My computer in high school, an LGP-21 made in 1962, was a transistorized version of the LGP-30 made in 1956 (which can be seen in the Computer History Museum.) The LGP-21 was slower.
I’ve been catching up on magazines from around 25 years ago, and it is amazing how many of the civilizations of their future were still faxing.
I made a similar point in an article I once wrote about an old (1970) Superman comic. At the end of the story, Superman records the story for his archives on a reel-to-reel tape recorder. The guy built robots and rode in spaceships, but he couldn’t make a thumb drive…or a CD…or even a lousy cassette! Obviously, the imaginations of even “futurist” writers are limited by what they can see in reality.
This seems absurdly wrong. Science Fiction is not only about technological prediction, and of course many predictions are wrong in ways that are obvious in retrospect, but Science Fiction is very often about technological prediction.
Dated? They had iPad newspapers with web-browser-type software in 2001. That was like almost a year before Babylon 5.
Science fiction is about people. The technology is just a McGuffin to show the characters.
Take Mission of Gravity, the epitome of hard science. People don’t remember the details of the science (which, of course, was wrong, though that had to wait until computers were developed). They do remember Barlennan.
Ultimately, even SF stories that are shown to be completely wrong about how technology will evolve still stand or fall on the characters. The Ringworld is unstable, but that doesn’t detract from the story.
One of Heinlein’s best stories, the 1941 story “Solution Unsatisfactory” predicted a technological advance - atomic weapons. The weapon was “death dust” that could render particular areas uninhabitable. This led to a nuclear stalemate, since the secret of the weapon was given away the first time the weapon was used (the secret being that it was possible - once everyone knew that, every nation could make it, if they put enough money into looking), eventually broken by spoiler.
So the technological prediction was completely wrong - but the sociological predictions (nuclear arms race and stalemate, tremendous feelings of guilt on the part of those who developed the weapons) were spot on. If a story with vacuum tubes (like the Clarke story) gets the sociological issues correct (weapons that are technologically advanced can be too logistically difficult to use effectively against weapons that technologically inferior, but easier to make, maintain and supply) then the story can remain very enjoyable (and carry a valuable lesson or two) even if the technological predictions are very wrong (see also Niven’s “Flash Crowd”)
All fiction is about people. But historical fiction is about people in the past and war fiction is about people during a war and science fiction is about people in some possible future or parallel environment, which often (but not always) includes predictions of what sort of future there might be, and what technology they might have.
It’s not only about that, but it is about that.
Or 3 years after it was over. Babylon 5 ran from 1993 to 1998.
And/or from 2023-??? if the latest news is to be believed
sorry, I meant 2001: A Space Odyssey
Which fills me with both hope and dread.
Ah, that one was perhaps a bit too optimistic about our future capabilities in both spaceflight and computers.
In their defense, if I saw someone sitting at a desk with a half dozen iPads in front of them I’d think they were working very hard indeed.
Martin Cooper is acclaimed as the “inventor” of the cell phone. He recently wrote a memoir Cutting the Cord: The Cell Phone Has Transformed Humanity that was a look back at his days at Motorola and how they out-competed AT&T into getting mobile technology into mass distribution.
The first big step was in about 1957. Motorola was trying to win a contract to outfit the Chicago Police with two-way radios portable enough that they could use both in their patrol cars and on the beat. Cooper knew that another Motorola team was experimenting with transistors and he thought if they could be made even smaller and integrated that would cut down the power enough to allow the radio to be clipped to a belt. Even the people inside the company didn’t think that was possible, but they did it - and then took another year or so to make it viable on the streets. AT&T never considered doing that, and Cooper of course makes many sarcastic references to how they invented the transistor.
If even the engineers in development labs didn’t see transistors as viable in the near-term future because vacuum tubes were such a known and stable technology and transistors absolutely weren’t, I think we have to give Poul a pass.
And I think Cal’s missing the big picture in the story. The plot concerns an artificially-grown being (not a clone) adapted to Jupiter who is being psionically controlled by a handler 1200 miles above the surface. That’s as many advanced future concepts as the reader needs to deal with. Campbell’s editorial guidance mandated that a story postulated whatever advancements were necessary and no more. Otherwise, you got back to the superscience days when authors solved problems by adding on yet another miracle technology. Vacuum tubes are mentioned only because they are being ruled out as a possible answer. Using a technology unknown to the public would hurt the plot.
Besides, all Campbell cared about in 1957 was the “science” of psionics. What’s a new technology compared to the science that would change the world?
?
I didn’t comment on this story. You must be thinking of someone else.
I loved the character Andrew Jackson “Slipstick” Libby.
Hey, a Heinlein story (either Have Spacesuit or Rolling Stones) that tricked me into learning slide rule, because I feared being “illiterate”. I mostly stopped heeding Heinlein’s advice after that, except for one thing from Lazarus Long, “Whenever you win an argument with your spouse/lover, apologize immediately”.
I know it was Have Spacesuit that inspired me to try to learn the slide rule.
Vacuum tubes are still routinely used in high-power radio transmitters, especially at microwave frequencies. The magnetron in your microwave is a vacuum tube.
Plus (if I recall correctly) the tubes in the story were psionic tubes made to transmit brain waves so not electronic tubes (there was no mention of converting brain waves into an electronic signal, transmitting it, and reconverting it at the receiving end - more technologically augmenter telepathy). Too lazy to check the story right now…
For me it was Mr Hovey, my high school physics teacher, who inspired (read: required) me to learn to read a slide rule.
“Miniature” vacuum tubes aren’t particularly small. There’s certainly nothing “micro” about them. However, every few years I see some article about a modern vacuum tube, like this one:
These developments never quite seem to go anywhere, but that’s likely more to do with the dominance of silicon MOSFETs than the underlying practicality of “vacuum-channel transistors”. One can imagine a different technological path where something like this ended up dominant. Or even a possible future where silicon has run out of steam (already almost there…) and some alternate tech takes over.