Why our 'amazing' science fiction future fizzled

[Lindley]

Or people could carry their phones with them at all times.

There was some book I read that did postulate this. It wasn't the 1892 book Looking Backward, because I remember that one "anticipated" radio stations but thought you'd get the music by telephone. Also anticipated credit cards, incidentally.

Maybe it was Vonnegut's Player Piano? In any event, the book said that if you were not able to reach someone by phone at all times, then they must surely be dead.

 

[Arrqh]

Or people could carry their phones with them at all times.

There was some book I read that did postulate this. It wasn't the 1892 book Looking Backward, because I remember that one "anticipated" radio stations but thought you'd get the music by telephone. Also anticipated credit cards, incidentally.

The thing is that it's not so much about predicting what will technically be possible but predicting how what's possible will impact society.

Which is what the original article sort of misses, I think. Our society is being fundamentally altered by the technological development going on right now. The internet, for instance, has greatly changed the way information flows in our society and how we relate to it (which goes way beyond being an economic threat to shopping malls). In many ways, that's a lot cooler then having flying cars and was also totally unpredictable. Not the technology, but the influence it has on our lives.

 

[Deks]

True, but at the same time, most of the impact the technology in question had was in most developed areas of this planet (larger cities with sufficiently developed industry/technology) and because of those who are able to AFFORD it.

There are still a lot of remote areas of the world where technology is scarce for example and changed little to nothing.

The changes that happen are way too slow globally speaking.
Money is making things difficult and is also stalling our development.
If it was not an issue, we'd likely have 5 to 10 years more advanced tech by now in the consumer area.

Just how many innovations never saw the light of day because of 'costs' exactly?
I'm not saying 'countless', but it's getting there.

 

[USS KG5]

Just how many innovations never saw the light of day because of 'costs' exactly?
I'm not saying 'countless', but it's getting there.

Well that is not really fair. Capitalism is great at inspiring innovation as corporations always look for new and better product. Tim Berners-Lee might have give the WWW to the world, but it was the drop in price and exponential increase in capability of the average PC that put them into our houses, and big multi-nationals did that.

It is also a good balance, space travel is so incredibly expensive that it really needs bean-counters to even comprehend the costs involved.

Did you have any specific examples of a genuinely innovative technology that has been undeveloped due to cost alone?

 

[Da'an]

Two words: Patent Troll.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

I agree, USS KG5. As someone who writes sci-fi myself, I try to focus more on what the technology implies, rather than masturbating over its hypothetical existence. That's always the more interesting part, anyway. How will people be in the future? How will technology shape and affect them? At that point is where you start thinking about what kinds of technology would be interesting to explore from that angle.

Which is what was talked about in the later part of the article.

I like the Jetson's example they used. George was a solid, blue collar kind'a guy in his world (the equivilant of a manufacturing line worker). The assumption behind George is that technology would always simply make the worker faster and more proficient at doing his job.

What the writers back then DIDN't anticipate was that the owners of the company would say "Why am I paying George all this money to push buttons? I can create a self-pushing button and do away with George altogether, or at least train Jose in Guadalahara how to push the same button for one-tenth the pay." And then firing George.

Science fiction writers in the past(as the article points out) viewed technology as a help for man and a solution to social problems. It didn't help that larger society was also set up this way, being based on the PRE-industrial principle of "a man and his land".

They failed to understand that whoever holds control of the technology (and thus by extension jobs), controls all.

Cyberpunk is where our current combination of technology and society is headed, not Star Trek/Jetsons, et al.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

Or people could carry their phones with them at all times.

There was some book I read that did postulate this. It wasn't the 1892 book Looking Backward, because I remember that one "anticipated" radio stations but thought you'd get the music by telephone. Also anticipated credit cards, incidentally.

The thing is that it's not so much about predicting what will technically be possible but predicting how what's possible will impact society.

Which is what the original article sort of misses, I think. Our society is being fundamentally altered by the technological development going on right now. The internet, for instance, has greatly changed the way information flows in our society and how we relate to it (which goes way beyond being an economic threat to shopping malls). In many ways, that's a lot cooler then having flying cars and was also totally unpredictable. Not the technology, but the influence it has on our lives.

That influence can be BAD as well as good. Remember when we were all supposed to become "information workers" after all our manufacturing jobs were taken away?

Now, thanks to the net, THOSE jobs can be filled at a fraction of the wage from the other side of the world as well.

Technology is the root of the corporate feudalism that has taken over the planet. Technology allows the corporate Lord to dictate IF you will work, when and where, and at what wage. The masses have no choice but to accept this, since it is impossible to go back to the system of "a man, his land, and a plow" as a basis of individual survival.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

Did you have any specific examples of a genuinely innovative technology that has been undeveloped due to cost alone?

