You know I think that people a hundred years from now may have a better understanding of us than we do of people a hundred years ago, and that effects the equation somehow.
I think this because we simply record so much more of a culture than was technologically possible in 1912. If you want to know about 1912 culture you pretty much have to read about it, sure there are plenty of cultural artifcacts that you could watch and listen to, but so many of those mediums were in their infancy compared to today’s sheer amount of data that is being recorded.
I imagine that movies from today will still be pretty entertaining to the masses in 2112. We are already constantly recording our daily lives in photos and videos on a much more massive scale than was possible in 1912. Hell the Library of Congress is preserving our tweets, people in 2112 will be able to read our every tiny little thoughts on every subject from the most shallow to the most broadly philisophical. I wouldn’t be surprised if this very discussion were stored somewhere for future people to see what we thought they would be.
I’m not sure how that changes things but I’m sure it does.
I forgot one fairly uncontroversial health one: tooth decay.
Last I heard there were a number of trials underway for ways to basically prevent tooth decay, period. So the generation of people that grows up without tooth decay might not be far away.
They’ll find the idea of teeth decaying because of a mouth full of harmful bacteria disturbing, let alone all the stuff that comes with decay: pulling teeth, amalgam fillings, root canals etc.
Very interesting point. Just as Skype, documentary film, instant messaging, etc. allows any of us to today more deeply immerse ourselves in some person’s life and culture halfway around the globe, and so sympathize with their situation and perhaps “forgive” them for viewpoints and behaviors that we might otherwise condemn them for should our knowledge of their full reality be more superficial.
BUT, for this to work, now or in the future, it still takes initiative, effort, and tiime. Technology or no, you still need to WANT to get to know someone whose life situation is far different from yours, and then take the time to do so, with as open a mind as you can muster.
And I doubt that human nature will change so much in 100 years that the predilection toward this kind of effort will be much more common than it is today.
“Information about the early 21st century in North America is, of course, difficult to obtain because of the great EMP event of 2015, which effectively erased all electronic records and led to economic collapse, and because of the ensuing flu pandemic of 2019-2020.”
True, but expert knowledge is a major source of common knowledge. Not everyone will research the 21st century, but those that do will have a major effect on what people think the 21st century was like. And the experts of 2112 are likely to be more knowledgeable about us than we are of 1912.
What about all the CDs and DVDs? (note: I’m not saying they need to last a century, just survive the EMP)
Uh, they were shredded, yeah, that’s the ticket. Shredded or burned, along with most non-religious books and newspapers, in accordance with Edict 451 of the Great Inquisition of 2021-2023.
I’ll go with capital punishment, violence against gay people, the “Defense of Marriage Act”, rampant teen pregnancy, and the impossibility of getting by on a minimum-wage job.
Let me just observe that scientific knowledge took a big nosedive when Rome fell, from which it took a millennium to recover. The murder of Hypatia by a crazed Christian mob was just one example.
I think that, leaving all social trends aside (that I don’t think we can predict), I expect they will be appalled by the sheer waste of resources and, even more, by the fact that we let global warming get out of hand.
In 100 years, they could be appalled by the fact that we seriously argued about gay marriage. But whether they cannot believe we accepted it or that we delayed accepting it for so long, I would not care to hazard a guess.
I think that by 2112 they will have decided that smoking was something that many people really, really liked and have found a way to make it safe, non-addictive and not bothersome to non-indulgers.
I think that by 2112 people will be apalled that we ever let poor people vote or have a say in governing.
We still had little pieces of paper or metal disks we exchanged for goods and services.
Your guns had ammunition? No microfusion reactors that powered plasma rifles for weeks of heavy use?
No Gravicarts? How did they get to work in SanOakJose from Dallas travelling only 100km per hour in those “car” things. No running to Paris to go shopping and home by dinnertime? OMG!
What can this strange device be?
When I touch it, it gives forth a sound
It’s got wires that vibrate and give music
What can this thing be that I found?
Accepted now, but will be viewed as appalling in 2112? Hmm. There are only two things that I would place a Long Bet on.
Eating animals
Most children (who are not raised on farms) are shocked when they discover that chicken is CHICKEN. Or that hamburger is COWS. I think this childlike aversion will be the norm among adults. This will not be the result of everyone becoming vegetarian, but of cheap methods of growing meat without a nervous system.
Abortion as family planning
As Christopher Hitchens pointed out, (paraphrasing) if you hear about the murder of a woman, you are saddened. But no matter what your views are regarding abortion rights, if you hear the additional fact the victim was pregnant, you are appalled. Hopefully by 2112 no one will ever become pregnant unless they intend to, and abortion will no longer be a political rights issue (just a health issue). People will look back and think it was barbaric.
I on the other hand think that his comment is totally out of the spirit of the OP. Everyone knows all that stuff. Predictions don’t come true. This thread is obviously about having fun with this sort of thing.
I do think he was just saying that the people in the future may think that, though. But I think he’s wrong–I see no evidence that society tends to get less progressive over time–unless an empire falls. The pattern of history is not a roller coaster, but a bunch of mountains that end in cliffs, where people fall to the bottom and then have to pick themselves back up again and try to climb again.