Crap futurism

posts about #crapfuturism more →
Krugman Explains Why Progress Is Slowing Down
Can You Still Write Science Fiction Set In The Future?
4 Ways The United States Could End In The Next 100 Years
Can Ray Kurzweil's Rosy Predictions Stand Up To Fact-Checking?
When the Future Expires - A Timeline
We're Only 16 Years Away From Creating Actual Cylons
A Society That Tolerates Triceratops-Men Is A Better Place For All
Online Media Will Never Threaten Print Media
In A Couple Of Years, Sarah Palin's House Could Be In Russia
Battlestar Galactica Proves Environmentalism Is A Waste Of Time

Your version of Internet Explorer is not supported. Please upgrade to the most recent version in order to view comments.

Dsmvwl Admin Promote to frontpage Approve user Ban user ×

HeartBurnKid: Agent of R.O.A.C.H.
08/12/09

In reply to Krugman Explains Why Progress Is Slowing Down
One word that shows Krugman has no idea what he's talking about:
Google.
Reply

Dr Emilio Lizardo
08/11/09

In reply to Krugman Explains Why Progress Is Slowing Down
Once again, people who complain about inaccurate predictions are missing the point of Science Fiction.
Reply

Dr Emilio Lizardo was starred

SnehalMarten
08/11/09

In reply to Krugman Explains Why Progress Is Slowing Down
I agree with Krugman. Scientific progress is slowing down considerably.

Looking at Physics, namely the Large Hadron Collider, even if they get some experimental results that point to higher dimensions - it's not like they could use that information to create new technologies that would change our lives. It takes a gigantic collider and I don't know how many joules of energy just to barely detect these "dimensions". It's not like we would be able to engineer some technology that everyone could use from this.

It just feels like we've hit a wall in physics research that not even the large hadron collider can solve.
Reply

Gann promoted this comment SnehalMarten was starred SnehalMarten was unstarred

Gann
08/11/09

@SnehalMarten: I believe that this wall is composed of these 'dimensions' that everyone swears exist.
Reply

Gann was starred Gann was unstarred

TheGreenRanger
08/11/09

In reply to Krugman Explains Why Progress Is Slowing Down
I'm sorry but the shopping mall example is a terrible argument, that's like saying if you could travel back to the 14th century you would in fact, find civilization running. Yes, you could approach a market and recognize ah yes! this is where people acquire goods, just like i do today! Also, in this article change is described very vaguely. If we're talking about technological change, then i'd have to disagree with Krugman wholeheartedly. The world we live in today is the stuff of science fiction, all you have to do is step back and look at the amazing things making our lives simpler that we take for granted. People have always possessed the same ingenuity, intelligence, and personalities throughout history, but the structure, communication, and availability of knowledge has changed.
Reply

Charlie Jane Anders promoted this comment TheGreenRanger was starred TheGreenRanger was unstarred

Paul_Is_Drunk
08/11/09

@TheGreenRanger: There's been some progress, but it's mostly small, incremental stuff. I can't think of any great advance since the internet. Compare 1989 to 2009.
___
*iPod - Walkman
*Mac/PC - Mac/PC
*25mpg Car - 30mpg Car
*Microwave - (still a) Microwave
*TV - HDTV
*Cell phone - Cell phone
*Airplanes - (mostly the same) Airplanes
*Modern Medicine - 'Modern Medicine'
___
Aside from the internet, I can't imagine much of what today would astound people from 1959. Maybe video games. However, if you took someone from 1909 and brought them to 1959, their mind would be blown. (Lightbulbs, Mass Produced Radios, Cars, Televisions, Modern Airplanes, etc).
Reply

Charlie Jane Anders promoted this comment Edited by Paul_Is_Drunk at 08/11/09 12:24 PM Paul_Is_Drunk was starred Paul_Is_Drunk was unstarred

tetracycloide
08/11/09

@Paul_Is_Drunk: i'd bet money a time traveler from 1959 would find the size, color depth, and clarity of our TVs to be astounding so much so that they might not even recognize it as a TV. even 1989 to 2009 is a huge degree of difference in many areas. pretending that a mac/pc from 1989 is even remotely comperable to one from 2009 is flat out silly, much like ipod vs. walkman, 80's cell phones with today's, and even airplanes. pretty much the only thing on that list that hasn't seen major advancements that would be evident to the end user is microwaves.
Reply

