3 ms·

This raises some interesting questions about why the-future-seen-from-1970 included so many developments that failed to materialize. Unfortunately, I think it p

This raises some interesting questions about why the-future-seen-from-1970 included so many developments that failed to materialize. Unfortunately, I think it provides mostly wrong or irrelevant answers. One thing that made the 20th century so amazing was the discovery of scientific phenomena that were easily translated to industrially and commercially relevant technologies. We're still mining the rich vein of technological possibilities opened up by quantum mechanics. The major features of the field were well established before World War II. There has been nothing so technologically fruitful discovered since. It's possible that amazing scientific breakthroughs in cosmology or particle physics will be made this century, yet fail to have anything like the technological impact of quantum effect devices, if the time/length/mass/energy scales are not amenable to building products and factories usable on Earth. The other big headwind since 1970 has been the price of fuels. In every year of the 21st century, inflation adjusted global crude oil prices have remained above where they were in 1970. The one modern bright spot [1], the shale revolution, has spectacularly failed to make its investors prosper [2]. Nor is its continuance assured enough for airlines and aircraft manufacturers to decide that the time has come again for faster rather than thriftier passenger service. Airframes last a long time. Want faster-than-Concorde passenger air service for the 21st century? You need new vehicles and a stable, low priced [3] energy source for them to consume. [1] For oil and gas prices. Not for the climate. [2] https://finance.yahoo.com/news/shale-pioneer-fracking-unmitigated-disaster-230000670.html https://finance.yahoo.com/news/shale-pioneer-fracking-unmiti... [3] Including climate externalities. I wouldn't bet on those remaining unpriced over the airframe's life either.

petre 7y ago
The future acording to Ford Perfect: just the same old stuff in faster cars and smellier air. Douglas Adams was a visionary, as many writers before him. That's why we need literature and human sciences - because we lose focus otherwise.
- adwn 7y ago
  Almost all "visionaries" are wrong, and it's impossible to tell in advance which ones aren't. > That's why we need literature and human sciences - because we lose focus otherwise. Non sequitur: neither part of that sentence follows from the rest of your post.

petre 7y ago

The future acording to Ford Perfect: just the same old stuff in faster cars and smellier air. Douglas Adams was a visionary, as many writers before him. That's why we need literature and human sciences - because we lose focus otherwise.

adwn 7y ago
Almost all "visionaries" are wrong, and it's impossible to tell in advance which ones aren't. > That's why we need literature and human sciences - because we lose focus otherwise. Non sequitur: neither part of that sentence follows from the rest of your post.