4 ms·

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

by 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.

by ianai 6y ago

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.