4 ms·

I think this is one of the most fascinating things about him to me, because he was born in 1872 and lived to 1970, so he went from living in a society where it

I think this is one of the most fascinating things about him to me, because he was born in 1872 and lived to 1970, so he went from living in a society where it was still common to travel by horse and buggy to one where we had nuclear energy and easy air travel, etc, and he never lost his sharp mind, so you get to hear the perspective of someone who went through all of that. I highly recommend giving his autobiography a read to anyone interested in his life.

netcan 6y ago
You don't need to have been very long lived to see that. My grandfather was born in 1914. Cars existed, but most people hadn't seen one yet. The Wright brothers' maiden flight was 10 years prior. He went to med school before WW2. Penicillin did not exist yet, not even in labs! In the 50s (his 40s), he traveled commercially on a 747... 1950s futurism predicting flying cars and moon cities by 2000... they weren't being as silly as we tend to think. They saw planes go from nonexistent sputnik within half a lifetime. The projection was linear.
- ianai 6y ago
  The futurism probably could have stayed true if the political impetus had stayed toward space development instead of Cold War and oil concerns. But planting the US flag on the moon and probably other factors I don’t realize made the Soviets being on the moon less of a reality. Edit-really wish we had O'Neill cylinders though.
  - Amezarak 6y ago
    There's no guarantee that the futurism would have come true for the simple fact it doesn't seem likely that flying cars and moon cities are technically or economically feasible. There seems to be an unspoken assumption behind a lot of techno-futurism that everything we've dreamed up - flying cars, space colonies, starships - are possible simply because we dreamed them up, that everything we can imagine is possible. In reality, they may not be physically possible, or if possible, not desirable, or if desirable, not economically feasible. At any rate, the point is probably moot: the damage our obsession with technology and consumption has already caused is probably irreparable, and more techno-futurist dreams coming would have just accelerated it. We have been completely blind to the second-order effects of our industrial and technological development; climate change is only the tip of the iceberg.
  - netcan 6y ago
    I disagree, kinda. There are lots of possible reasons for progress, or lack thereof. Political will is the easy answer, but it's not always true... or the biggest factor. Space programs did get a ton of funding for the few short years of the moon race. Unsustainable funding really, given the gdp in 1965. But... they were still funded. NASA's budget is currently 2/3 of what it was in the 60s in constant dollars. Maybe they hit a plateau with the tech. Maybe it was the lack of Russian competition. Maybe it was the lack of a massive goal. Maybe organisations age, and get less creative over time. Maybe in the 60s NASA just hit a genius groove that happens occasionally but can't be sustained forever.
- jdkee 6y ago
  Probably a 707. First flight of the 747 was in 1969. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747
  - netcan 6y ago
    My mistake.

netcan 6y ago

You don't need to have been very long lived to see that. My grandfather was born in 1914. Cars existed, but most people hadn't seen one yet. The Wright brothers' maiden flight was 10 years prior. He went to med school before WW2. Penicillin did not exist yet, not even in labs! In the 50s (his 40s), he traveled commercially on a 747... 1950s futurism predicting flying cars and moon cities by 2000... they weren't being as silly as we tend to think. They saw planes go from nonexistent sputnik within half a lifetime. The projection was linear.

ianai 6y ago
The futurism probably could have stayed true if the political impetus had stayed toward space development instead of Cold War and oil concerns. But planting the US flag on the moon and probably other factors I don’t realize made the Soviets being on the moon less of a reality. Edit-really wish we had O'Neill cylinders though.
- Amezarak 6y ago
  There's no guarantee that the futurism would have come true for the simple fact it doesn't seem likely that flying cars and moon cities are technically or economically feasible. There seems to be an unspoken assumption behind a lot of techno-futurism that everything we've dreamed up - flying cars, space colonies, starships - are possible simply because we dreamed them up, that everything we can imagine is possible. In reality, they may not be physically possible, or if possible, not desirable, or if desirable, not economically feasible. At any rate, the point is probably moot: the damage our obsession with technology and consumption has already caused is probably irreparable, and more techno-futurist dreams coming would have just accelerated it. We have been completely blind to the second-order effects of our industrial and technological development; climate change is only the tip of the iceberg.
- netcan 6y ago
  I disagree, kinda. There are lots of possible reasons for progress, or lack thereof. Political will is the easy answer, but it's not always true... or the biggest factor. Space programs did get a ton of funding for the few short years of the moon race. Unsustainable funding really, given the gdp in 1965. But... they were still funded. NASA's budget is currently 2/3 of what it was in the 60s in constant dollars. Maybe they hit a plateau with the tech. Maybe it was the lack of Russian competition. Maybe it was the lack of a massive goal. Maybe organisations age, and get less creative over time. Maybe in the 60s NASA just hit a genius groove that happens occasionally but can't be sustained forever.
jdkee 6y ago
Probably a 707. First flight of the 747 was in 1969. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747
- netcan 6y ago
  My mistake.