3 ms·
If we're talking 100 years, my money's still on some kind of field propulsion. Here's why: Take any 100-year period of time over the last few centuries. It's n
by DanielBMarkham 11y ago
If we're talking 100 years, my money's still on some kind of field propulsion. Here's why:
Take any 100-year period of time over the last few centuries. It's not just that folks in one period of time would not understand the activities of the next period, they wouldn't even understand the concepts involved So horseback folks really didn't grok riverboat steam power at all. Same goes for railroads. Or aviation.
That leads me to believe that what's up next is something we currently think impossible or silly. "Field propulsion" is a nice moniker for that, whatever in reality it turns out to be.
- simonh 11y agoIm a bit of a contrarian in this area. I know Ray Kurtzweil thinks we advanced as much in tge last 14 years as the previous 100, but thats tosh. What amazing new technologies have we developed even since the 70s? Silicon chips? Genetic enginering? Rocketry? Solar power? Nuclear power? All those are baby boomer technologies. What advances from the last 30 years even come close to those? I think the truth is we discovered most of the exploitable physics in the mid 20th century and from now on it will be mainly iterative improvement.