flying cars will never happen, i’ve accepted that a long time ago. people are too stupid and incompetent, it would be total death from above every day.
the increase in religiosity, especially islam, is what scares me the most. we will have nothing but dirt and dead bodies hanging from trees 50 years from now.
A few years ago, a news report came on the radio about how the ISS was having a semi-critical problem, and there was speculation that the mid-mission Space Shuttle could divert and give the crew a lift back to Earth. It wasn’t technically feasible, of course, and the ISS issue was fixed in some other way, but I remember having the sense that the future had kinda snuck up on me. If I had heard that report without modern context - that the International Space Station was having issues and the Americans were considering swinging by in one of their Space Shuttles to help out - I would have been blown away. Of course, my mind automatically filled in the blanks - the International Bunch of Minivans Duct-Taped and Baling-Twined Together was having issues and the Americans were considering swinging by in one of their Aging Dingy Too-Explodey Airish Planeish Things to help out - and it became much more mundane.
Several of them are quite sensible and many of them have come true.
Random Googling of things related to the Future is exactly the problem I mentioned earlier. People like putting up the images without any context whatsoever. Were these serious predictions? Unquestionably no. Not much is known about their origin but they were probably fun promotional items included in packages of food, no different from Disney putting cartoons in cereal. They were for amusement only, with grossly exaggerated imagery and satiric views of contemporary life. That’s their real importance. They don’t tell us what people then thought about the Future as much as what people then thought about the lives they were living. What they say - very successfully - was that technology would advance but that people would be the same. Hard to make a better prediction than that.
Not true. Life expectancy was 59.7 years in 1930, 69.7 years in 1960 and 78.7 years in 2010. And in particular note that the U.S. only spent 5.0% of GNP on healthcare in 1960, but 17.4% of GNP in 2010. So there has only been a 9 year increase in life expectancy in the last 50 years even though there has been both a huge increase in medical spending as well as supposedly all these great medical breakthroughs.
I’m not getting your point. Car styling changed, but that is hardly important. Car internals didn’t change much until electronic ignition and more computer control. My Prius is a lot more different from the Saturn I had before than the Saturn was from my first car, a Galaxie 500. When I got out of college computer scientists worked for car companies, but not on cars. Today my Prius just got recalled because of a firmware bug. Add that to the sensors and such and you have a pretty major change.
In 1930 my grandparents still had an ice box, with real ice.
As usual you can’t talk about life expectancy from birth, which did improve a ton by 1930.
Take a look at the table here.
In 1930, your life expectancy at age 50 was 21.51 years as compared to 21.6 years in 1850! At birth it was 59 years versus 38 years in 1850. Today life expectancy for men at 50 is 29.6 years, a significant increase.
No argument about spending more on healthcare. But here is an example of how far we’ve come. In 1962 when we were in Africa my father got a blood clot in his leg which nearly killed him. He was in the hospital for two months, and nearly died. Almost 50 years later, at age almost 90, he had another one, closer to the heart. He had a stent put in through his leg, and was in the hospital only two nights… I bet it was more expensive - but he never would have survived that in 1962. That’s the kind of thing I mean.
When we do reach the stage of flying cars being feasible, do you really think we’ll be “driving” them ourselves?
Self drive cars, even today, are much closer to being a reality than a marketable flying car. When we reach the stage whereby your average Honda Accord can fly, you will tell it where to go ("My Sister’s House) and it will drive itself there - talking to the other cars around it on the way.
Tim Wilson asks the same question in this song.
By 2050 we will be using disposable razors with 26 blades.
Sure, but tons of that medical spending and many of those medical breakthroughs have nothing to do with extending life and everything to do with improving it. A knee replacement, artificial disc implant or penile reconstruction won’t make you live any longer, but they’ll make you a hell of a lot happier. Plus, there’s also the problem of diminishing returns.
You make my point, that cars have hardly changed since the early part of the century. Again, mostly refinements. Cars and horses are worlds apart. We went from horses to cars, and ever since it has been refinements of cars. We did not go to flying vehicles as predicted: we stayed with the car of 1930.
