best served by non-humanoid forms.

While that might be true for a laser cutter or a washing machine, there are lots of tasks that in order to be "refined and improved" for them, it should absolutely look like a human.

An obvious example would be a sex-partner robot. Generally any kind of robot that serves humans and we want them to have better empathy towards it (e.g a robot to keep companion to the sick and the elderly). The same holds for robots that are to be used as spies, e.g to infiltrate some human community.

Robots that could be used to play competitive sports for spectators. Robots that do stunt-doubling of actors or perform themselves.

Also, if we want a robot to serve as a "personal assistant" (e.g a butler) the human form is very flexible (and it's flexibility and performance would be increased by the robot's extra capabilities, like more "muscle" power and speed, finer vision, etc).

Such a form will be able to cook, restock the fridge, massage our back, play tennis, take the dog for a walk, clean the house, play poker, help us move, throw out the garbage etc. If you can have something like that, why use a specialized machine for each (for some of those actions, a dedicated machine would provide a luck-luster experience anyway).

Re: Isaac Asimov's predictions for what the world will be like in 2014

#169

Post by coldtea »

madaxe wrote: post #129
zanny wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On some of the missing ones: 1. We have at least one fusion plant I know of, the UK Joint Torus, which I know have been operating for decades. It just consumes more power than it generates. But Asimov suggests one or two, which is strikingly accurate. 2. We could probably make radio-decay batteries (maybe not AA size, but car batteries running on Thorium or some such, albeit an extremely expensive containment for som…

We have "radio-decay batteries" - RTGs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_gen... They can be miniaturised, using the photoelectric effect, alphavoltaics or betavoltaics. We do not use them because "Nuclear is bad, m'kay?", and the market just isn't there, so the R&D hasn't happened.

>We do not use them because "Nuclear is bad, m'kay?"

The irony is nice but misplaced. We already have a huge problem disposing the toxic waste of regular batteries.

Not to mention what other misuses those could have if accessed by the random lunatic....

Re: Isaac Asimov's predictions for what the world will be like in 2014

#170

Post by coldtea »

VLM wrote: post #134
dalek_cannes wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We produce vastly more, but work as much as ever. Back in the 60s the sentiment was that 21st century Americans might have 10 hour work weeks. Isn't that because we now have a very large semi-parasitical managerial class that we need to support? It's almost a retreat into feudalism. Doubt anybody saw that coming.

One interesting interpretation is the ratio of people with desk jobs consisting of 50% (or higher) fooling around vs sweaty manual labor jobs has led to the average American perhaps only working 20 hours a week right now. Think of pointless meetings, smoke breaks, soda breaks, talking about sports, life, hobbies, debating/complaining, talking politics, talking about TV shows, online shopping, keeping up with twitter/…

>One interesting interpretation is the ratio of people with desk jobs consisting of 50% (or higher) fooling around vs sweaty manual labor jobs has led to the average American perhaps only working 20 hours a week right now.

For actual work, maybe even less.

But not having pocession of your body for 8-12 hours every day in exchage for a pay-check, is work too. Even if you just sit there and "do nothing".

Post reply on HN