I can certainly give you examples of areas where technology was either limited or destroyed because of money shennanigans: mass transit, the electric car, Microsoft.

Even within areas like automtoive technology going back to the corporate assassination of Tucker and his car. Move forward to today and how (until recently) the car companies fought CAFE increases tooth and nail, DESPITE the fact they had cars that could meet the standard.

The reason: they didn't want to invest in the switchover of their production lines.

 

[Arrqh]

That influence can be BAD as well as good. Remember when we were all supposed to become "information workers" after all our manufacturing jobs were taken away?

Well sure, of course technology can have immediate negative results. So can absolutely everything else ever. At the end of the day technology, whether it be a new CPU or a stick with a rock tied to the end, is just a thing. What matters is how people use it. Technology doesn't drive social change, how people use and relate to it does.

Technology is the root of the corporate feudalism that has taken over the planet. Technology allows the corporate Lord to dictate IF you will work, when and where, and at what wage.

Er... not really. There is nothing at all intrinsic to technology that drives this, and that sort of thing has been going on for centuries. Unless you can provide specific examples...?

 

[darkwing_duck1]

That influence can be BAD as well as good. Remember when we were all supposed to become "information workers" after all our manufacturing jobs were taken away?

Well sure, of course technology can have immediate negative results. So can absolutely everything else ever. At the end of the day technology, whether it be a new CPU or a stick with a rock tied to the end, is just a thing. What matters is how people use it. Technology doesn't drive social change, how people use and relate to it does.

Technology is the root of the corporate feudalism that has taken over the planet. Technology allows the corporate Lord to dictate IF you will work, when and where, and at what wage.

Er... not really. There is nothing at all intrinsic to technology that drives this, and that sort of thing has been going on for centuries. Unless you can provide specific examples...?

I explained all that in my original post. The control of technology allows the corportate "lord" to tell ALL workers "You'll take what I decide to pay you or you won't work at all." This is esp true in the case of the Geroge Jetsons (first worlders) because Jose in Guadalahara can be trained to push the same buttons in the same order and be happily paid 1/10 the salary Jetson received.

The same is now happening with the so-called "information jobs" we were SUPPOSED to have a safe refuges from the destruction of the manufacturing economy. With the internet and global communications, your tech support can come from an enclave in Sri Lanka. Your EKG can be read by a cardiologist from Bombay. (Both at a fraction of the cost of having US citizens do the work.)

 

[hyzmarca]

Main points of the article:

As we already pointed out, there are numerous drivers today who make a ton of accidents on the streets in regular cars ... imagine giving these people flying ability.
We'd have mini 9/11 all over the place ... or something akin to it if the irresponsible drivers get a hold of the technology.

Actually, flying cars would be safer than automobiles for one simple reason, autopilots. Most automobile accidents result from driver carelessness, inattentiveness, tiredness, and intoxication. If cars had automatic pilots, then the number of accidents would be reduced drastically. The only problem with implementing automatic driving in cars is the fact that roads and road conditions are extremely complex. It's practically impossible to build sensors able to follow a road, much less identify pedestrians and other vehicles and compensate for them. It would also require that all traffic lights be equipped with radio transmitters to talk to cars.

In the case of flying cars, conditions are much simpler and sensor options are much more refined. A VSTOL flying car, equipped with radar, cameras, laser range finders, and automatic car-to-car traffic negotiation in addition to standard flight instruments and guided by ground systems and GPS can take off, fly to it's destination, and land without any human interference, in perfect safety. The only infrastructure alteration required would be adding automated air traffic control systems to parking lots in order to assist with automated landing.

Of course, fuel prices are another thing altogether, and a flying car would be too expensive for the middle class to afford for a very long time.

 

[USS KG5]

I can certainly give you examples of areas where technology was either limited or destroyed because of money shennanigans: mass transit, the electric car, Microsoft.

Well all those examples are debatable.

Mass transit is unsucessful often because it is unwanted. Where it is the only practical solution (i.e. airliners) it is extremely popular, but when people can have their own space away from the great unwashed, they seem to take it. That is nothing to do with cost really.

Electric cars are coming into their own now but are not really an innovative technology, they are a subset of electric propelled vehicles, and many of these (electric trains for example) are very popular.

The Microsoft debate is for another day, but it is really an example of a business doing very well because of the ineptitude of their competitors as much as MS's shenanigans!

Even within areas like automtoive technology going back to the corporate assassination of Tucker and his car. Move forward to today and how (until recently) the car companies fought CAFE increases tooth and nail, DESPITE the fact they had cars that could meet the standard.