The Leica 35mm was invented in 1914, put on the market in 1925…and they still sell basically the same kind of camera. It was made to use motion-picture film, invented by Edison and Eastman in 1896 or so.
1930 Leica:
http://www.leitzmuseum.org/CameraMakes/Leica/1931-I-(C)-1.jpg
Current Leica:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/de/Leica-M7-p1020464.jpg
Of course cars have changed. In 1930, only a handful of high-end cars could crack 100 mph. Nowadays just about every passenger vehicle on the market can do that.
Refinements, not changes. Surely you can understand that a car is not a horse. We went from horses to cars by 1930. We never went to flying cars. That’s what I mean.
The basic configuration of the sedan has hardly changed since 1930, as you can see. Everything is refinements.
2001 VW Passat:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/20/VW_Passat_B5_front_20080818.jpg
1930 Duesenberg:
http://www.decorgirl.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/1930-Duesenberg-Graber-J-1024x683.jpg
1930 Packard:
http://www.barrett-jackson.com/staging/carlist/items/Fullsize/Cars/115906/115906_Side_Profile_Web.jpg
There’s no such thing as a flying car. What you can have is a roadable airplane–an airplane you can drive on the streets from your house to the local airport.
What’s the point of an airplane you can drive? We already have light airplanes, you can fly anywhere anytime you like. You just need to take a bicycle or motorcycle or car or bus or train to get to the airfield where you parked your airplane.
An airplane you can drive on surface streets sounds pretty blah, doesn’t it? And the compromises you have to make to your airplane to allow it to function as a ground vehicle will make it a crappy airplane.
Or sometimes what people mean by “flying car” is an airplane that’s as easy and safe and cheap to operate as a car. Well, an airplane is not a car. Expecting an airplane that drives like a car is like expecting a sailboat that’s as simple as a tricycle. They’re different things. Flying is different than driving.
The only depictions of “flying cars” that make sense are ones where the vehicle flies via antigravity. Antigravity is magic, we aren’t going to invent antigravity any time soon. Real world flying vehicles have to use actually existing propulsion methods and power sources.
So you can buy all sorts of flying vehicles today and fly around with them, including ones you strap on your back. Except they’re expensive and dangerous and loud and hard to use. Except regular light airplanes, which are pretty safe, only moderately expensive, you need special training but it’s not totally out of the question to learn for an average joe. The problem is, you’ve got an airplane, now what? You can’t cheaply and conveniently commute to work via Piper Cub, or to the supermarket to pick up some smokes and disposable diapers. But if you just wanna fly around and experience the majesty of powered flight, well, that is available right now. Just like it was in 1925.
Right, which is what I said. ‘The Future’ is already in the past.
Some people imagined helicopter-type cars, which is what I meant by ‘flying cars’.
Here is one recent design:
http://www.businessinsider.com/terrafugia-lf-x-is-the-next-flying-car-2013-5
Here is another point:
Just because you can do it electronically, that won’t necessarily attract buyers:
http://www.businessinsider.com/why-ebooks-failed-in-2000-and-what-it-means-for-2010-2010-3
If there is ‘nothing wrong with books’ these things won’t sell. I don’t own one and have no intention of buying one.
Oh, well I’m glad to know the product is a failure because you don’t want it.
The article points out that electronic readers are more suited for magazines than for books. It has nothing to do with me.
“Although we call these devices “ebook readers,” if you look at user attitudes and usage patterns, in many ways they are a better fit for reading periodicals (newspapers and magazines) than they are for books. Most printed magazines and newspapers are viewed as disposable, so many people don’t object to paying the same price for an e-version as they do for the printed version. And most periodicals can be read in short bursts, which fits the usage pattern for mobile devices.”
So, it is a solution without a problem.
Those French postcards can’t be genuine. Nobody’s naked in them! Everyone knows that French postcards feature pictures of naked ladies!
-1.jpg){kind=link}
