We had a thread last year about 1988 article when the LA Times looked 25 year to the future. Household robots, TV walls, and the usual. The people who came the closest were . . . the auto makers. The writers had talked to someone from GM and someone from Ford.
Sounds about right.
But that wasn’t that far into the future in 1988.
If you want to find out what the future of automobiles is more than 25 years out you talk to Mercedes.
Almost all modern conveniences since 1930 are improvements upon technologies existing then, but the internal combustion engine was not a refinement of the horse, nor was electricity a refinement of the servant. Almost all of the late 19th century and early 20th century inventions were completely groundbreaking.
So? Why limit the discussion to modern conveniences?
Right, except a lot of those inventions were actually invented a lot earlier than 1880, it was just around that time that they actually started being used in real-world applications.
A car is just a steam-locomotive that runs on rubber wheels instead of steel rails. A telephone is just a telegraph that transmits voice. A telegraph is just a heliograph that operates by electricity instead of reflected sunlight. And so on.
Often the ideas for innovations occur decades before the first working prototypes are built, and the prototypes are built decades before consumer products get to market, and the consumer products fail to be profitable for decades before someone figures out how to make a product that people actually use and still make a profit.
And very often game-changing technologies are just evolutionary refinements on existing products, it’s just the new refinement makes the product good enough to finally completely replace the old technology.
1950 isn’t “the future” as imagined by, say, the Golden Age of SF, which IS what the OP was asking. Your discussion of the changes from 1880-1930 is interesting, but not really to the OP, either.
It may not look like it to you, but the changes since 1950 have been huge, especially the computer 9and the ramifications of Moore’s Law), the Internet (an outgrowth of the computer), and a great many other technologies – miniaturization, advances in material science, medical science, optics, and others. You may say that there’s not much change since 1930 and now, but a lot of those similarities are cosmetic. the underlying changes in the way things are constructed, marketed, and used are profound. Phones back then sounded completely different. Electronics, especially with the advancement of semiconductor electronics, made such enormous differences that it’s like comparing your pre-1880 telegraph with the internet. Optics has advanced with light speed (you should pardon the expression) – nonlinear optics, rapid raytracing and optical design of optical devices and of coatings, the use of gradient index optics, rugates and the like. the mainstreaming of evaporated and sputtered coatings, photochromic optics, LASERS, fer cryin’ out loud, and all that came with them. Metamaterials. There’s simply no comparison between the state of 1930s optics and todays. And it’s the same way in other fields – chemistry, biology, etc. Most of it doesn’t directly impact everyday life, but – soft contact lenses, progressive lenses, laser reshaping of corneas, laser detached retina reattachment. Beyond optics – vaccines (my sister-in-law had polio. That’s gone now, along with iron lungs), the discovery of DNA and its use, reams of drug discoveries, much, much deeper understanding of the brain and nervous system, microsurgery (a guy I know has had two hands grafted onto his arms from a donor, and they work.)
The thing is, this isn’t the world of 1930, or 1950. It’s The Future, but not (finally back to the OP), not the future he was promised. Nor the one Frederick Pohl was promised, when I heard him lecture about it many years ago. The future is fiendishly difficult to foresee clearly, although occasionally people get glimpses of it and it shows up in fiction. But unlikely, if more appealing, futures will always be present because they have their attractions. So the future will always be a mix of underappreciated achjievements and the disappointments of unrealized possibilities.
Not if we got sick. Many of us would have died several times over if we went back to 1930.
If you think the internet is just a fast telegraph to your desktop, you are missing the most important part of it. That is, the realization that almost everything not solid is information, and can be digitized and transmitted. The reason that it is hard to find a bookstore is not that we can look up and order books on Amazon - there were catalogs and phones a long time ago. It is that we can transmit the book to us, so that the “real” book is no longer necessary. Ditto music. Ditto movies. Ditto dictionaries, maps
and phone books, and the readers guide, and pretty much every reason I went to libraries when I was a kid.
And to this we need to add search and big data.