Good example of my point - they were idiotic enough to think their customers would never wise up to what the next century will bring for oil, and therefore wanted to keep making gas guzzlers - they have paid the price for this attitude.

The reason: they didn't want to invest in the switchover of their production lines.

Oh it is far deeper than that, though it is certainly a factor. It is almost a microcosm of US attitudes to the environment changing.

 

[romulus]

Somewhat interesting article, nothing new though. I guess trek needed some of that promotion, wonder if it actually helped though.

 

[Arrqh]

I explained all that in my original post. The control of technology allows the corportate "lord" to tell ALL workers "You'll take what I decide to pay you or you won't work at all." This is esp true in the case of the Geroge Jetsons (first worlders) because Jose in Guadalahara can be trained to push the same buttons in the same order and be happily paid 1/10 the salary Jetson received.

None of this proves your point at all because none of that is anything new. You've repeated the bit about the "corporate lord" a lot but you haven't actually demonstrated any behavior that is only possible because of technology. Go back to the industrial revolution and you find the exact same thing. Go back to the time when peasants were toiling in the fields and you find the exact same thing. Technology has not created this behavior. You couldn't walk into an 18th century factory and demand whatever pay you wanted... you either are going to take the same low wage as everyone else or you're not going to work at all.

What you should be looking at is the social structures that enable this sort of behavior, not the technology that is the tool that people use.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

I can certainly give you examples of areas where technology was either limited or destroyed because of money shennanigans: mass transit, the electric car, Microsoft.

Well all those examples are debatable.

Mass transit is unsucessful often because it is unwanted. Where it is the only practical solution (i.e. airliners) it is extremely popular, but when people can have their own space away from the great unwashed, they seem to take it. That is nothing to do with cost really.

No, it has to do with a car company buying up the cable car company and shutting the system down so they could sell IC busses to the city instead on TOP of cars to individuals. This acutally happened in CA in the 30s-40s.

Mass transit (when it is TRULY ubiquitous and reliable, like in NYC) is VERY popular, and people use it all the time.

Electric cars are coming into their own now but are not really an innovative technology, they are a subset of electric propelled vehicles, and many of these (electric trains for example) are very popular.

We had excellent electric car technology as early as the late 1920s, but it was suppressed by car companies wanting to sell IC. Find the excellent documentry "Who Killed the Electric Car". It is very informative.

The Microsoft debate is for another day, but it is really an example of a business doing very well because of the ineptitude of their competitors as much as MS's shenanigans!

When Microsoft outright REFUSES to share it's source code with application companies so that they can engineer their programs to be Windows compliant and then tries to buy out the application from under the originating company, that's just dirty pool on MS' part, not "incompetence" on the subsidiary's part.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

I explained all that in my original post. The control of technology allows the corportate "lord" to tell ALL workers "You'll take what I decide to pay you or you won't work at all." This is esp true in the case of the Geroge Jetsons (first worlders) because Jose in Guadalahara can be trained to push the same buttons in the same order and be happily paid 1/10 the salary Jetson received.

None of this proves your point at all because none of that is anything new. You've repeated the bit about the "corporate lord" a lot but you haven't actually demonstrated any behavior that is only possible because of technology. Go back to the industrial revolution and you find the exact same thing. Go back to the time when peasants were toiling in the fields and you find the exact same thing. Technology has not created this behavior. You couldn't walk into an 18th century factory and demand whatever pay you wanted... you either are going to take the same low wage as everyone else or you're not going to work at all.

What you should be looking at is the social structures that enable this sort of behavior, not the technology that is the tool that people use.

And what was the Industrial Revolution? An advance in technology! One that opened the door to mass manufacturing, which led to a surplus of labor (one factory could do with 10 people what would take several hundred home-workers to produce), which allowed the corporate lords who CONTROLLED the technology to surpress wages.

Take away the technology (or at least the monopoly control over it), and you take away the corporate lord's power.

Likewise with advances in shipping technology. The ability to reliably and cheaply ship bulk quantities of goods over vast distances has enabled the corporate lords to pit city against city, state against state, and nation against nation to drive down wages.

Why else do you think we've lost the textile industry, the consumer electronics industry, and much of our heavy manufacturing industry? Because the corporate lords have combined their control of manufacturing technology with the advances in cheap shipping technology so that they can force first world high-standard nations to compete with third world low or no-standard nations for jobs.

Again, take away the technology, and you take away the power of the lords.

 

[Arrqh]

Again, take away the technology, and you take away the power of the lords.

Take away technology... ALL technology... and you take away everyone's power. Your left with foraging for berries and trying to kill animals with nothing but your bare hands. Of course if you'd prefer to live that way now, no one is stopping you.