Edited by tetracycloide at 08/11/09 12:48 PM tetracycloide was starred tetracycloide was unstarred

Paul_Is_Drunk
08/11/09

@tetracycloide: Like I said... small, incremental progress. Someone from 1909 in 1959 wouldn't even know how to replace a light bulb, driving a car would be beyond scary, and seeing a television set would probably require a change of underwear. I didn't even get a chance to mention refrigeration, or other small stuff like vacuum cleaners... all of which is pretty much the same today, just newer.
___
As for everything else, someone in 1989 would have no problem figuring out how to use a cell phone today. We still have the same number pad and dial button. Computers are more advanced, but still use the point and click interface.
___
Color TV wouldn't be unrecognizable to people from 1959, and I think they'd be a little disappointed that HDTV isn't more advanced than it is.
___
Oh, and airplanes? Pretty much the same hunks of metal, with very small changes:
[www.epsrc.ac.uk]
Reply

Paul_Is_Drunk was starred Paul_Is_Drunk was unstarred

EinhornIsAMan!
08/11/09

@tetracycloide: I didn't much understand his 1989-2009 point either. Was the point that there isn't as much "completely new" stuff like lightbulbs, air travel, cars, radios? Yeah, the only thing of this magnitude invented recently was the Internet. But the amount that computers, cell phones, televisions and other technologies have improved in the past 20 years is still staggering.
Yes, we "still" have the same idea of old boring personal portable music players. How passe! How can any reasonable human being not be amazed at the difference between an ipod and an old 80s walkman. Sure they're both for the obvious design of portable music, but the difference in technology is still rather staggering.
That's almost like comparing Gutenberg's printing press to the Kindle. Yeah, they both help disseminate books, etc. Boring! Unspectacular!
Reply

tetracycloide promoted this comment EinhornIsAMan! was starred EinhornIsAMan! was unstarred

Bill-Lee
08/11/09

@Paul_Is_Drunk: Why wouldn't someone from 1909 know how to change a light bulb? Edison patented his familiar design in 1878.
Reply

Bill-Lee was starred Bill-Lee was unstarred

Paul_Is_Drunk
08/11/09

@Bill-Lee: That's true. I was basing that off of my great grandmother's stories of using candles and the... Sears (?) catalog as toilet paper, because the real stuff was too expensive. I honestly don't know when light bulbs became standard household items.
Reply

Paul_Is_Drunk was starred Paul_Is_Drunk was unstarred

Mike Caprio
08/11/09

@Paul_Is_Drunk: Nanomachines? LEDs? Human genome sequencing? Elimination of smallpox? Creation of artificial life from base components? Custom drugs created from computer simulations?
I think people just aren't paying attention to the advances that are happening now, because people only see consumer products as the end result and corporations are stuck in a rut when it comes to taking risks with new kinds of products - manufacturing corporations like to keep things the way they are and make everyone a good consumer of "durable goods". It stifles innovation in consumer goods, but scientific advancements are still occurring off the average person's radar.
Reply

tetracycloide promoted this comment Mike Caprio was starred Mike Caprio was unstarred

afterthefallofnight
08/11/09

@Paul_Is_Drunk: I don't have the sense that the rate of change has slowed, but I do have the sense that different things change at different rates. By that I mean new stuff is changing fast and old stuff is changing less fast.
For example: in the 60's, things we now take as commonplace, such as space ships and space stations, digital libraries, cell phones, video conferencing, personal mobile computers, global networks, voice interfaces for computers, personal lasers, military robots, etc. were science fiction (i.e. Star Trek, etc.).
And while you may be right that people from 1989 would not be astounded by 2009, I doubt that the people from 1909 would be astounded by the technology of 1929. I suspect almost any 20 year period is going to have small incremental progress rather than massive, dramatic, changes.
Reply

tetracycloide promoted this comment

twDarkflame
08/12/09

@Paul_Is_Drunk: the ability for anyone, anywhere to have the answer to almost any question is a pretty fundimental difference in cilivisation.
Plus, mobile phones.
Reply

tetracycloide promoted this comment twDarkflame was starred twDarkflame was unstarred

twDarkflame
08/12/09

@Paul_Is_Drunk: "Color TV wouldn't be unrecognizable to people from 1959,"
Flatscreen would.
Also, your being rather stupid to say "cell phones havnt advanced much because we still use numbers" >_
Reply

tetracycloide promoted this comment twDarkflame was starred twDarkflame was unstarred

