Why were futurists so wrong about life today?

[TheLoadedDog]

@smokey78

the most embarassing ? future prediction that failed was Ursula LeGuin’s futuristic story she wrote in the 50s or 60s (main character was Latka?) that was about living on the moon, I had not idea why she decided to set it to the year 1987. I recall being in middle school in the 90s and the teacher had to sheepishly explain to us the author just picked a future year.

Most embarrassing one I heard was by a local motoring journalist called Peter Wherret (he used to have gigs as the “car guy” on breakfast television shows in the early 80s). Smetime along around 1993 or so, I was in a library, and idly picked up a book he had written in, IIRC, 1983. He confidently predicted (and I paraphrase, as it’s been over twenty years):

“By 1990, the private car will still exist, as people will continue to prefer it over public transport. [So far, so good…] However, they will be very different to what we know. They will likely not have wheels, and will float on an ionised air cushion.”

Hmmm. The guy was predicting a mere SEVEN YEARS out!

[Lumpy]

Movies and TV shows that predict we’ll have time travel or interstellar flight in a mere 30-40 years. Granted that this is usually just a plot point to have the future world be not too dissimilar to ours, but it’s retarded scientifically.

[MichaelEmouse]

Futurists tend to be wrong because they tend to behave as a man who, after an hour long breakfast, notices that he’s a pound heavier and thereby concludes that in 12 hours he’ll be 12 pounds heavier and in a year will weigh several tons.

[Superhal]

Didn’t read intervening posts, but my WAG would be that futurists make the same mistake as sociologists when predicting the future. They make a graph of the past to the present, then extrapolate it into the future. Cars are better today than 50 years ago, thus 50 years from now, if we draw a straight line that goes up, cars should be flying. They both always project upwards. However, in actuality, human development goes both up and sideways. Cars don’t fly, but they have become more fuel efficient, need oil changes less often, have nearly 100% dependable transmissions, have almost 0 emissions, etc.

Deli’s today look almost identical to the deli’s of 50 years ago, but today they have credit card machines, computerized registers, high-tech surveillance systems, automated kitchen appliances, etc.

[JEngelman]

@Exapno_Mapcase

You are leaving out an enormous factor in your equation. The fewer people, the fewer jobs. More people create more jobs. Try living in the Rust Belt where populations have been declining for decades. Unemployment is higher there, not lower, because there are fewer jobs produced. This turns the entire equation upside down. We know what you are saying is wrong, because we’ve been living it for decades.

Populations are declining in the rust belt because it has become easy for the employer investor class to move production to low wage states in the United States, and to low wage countries. Those who are able to move. If more people moved to the rust belt things would get worse, not better for those who are already living there.

[Chimera]

@MichaelEmouse

Futurists tend to be wrong because they tend to behave as a man who, after an hour long breakfast, notices that he’s a pound heavier and thereby concludes that in 12 hours he’ll be 12 pounds heavier and in a year will weigh several tons.

Obligatory XKCD

[Exapno_Mapcase]

@JEngelman

If more people moved to the rust belt things would get worse, not better for those who are already living there.

I guarantee that if any Rust Belt city were to be told that 100,000 people were moving into the city in the near future you could hear the shouts of glee at your house, wherever it might be.

[Chronos]

OK, so maybe Google isn’t a true AI. So what? It’s much better than an AI. If I wanted something that I could have a conversation with, that’s been available for ages. A person can do that. But no person can do anything even remotely like what Google does. Making Google more like a person would diminish it, not enhance it.

[ralfy]

@JEngelman

Scientific and technological advances have unexpected costs. No one expected the greenhouse effect.

Also, a population boom, increased resource demand per capita, the timing of peak oil, fallout from increasing credit, etc.

Finally, I read that some scientists during the late nineteenth century believed that coal burning could lead to global warming.

[ralfy]

@JEngelman

Scientific and technological advances have unexpected costs. No one expected the greenhouse effect.

I read somewhere that some scientists during the late nineteenth century argued that coal burning could lead to warming, although not for a long time because emissions were not significant.

