Taleb is wrong. There's a much better analysis on why futurists predict the future wrong by an author who I forget. This authors central thesis is that techno

Taleb is wrong. There's a much better analysis on why futurists predict the future wrong by an author who I forget. This authors central thesis is that technology moves in spurts along any given dimension. For example building were getting taller and taller. Every year a new "talltest building" was built. People began imagining buildings to the moon or at least out of the atmosphere. This eventually stopped. Similarly, planes got faster and faster. In the midst of the increase in plane speeds not many would have thought that we'd have the amount of commercial flights at the current "slow" speeds we have. But people tend to miss a lot of other things. Most futurists wouldn't have predicted that computers 1000x more powerful than ENIAC would fit in our pocket. I recall one prediction about a computer the size of ENIAC might fit in a small room. Notice the low resolution displays in most old sci-fi movies. Or how ubiquitous wireless communication would be. Many sci-fi movies with tethered phones, or data transfer with USB-key like gadgets. It's not that things are subtractive (that's just wishful luddite-like thinking). It's just that things aren't necessarily additive where we think they may be. It may be that in 50 years the web is a lot like how it is today, but nutrition technology has drastically changed so that nutrituous food is tasty and cheap. Or we discover technology to communicate with animals much more effectively. Technology keeps moving forward. And I think his comment about literary culture reveals his bias.