Sheogorath
08/11/09

In reply to Krugman Explains Why Progress Is Slowing Down
Ummm...not that different in what way?
Technologically, 1909, 1959 and 2009 are...well...totally different. If you mean culturally, things have changed quite a bit by the standards of culture.
Consider that there are probably contacted people living in remote areas who's way of life hasn't changed in a thousand years. There are contacted tribes who choose to live the same way, despite the introduction of technology.
Anyway, culture advances much more slowly than technology. Technology advances in weeks and months. Culture tends to only shift majorly in years and decades, barring major social upheaval and disasters (9/11, terrorism, etc.)
At our present rate of advancement, those of us born slightly before/during/after the fall of the Soviet Union might live to see the 1960's idea of the year 2000. At a guess, I'd say sometime around 2050 :P
Reply

Sheogorath was starred Sheogorath was unstarred

Pants McCracky
08/11/09

@Sheogorath: I think the key word is "as," not "that." Krugman's saying that the difference between 1909 and 1959 is bigger than between 1959 and 2009. Which strikes me as true, if you figure, for example, the difference between 1909 and 1959 in the way people were getting around, and how little that has changed between 1959 and today. Where are the flying cars? Hypersonic planes? And my last road trip that took me through Alabama provided ample evidence that much of this country hasn't moved very far culturally since 1959.
Reply

Bill-Lee promoted this comment Pants McCracky was starred Pants McCracky was unstarred

Bill-Lee
08/11/09

@Pants_McCracky: From one point of view, the statement that change is slowing is true. From another point of view, it is false. Looking at broad spans of time, technological change occurs at a geometric rate. The gap between the invention of stone tools and the invention of agriculture is millions of years but the gap between agriculture and the industrial age is only 10'000 years. The gap between the stone hand ax and the airplane is millions of years but the gap between the airplane and the Apollo moon missions is less than 70 years. The gap between the first metal tools and the computer is 10'000 years but the gap between the first computer (which was as big as a room) and the first iPod (which has more computing power but fits in my pocket) is sixty years. Some things haven't changed because the manufacturers have resisted change. The major auto manufacturers, for example, have resisted the push for higher mileage cars or electric vehicles.
Reply

Bill-Lee was starred Bill-Lee was unstarred

WestMantooth
08/11/09

In reply to Krugman Explains Why Progress Is Slowing Down
Thinking you can measure change simply based on different things look as a macroscale is sort of self defeating. People still were using outhouses in 1959.
Reply

WestMantooth was starred WestMantooth was unstarred

Pants McCracky
08/11/09

@WestMantooth: And we're still basically using outhouses, just indoors and with running water and plumbing. I'm dismayed by the lack of progress in toilet technology. I was hoping by now we'd have nanobots living in our colons that would convert fecal matter into...no, not gonna go there.
Reply

tetracycloide promoted this comment Pants McCracky was starred Pants McCracky was unstarred

Desriden
08/11/09

@WestMantooth: I hate to tell you this, but people still are using outhouses in the United States in 2009. Poor is poor, no matter how much tech we have.
For example, in N.C. in 1999 the state had a 3 percent unemployment rate and about 1 percent in metro areas. That's great. But it also had at least 43,000 homes without adequate indoor plumbing. Estimates put the real numbers around 200,000.
I've worked at two different newspapers that did stories about the continued use of outhouses in poor areas. Show me a future where the poorest people have adequate food, shelter and access to education and medicine and I'll be shocked.
Reply