I was in 7th grade when JFK was assassinated. It was on the news, sure, but I didn’t find out about it until they pulled us out of classes and brought us back to home room to be dismissed. If it happened now, everyone would be watching the news right where they were, and would know what was going on much faster.
The problem here is of looking at the rapid pace of computer evolution. But if you look at automobiles, again, they have hardly changed in principle since 1930.
A Duesenberg from 1930:
http://allcarcentral.com/Duesenberg/Duesenberg_J_Graber_Cabriolet_1930_1st_MostElegant_PBC1069_PB_2010.jpg
An interesting car from 1949:
http://www.coachbuild.com/gallery/main.php?g2_itemId=48855
In 1880, we had hardly any of the ‘modern’ conveniences we have today, but by 1930 we had almost all of them we have today.
‘The Future’ is already in the past. We are in the ‘post-future’ now.
This is the problem. It’s a category error. We can never be in the post-future. The future is out there and unpredictable, always. One thing we can say, though, is that the future will will global in ways we can’t yet imagine. And that will be a real change that will make our era look entirely backward.
The Future of the early 20th century was wrong, but interestingly wrong. Your position is wrong but not interesting.
BTW, we got it the first time. Simply repeating it over and over is not an argument. It’s a sign that you have no argument.
Soviet joke: “today, you can order a steak dinner over the telephone, and it will be delivered over the television.”
Ever read Murray Leinster’s short story, A Logic Named Joe? Published in 1946, it’s pretty darn close to the future we’re living in.
You misunderstood me. The time for the ‘future’ that was predicted has passed, and it never happened the way it was supposed to happen. That’s my point.
Everybody in the world knows this, including the OP, who was asking why it didn’t happen this way. A question you’ve been completely ignoring. Explaining why it didn’t happen by repeatedly saying “it didn’t happen” is actually worse than useless. That’s the point of me and everybody else responding to you.
Some of it did, some of it did not, but we have passed the point in time when it was supposed to happen. I remember TV shows and newspaper articles of the 1960s saying that some day there would be TV screens that were thin and would go on the wall.
The principal reasons “The Future” didn’t happen as promised are:
[ul]
[li]Nuclear power turned out to be expensive and tricky to deal with[/li][li]Powered flight also turned out to be expensive and tricky to deal with[/li][li]Space travel turned out to be very expensive and tricky to deal with[/li][li]The transistor was invented, and this made digital computers possible, in turn making digital computers small, cheap, and ubiquitous[/li][li]Wars sucked up a lot of money[/li][/ul]
Nobody forecast video games, Walkmans, or cell phones
This looks interesting:
http://www.amazon.com/Yesterdays-Tomorrows-Visions-American-Future/dp/0801853990
Yes, it’s the classic book on the subject, based on a Smithsonian exhibition. It’s 30 years old now, however, and limited because it’s mostly a series of extended captions tied to the images that were collected for the display. There have been a few specialized books on some aspects that have extended the understanding we have, but the good modern look back has yet to be written. The websites don’t understand history, the historians don’t understand technology, and the technologists don’t understand culture.
Flying cars do exist, but they are not something the average person can use. When we have robotic drivers then flying cars may catch on.
Food in pill form is impossible. You can get all your micronutrients (vitamins, minerals, phytochemicals, etc) in a pill but macronutrients like protein, carbs, fat are too large to fit into a pill. A 2500 calorie a day diet would require roughly a stick of butter, a cup of flour, a cup of butter and a few scoops of protein powder. You can’t fit that into a pill.
You can argue we spend most of our time in virtual reality. Most of our time is spent on computers, listening to digital music, playing digital games, etc. So its not a great virtual reality but just compared to 30 years ago, we spend a lot more time each day in digital reality.
I wonder if the 2050s will be disappointing too. I hope not.
Some of the predictions about “The Future” were nonsensical even “back in the day”.
http://designtaxi.com/news/353565/19th-Century-French-Postcards-Predict-The-Future/