[ralfy]

@Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus

Moreover, consider the market value of labor from a global perspective, which seems to have become vanishingly small. Would less population growth between 1950 and 2014 have been better for the average worker, or worse?

My understanding is that in capitalist systems businesses need growing markets, and thus a growing population of consumers.

[ralfy]

@JEngelman

It would be far better for the average worker. The fewer people there are looking for a job, the easier it is to get a job, the more the job seeker gets paid, and the more secure his job is.

Also, prices would be lower.

I think what happened worldwide was that the move towards industrialization (that is, more moving to factory work and mechanized agriculture, and others moving from the latter two to service industries) was made possible only through extensive inputs in oil and other material resources. This industrialization lead to low infant mortality and high life expectancy rates, and in turn to a major population increase.

While population growth has slowed, resource demand per capita is growing due to a growing global middle class. This coupled with the physical limitations of material resources has now led to high oil prices coupled with increased food prices due to various factors (high oil prices, the effects of environmental damage and global warming, etc.).

[GIGObuster]

@ralfy

I read somewhere that some scientists during the late nineteenth century argued that coal burning could lead to warming, although not for a long time because emissions were not significant.

That should be Svante Arrhenius and Arvid Högbom.

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

In 1896 Arrhenius completed a laborious numerical computation which suggested that cutting the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by half could lower the temperature in Europe some 4-5°C (roughly 7-9°F) — that is, to an ice age level. But this idea could only answer the riddle of the ice ages if such large changes in atmospheric composition really were possible. For that question Arrhenius turned to a colleague, Arvid Högbom. It happened that Högbom had compiled estimates for how carbon dioxide cycles through natural geochemical processes, including emission from volcanoes, uptake by the oceans, and so forth. Along the way he had come up with a strange, almost incredible new idea.

It had occurred to Högbom to calculate the amounts of CO2 emitted by factories and other industrial sources. Surprisingly, he found that human activities were adding CO2 to the atmosphere at a rate roughly comparable to the natural geochemical processes that emitted or absorbed the gas. As another scientist would put it a decade later, we were “evaporating” our coal mines into the air. The added gas was not much compared with the volume of CO2 already in the atmosphere — the CO2 released from the burning of coal in the year 1896 would raise the level by scarcely a thousandth part. But the additions might matter if they continued long enough.(2) (By recent calculations, the total amount of carbon laid up in coal and other fossil deposits that humanity can readily get at and burn is some ten times greater than the total amount in the atmosphere.) So the next CO2 change might not be a cooling decrease, but an increase. Arrhenius made a calculation for doubling the CO2 in the atmosphere, and estimated it would raise the Earth’s temperature some 5-6°C (averaged over all zones of latitude).(3)

Arrhenius did not see that as a problem. He figured that if industry continued to burn fuel at the current (1896) rate, it would take perhaps three thousand years for the CO2 level to rise so high. Högbom doubted it would ever rise that much. One thing holding back the rise was the oceans. According to a simple calculation, sea water would absorb 5/6ths of any additional gas. (That is roughly true over a long run of many thousand years, but Högbom and Arrhenius did not realize that if the gas were emitted more rapidly than they expected, the ocean absorption could lag behind.)

[ralfy]

@Exapno_Mapcase

We can never assume that for the future, true. However, when we look at the past that is the invariable pattern we see. There is no reason to doubt that in the short run, the next couple of decades, that pattern will continue.
You also need to look at the population globally rather than merely the U.S. A billion or so Asians are having markedly better lives because of technology. Another billion are projected to join them over those same next couple of decades. This is unprecedented in world history. Every single forecast was that the growth of India and China over 1 billion each would lead to enormous famines. Exactly the opposite has occurred.

This global realignment of prosperity may make for localized stagnancy. But that’s a result of moving demand and wealth in global terms. Population growth in the U.S. absolutely is not a factor in the growing income gap. It is the countries who have dropped below replacement rate in growth (Japan, Italy) who are seeing their economies stagnate. Who takes care of a senior population when there aren’t enough workers? The U.S. will see some of this effect but will be shielded from the worst brunt because of the growing Hispanic population, with a tendency toward larger families and therefore more young, and the increase in immigration of younger workers. Population growth is a positive thing. True, like other positive things, you want to keep the growth within certain bounds, but growth is vital.