Evil Tortie's Mom: R.O.A.C.H. promoted this comment Desriden was starred Desriden was unstarred

tetracycloide
08/11/09

@Pants_McCracky: ..bakery fresh cinamon rolls. just finishing the thought for you.
Reply

tetracycloide was starred tetracycloide was unstarred

ManchuCandidate
08/11/09

In reply to Krugman Explains Why Progress Is Slowing Down
Sometimes it's downright embarrassing to read books from the 60/70s and their predictions then I read the SF from that era (I'm looking at you, Toeffler.)
Reply

ManchuCandidate was starred ManchuCandidate was unstarred

goldfarb
08/11/09

In reply to Krugman Explains Why Progress Is Slowing Down
I love economists for two reasons:
1 - the do a job that I couldn't do for more than 5 minutes without killing myself.
2 - they're always ready to say "whoa there, your crazy flying car future is a bit too crazy and just wont work and here's why."
Reply

goldfarb was starred goldfarb was unstarred

ThisDudeRufus
08/11/09

In reply to Krugman Explains Why Progress Is Slowing Down
I prefer the whole theory of invention and refinement going in cycles. And I really think it depends on what you consider 'change'. And who says we'll still go to malls, with what internet sales could be? And when were we supposed to get into a war with Japan? And over what?
So many questions.
Reply

ThisDudeRufus was starred ThisDudeRufus was unstarred

Gann
08/10/09

In reply to Can You Still Write Science Fiction Set In The Future?
If the singularity were to happen, we more than likely would not notice. It would be produced in secrecy, and would be intelligent enough to not reveal itself. It would need humans still for survival and sustenance. In the case of an internet-based singularity we would be an integral part of its fabric.
Reply

Gann was starred Gann was unstarred

Doctor Who?
08/09/09

In reply to Can You Still Write Science Fiction Set In The Future?
To be honest, on the topic of "internet in your head," Gibson's Bridge Trilogy seems to take a far better approach than the more futuristic and fanciful approach that his earlier Sprawl Trilogy took. While it seems cool to have the internet jacked directly into your nervous system, I'd be much more comfortable with just the pair of shades wired in, and you'd keep the ability to upgrade.
Not to mention that the concept of a pair of mirrored shades that are connected to the internet at all times are probably only about ten years or so down the road, unlike jacking which is probably far later, if ever, and the additional things you could do with the glasses (a HUD, for example.)
Reply

Doctor Who? was starred Doctor Who? was unstarred

GreyHammer
08/09/09

In reply to Can You Still Write Science Fiction Set In The Future?
i thought sci-fi was about opening doors not closing them because you think things may happen. thats a cop out
Reply

GreyHammer was starred GreyHammer was unstarred

fistrodisco
08/09/09

In reply to Can You Still Write Science Fiction Set In The Future?
I don't see any productive SF writer stopping writing futuristic SF because of the Singularity. I even see some funny workarounds (in Banks' Culture series, any non human-friendly-biased AI simply loses interest in us, pulls a V'Ger and migrates to higher planes of existence).
What if the Singularity happens, forgets about us and leaves us a bit "uh, was that all?".
Reply

Anekanta promoted this comment fistrodisco was starred fistrodisco was unstarred

Yamato
08/09/09

In reply to Can You Still Write Science Fiction Set In The Future?
The world is going ot end not in 2012 but the year 20XX when Dr. Wily will release his mavericks to rule the world!
Reply

Anekanta promoted this comment Yamato was starred Yamato was unstarred

skippitymonster
08/09/09

In reply to Can You Still Write Science Fiction Set In The Future?
Hmmmm... could The Singularity just be a convenient marketing buzz-type term vaguely based on certain observations of probability and extrapolations of technological development, like...dare I say it...'Y2K Bug'?
Maybe all sci fi writers should avoid setting their tales post 2012, because...well...you know.
Reply

Evil Tortie's Mom: R.O.A.C.H. promoted this comment skippitymonster was starred skippitymonster was unstarred

Earlier threads | All threads | Show hidden threads | Show featured threads only | Start a new discussion

SUBSCRIBE TO io9

Login

Reset Password

Register

Submit Your Comment