3 ms·

I think a lot of what people get wrong in these predictions is the social element. Dad's telecommuting to work in the study and smoking Lucky Strikes while Mom

I think a lot of what people get wrong in these predictions is the social element. Dad's telecommuting to work in the study and smoking Lucky Strikes while Mom - aproned and barefoot - cooks in the kitchen, that sort of thing. What this misses - aside from the basic incorrectness itself - is that shifts in social perception and overall conscientiousness are major drivers of innovation. So, look at the intersection of what's feasible (with improvements in materials, design, miniaturization, understanding of the human body, etc) and what's wanted (convenience in daily life, improvement of self-image, etc) and you can get things like e-cigarettes, self-driving cars, boner pills, hair loss treatment, yadda yadda.

Momquist 9y ago
That's what I was thinking too. When I think about failed predictions, the flying car almost immediately comes to mind. You could see them regularly on 50s-60s pop-science and SF magazines covers. Back then there was the idea that flying machines would soon become affordable on an individual level, and that most people would want to buy their own helicopter or small plane. Quite a few SF novels assumed it was a definite possibility, with the inevitable abandon of cities. And it made a lot of sense at the time. I remember reading City by Clifford Simak as a kid, which is based on this premise, and thinking that it would soon come. The concept was very tempting.
- smellf 9y ago
  Simak was a terrible predictor (if "prediction" is even what he was trying to do, vs just writing science fantasy), but his "pastoral scifi" is such a treat to read even today. It's possible that he was predicting, and that those ideas were common at that time - Clarke's Childhood's End came out just one year after City (1953) and also features personal flying transport and lots of rural life (even though cities still exist).
transcranial 9y ago
Here's an old Nautilus article talking about exactly your point about the social element: http://nautil.us/issue/28/2050/why-futurism-has-a-cultural-blindspot http://nautil.us/issue/28/2050/why-futurism-has-a-cultural-b...

Momquist 9y ago

That's what I was thinking too. When I think about failed predictions, the flying car almost immediately comes to mind. You could see them regularly on 50s-60s pop-science and SF magazines covers. Back then there was the idea that flying machines would soon become affordable on an individual level, and that most people would want to buy their own helicopter or small plane. Quite a few SF novels assumed it was a definite possibility, with the inevitable abandon of cities. And it made a lot of sense at the time. I remember reading City by Clifford Simak as a kid, which is based on this premise, and thinking that it would soon come. The concept was very tempting.

smellf 9y ago
Simak was a terrible predictor (if "prediction" is even what he was trying to do, vs just writing science fantasy), but his "pastoral scifi" is such a treat to read even today. It's possible that he was predicting, and that those ideas were common at that time - Clarke's Childhood's End came out just one year after City (1953) and also features personal flying transport and lots of rural life (even though cities still exist).

transcranial 9y ago

Here's an old Nautilus article talking about exactly your point about the social element: http://nautil.us/issue/28/2050/why-futurism-has-a-cultural-blindspot http://nautil.us/issue/28/2050/why-futurism-has-a-cultural-b...