Stumbled across this cool website which focusses on the future, it's part fact and fiction. The 21st Century predictions are of the most interest but beyond that it's mostly made up. http://www.futuretimeline.net/index.htm
I want the "Anti-fat drug", roll on 2018! One thing I think that article definitely has right is the convergence of technology, in terms of combining features into smaller units as well as allowing devices to communicate and converge with each other through the Internet. Oh, and I guess I'm moving to Sweden
I find it funny that we will accomplish amazing feats by 2050, but it wonm't be until 2067 -- after a manned mission to Halley's comet -- that male and female pay will be come level.
It is pretty cool science fiction writing on part of the article, but I like how slow our space progress is in this article. I think that may be realistic, we are very slow to progress our space program and space propulsion technology. I think we'll be confined to our own solar system for a very very long time before travel to other star systems is possible.
Yea there appears to be no faster than light travel even up to the early 23rd Century, but at least there are food replicators for every household by the 2190s.
Making predictions about technology is a risky endeavor. Aren't we supposed to have bases on the moon by now, according to half a century old predictions?
The crazy thing about technology though is that we do have the technology now to build moon bases, so they were right. What they couldn't predict though are the money problems. It is simple money and funding holding back those kind of endeavors.
Indeed. The technology ... or our ability to realize what was once just an idea is not the problem. Problems lie in the fact we live in a capitalist society which is constricted by money. It ALWAYS comes down to money. It's actually responsible for most of the issues we have on the planet and why technological/social progression is stagnating. How many useful technologies could have made it into everyday use that would have been 10x (ok I may be exaggerating a bit) more efficient and better from what we use right now had they just have been created and applied in practise? The list is quite long I can assure you when it comes to computers alone, other areas are sorely lacking. NASA using outdated technology in shuttles is another problem (which is not solely restricted to internal aspects ... but also design and materials). Very little if anything was upgraded properly ... and the only reason for why we are sorely lacking behind in virtually anything is 'cost' or 'money'. Same thing EVERY TIME. Making predictions about technology is not an issue. Consider carefully that our day to day technology is not even on the level of early 21st century.
Capitolism is the impediment. Communism is Star Trek's answer to this problem. Don't be offended... these are economic terms, not political. Thru the years, their meanings have become misconstrued.
Money is just a paper representation of how hard you are willing to work for something. It represents the fact that we have limited resources and have to choose how to use those resources.
This one actually developed? How does it determine brain activity exactly? Infrared/Near IR laser? High Density EEG? How far a distance can this be done from? CuttingEdge100
But as leftist as I am, "cost" doesn't cease to exist in a socialist framework. I disagree with Sojourner, too--money isn't a paper representation of the labor theory of value. It's a paper representation of the market's determination of worth.
Oh yes... I'm sure that developing cars that can go 300 km per hour so people can kill each other faster, consume gallons of oil in the process and look like more advanced Ferrari's is a 'clever way' of spending our resources. Give me a break. The government (military to be a prime example) and companies have a tendency to spend an insane amount of money on broad range of stupidities constantly that could have been invested 100x over into something far more constructive. Let's say something like upgrading the US power grid for example? EVERY single time we are supposed to incorporate advanced tech into our lives, there's never enough money. Resources are a problem. Hon ... why are resources never a problem when individuals flash money for their own purposes (regardless of how stupid and wasteful they might be)? Regulation of resources my rear end. Money is a simple excuse for people who are greedy and needy for power to remain in such positions. Look at what is happening in the computer world today. Outdated techs are being milked for money by companies. New techs that were supposed to have been much cheaper for the consumer ALWAYS end up as premium priced and some of the best of those NEVER go down in price. Whenever someone mentions the stupidity we have 'limited resources' for something important (but seemingly produce a lot of garbage for which we apparently DO have resources and is in fact more harmful in the long run) I have to laugh at the statement.
I never said the choices were the right ones for everyone. People work for money and spend it on what they feel is important. Not sure how that repudates that we have limited resources. Circular argument. Certain resources are rare, hence having to flash the money. If they weren't, then why aren't they free? Yes, clearly the tech industry never introduces new tech and prices never drop. Ever compare prices of laptops from 10 years ago with today? The spec's of same laptops? How bout those Ipods? they certainly haven't change in 10 years. Good thing LCD screens never got released wouldn't want to replace all those CRT's out there ....oh wait! Or my desktop PC, glad the best I can buy is a 486 with a 100meg hard drive for $3000 dollars. It always pains me when people try to claim that there is no such thing as limited resources. Clearly they have not researched at all. In a capitalist economy the consumer decides where resources get used. Don't like it? Get them to change their mind.
Don't push what I said out of context. I never said that changes don't occur in the tech industry ... problem is that the changes happen over a LARGE span of time, and some technologies never come down in prices before they are replaced by new technologies that are equally expensive. Point being ... numerous techs (such as top of the line c2d cpu's for laptops) are out of reach for the mid range consumers (who do heavy computational work for example and need mobility) simply due to the costs and end up with lower grade systems that they can afford. I paid my own laptop £600 for example (Acer 5930G). It has a c2d Centrino2, 4Gb RAM, 9600m GT GDDR3 dedicated gpu and a 250GB HDD. Numerous other laptops of same configuration TODAY cost at least £300 - 400 more for example (that's just a rough estimate), and the laptop I have now is no longer available for purchase in UK for some reason. In short, I was lucky to have gotten this thing when I did. The consumer may decide where resources get used, but the general population is often behaving in an ignorant capacity to begin with and the companies are milking old technologies for all they are worth. Intel delayed release of it's new i7 chips for laptops due to this so they can stick with the Montevina range longer and get more money out of it. AMD for example has not released anything of relevance when mobile cpu's are involved and is sorely lacking ... which is also giving Intel the advantage in the market and why prices for such laptops are high. You also have to be extremely detailed if you want to find a laptop that say combines an Intel cpu which is powerful/affordable with an ATI dedicated gpu (which are by comparison cheaper than Nvidia's).
I'd say that the cost of technology has dropped considering you get more bang for your buck. Todays's computers have an incredible amount of processing power per dollar spent. I bought my first PC for just under $2000.00 (thats right two thousand dollars) and I had 256K of processing power. The laptop I own today is incredibly more powerful and cost exceedingly less. Yes, resources are limited. However our monitary system is not bound to our resources anymore. Go into your bank and ask to see your money. They will show you a printout. That's your money. Our economy got out of control just like Germany's did in the pre-WWII era. We pretty much decided that if we needed it we'd just print more, it is no long backed by gold and silver. The power of the almighty dollar in international circles is not based upon it's actual value, but based upon the military power that backs it up. Okay, that ought to be enough to get your guys ire up...
In addition to economics/money being a limiting factor there is also politics coming into play. Government sector vs. Corporate sector vs. Private sector also factor in to our development and expansion. Why does the government limit this or that? For example why haven't any private companies ventured to the moon? Were there private space programs in the 50s, 60s and 70s or was it just the government? Aren't there some areas of research and development that still need government approval before the private sector can proceed? As long as any government doesn't want to give up power or give permission for non-governmental agencies to work in various areas, government will hinder growth and expansion. How much hindrance is due to money, how much is due to resources and how much is due to governments wanting power or control?