Again, there's nothing intrinsic that has anything to do with this concept of a "corporate lord" that you've invented.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

darkwing, you have neglected the fact that individuals can and do leverage technology without the influence of your so-called "corporate lords." Due to the openness and availability of current Web technologies, for instance, anyone with the time and inclination can learn enough about Web development to run their own business and sell their knowledge and expertise on their own terms--no overlord required. While the companies interested in such expertise might look overseas for it, there are definite drawbacks to offshoring that are not likely to be mitigated by technology. Rather, the drawbacks are more due to cultural and linguistic barriers, not to mention customer preference.

If nothing else, modern technology has enabled a whole new breed of entrepreneurialism, where you need little more than an idea and perhaps some money to help get it off the ground--but the amount of money required ends up being less and less as technology becomes more abundant and available.

What we have now that we did not have during the Industrial Revolution is a much lower barrier to entry for a would-be entrepreneur.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

Again, take away the technology, and you take away the power of the lords.

Take away technology... ALL technology... and you take away everyone's power. Your left with foraging for berries and trying to kill animals with nothing but your bare hands. Of course if you'd prefer to live that way now, no one is stopping you.

In the absolute sense that is true. Your charge, however, was that technology had NOTHING to do with the societal changes, when that is patently false given that the changes WOULD NOT have taken place WITHOUT the technology.

Again, there's nothing intrinsic that has anything to do with this concept of a "corporate lord" that you've invented.

I'll give you another example: Monsanto.

Monsanto has developed all these "Superseeds" (genetically modifed seeds that supposedly produce better crops via various methods). They patented them and VIGOROUSLY enforce their patent rights (they have even seized crops of farms whose fields were accidently contaminated by "superseed" pollen).

Farmers have traditionally practiced a measure called "seed saving". They hold back a portion of the crop and use it to seed next year's fields. This makes it cheaper for the farmer, since in good years he can put back enough seed that he doesn't have to buy any for next year.

Monsanto said "Oh no you don't!" Their position is that because the crop came from THEIR proprietary seed technology, that they have the right to forbid the farmers from saving any of the crop. The farmers must sell ALL the crop then buy new seed from Monsanto every year.

The courts upheld Monsanto's claim.

Thus, Monsanto controls the farmers' livelihood by controlling the technology of the superseeds.

darkwing, you have neglected the fact that individuals can and do leverage technology without the influence of your so-called "corporate lords." Due to the openness and availability of current Web technologies, for instance, anyone with the time and inclination can learn enough about Web development to run their own business and sell their knowledge and expertise on their own terms--no overlord required. While the companies interested in such expertise might look overseas for it, there are definite drawbacks to offshoring that are not likely to be mitigated by technology. Rather, the drawbacks are more due to cultural and linguistic barriers, not to mention customer preference.

If nothing else, modern technology has enabled a whole new breed of entrepreneurialism, where you need little more than an idea and perhaps some money to help get it off the ground--but the amount of money required ends up being less and less as technology becomes more abundant and available.

What we have now that we did not have during the Industrial Revolution is a much lower barrier to entry for a would-be entrepreneur.

On the microscale, yes. When's the last time someone started a najor company from scratch? Major industry is becoming more and MORE consolidated every year.

 

[USS KG5]

No, it has to do with a car company buying up the cable car company and shutting the system down so they could sell IC busses to the city instead on TOP of cars to individuals. This acutally happened in CA in the 30s-40s.

Mass transit (when it is TRULY ubiquitous and reliable, like in NYC) is VERY popular, and people use it all the time.

I thought we were discussing "mass transit" as a technological concept, which as you stated has not been held back in any way shape or form by cost.

I'm sure some greedy bastard somewhere has on numerous occasions screwed up mass transit schemes, but that is not holding back the technology is it? That is just one implementation if it.

We had excellent electric car technology as early as the late 1920s, but it was suppressed by car companies wanting to sell IC. Find the excellent documentry "Who Killed the Electric Car". It is very informative.

Well I will have to check it out, but ultimately wasn't IC better at the time? After all, no-one knew back then about global warming, or that we would be facing a global oil crisis.

Also, again, the technology itself has matured, so on this occasion it is not the technology that is held back by cost or capitalists, but its introduction into widespread use.

When Microsoft outright REFUSES to share it's source code with application companies so that they can engineer their programs to be Windows compliant and then tries to buy out the application from under the originating company, that's just dirty pool on MS' part, not "incompetence" on the subsidiary's part.

I'm sure Microsoft DO consider other software companies "subsidiaries" but I'm guessing you did not mean that!

There are numerous examples of MS being asses, but arguably we have all benefitted from that. After all, if MS had been more accepting we would never have have had a whole movement spring up that gives us such brilliant free software as Apache, MySQL, PHP, Linux, OpenOffice etc etc...