You are leaving out an enormous factor in your equation. The fewer people, the fewer jobs. More people create more jobs. Try living in the Rust Belt where populations have been declining for decades. Unemployment is higher there, not lower, because there are fewer jobs produced. This turns the entire equation upside down. We know what you are saying is wrong, because we’ve been living it for decades.

The problem is that technological innovations have also led to more problems. For example, the use of oil led to major improvements in manufacturing and mechanized agriculture, but it also led to a population boom, environmental damage, global warming, and now the threat of a resource crunch.

The IEA addresses these issues in its 2010 report (and reiterated only a few days ago) by arguing that the world has to move to renewable energy as soon as possible in order to deal with both peak oil and global warming.

The catch is that energy returns and quantity are not enough to meet the demands of a growing global middle class. That means in the long run, the same global economy that is dependent on that growth will have to weaken considerably.

[Chimera]

And yet, for each of these problem, there is an opportunity. Opportunity which creates new fields of technological advancement to solve those problems.

[Chief_Pedant]

Futurists are wrong because we don’t know what we don’t know.

200 years ago any futurist would consider a world population of 7 Billion to be unsupportable, if only from the standpoint of food production. They had no food production models that included the industrial revolution or agricultural advances.

We are just horrible at predicting the future (although we’re pretty good at retrospectively seeing where we’ve over-reached trying to predict accurately). But somehow we never learn the basic lesson that we don’t know what we don’t know.

We are pretty confident, for example, that over the next 500-1000 years land ice will contribute to sea level rise because it melted from rising anthropogenic atmospheric CO2. That is based on models which, for example, have no parameters for anthropogenic atmospheric CO2 extraction because we don’t know what we don’t know. So we might be right, or we might be laughed at retrospectively for our naiveté that our descendants won’t be able to solve the problem we created.

[eburacum45]

Personally I think that anthropogenic CO2 extraction will become very important in the next few centuries, so much that we could begin to cause global cooling. However there will almost certainly be a period of global warming before that time, and this will cause changes in the planet’s albedo. so there is no guarantee that even efficient CO2 extraction will cool the planet quickly.

[JEngelman]

@Exapno_Mapcase

I guarantee that if any Rust Belt city were to be told that 100,000 people were moving into the city in the near future you could hear the shouts of glee at your house, wherever it might be.

They would be worried about losing their jobs to those people. They would be worried about rent increases.

[JEngelman]

@ralfy

I think what happened worldwide was that the move towards industrialization (that is, more moving to factory work and mechanized agriculture, and others moving from the latter two to service industries) was made possible only through extensive inputs in oil and other material resources. This industrialization lead to low infant mortality and high life expectancy rates, and in turn to a major population increase.

While population growth has slowed, resource demand per capita is growing due to a growing global middle class. This coupled with the physical limitations of material resources has now led to high oil prices coupled with increased food prices due to various factors (high oil prices, the effects of environmental damage and global warming, etc.).

Industrialization increased the number of jobs. Computer technology reduces the number of jobs. ATM machines reduce jobs for bank tellers. Bar codes reduce jobs for cashiers. Computer technology makes robotics and off shoring possible.

Back in the 1960’s the IBM mainframe reduced clerical positions.

[GIGObuster]

@eburacum45

Personally I think that anthropogenic CO2 extraction will become very important in the next few centuries, so much that we could begin to cause global cooling. However there will almost certainly be a period of global warming before that time, and this will cause changes in the planet’s albedo. so there is no guarantee that even efficient CO2 extraction will cool the planet quickly.

There is also the reality that many of ones proposing geo engineering solutions are the ones declaring just a few moments ago that we should not worry bout that issue. They do not ponder how contradictory is to look to solve an “unimportant” issue with large scale solutions that to be effective will depend on the same science and models that some are disparaging now, and that is another contradiction too.