Miracles Of The Next Fifty Years, As Of 1950 308
jonwiley writes: "There is a reprint here of an article by Waldemar Kaempffert, published February, 1950 titled 'Miracles You'll See in the Next Fifty Years.' Taking an approach that examines the current scientific results and activities of his time, while ignoring political and economic factors, he paints a picture of the technology of 2000 A.D. His level of accuracy is surprising, and offers insight on how we may view our own future. What he gets wrong is equally intriguing." Sure, some details are rather off -- but Kaempffert's observation that the future arrives piecemeal is perhaps the most important part.
eh? (Score:1)
Re:In 2000, People Have No Personalities! (Score:1)
You can make this at home:
To one gallon of rapidly boiling water, add 8-12 pairs of dirty underwear. Boil for ten minutes. Add 4 cups of sugar. Boil until the volume is reduced to 1/4 of the original volume. Pour onto a baking sheet and let cool. Cut into desired size pieces.
My favorite flavor is herpes thong.
Re:Miracles Of 2050 (Score:1)
Re:rockets for cross country transport (Score:2)
No, you don't.
(Un)Limited Imagination (Score:3)
The point that I want to get at is that, with all of the prediction floating around for 2050, 2100 etc, we (assuming we are not any smarter than people 50 years ago - and I dpn't think we are) haven't got a clue what miricles of technology will have the greatest impact on our lives 50 years from now.
-----
Heinlein's scorecard around the same time (Score:2)
--
Virus Cures (Score:2)
It's cured. The cure saw the light of day.
Re:One prediction really stood out... (Score:2)
This, more than anything else predicted about the 21st century, is true. From what we wear, to the music we listen to, and even the software we access the Internet, it seems that society (at least the organizations that influence it most) ostracizes you if you step outside of the "approved channel"
It became obvious to me how bad this had gotten when jukeboxes began to feature a button to select whatever's 'popular' rather than what you want to hear.
Re:I bet he didn't predict this.. (Score:2)
hawk
Re:My scorecard on this: hits and misses (Score:2)
Rubella, Whooping Cough, Smallpox, Typhus, Meningitis, Scarlet Fever, Tetanus, Syphilis, Polio, Pneumonia, Diarrhea, Fever and a 1001 other maladies both major & minor are now generally non-fatal and of little concern to most of us.
Whether this is due to mass-vaccination, individual vaccination, palliative care or direct remediation isn't the issue and to argue is only playing inane semantic games: The point is that they're no longer nearly the danger they were in the 1940's.
Common infections we treat routinely and without thought today were deadly dangerous then. Take a look at the survival rates from those years after surgery due to infection - daunting indeed. Fevers were to be feared, diarrhea was life-threatening.
Today the only thing comparable in the first world would be HIV/AIDS. Ebola and other exotics remain that. In the past a pandemic would sweep the world every generation or so killing some percentage of the human population: We haven't suffered one in three generations now.
I think the real proof is that folks are left quibbling over colds & flues and not recounting deaths in their immediate families. We're the first generation not to have first hand knowledge of a pandemic; for the folks of the 1940's (from where this article was written) epidemics & pandemics were a real and immediate threat. To them the quarantine sign was something they were terribly familiar with.
Re:My scorecard on this: hits and misses (Score:5)
Hits:
Misses:
Biggest miss?
Re:My scorecard on this: hits and misses (Score:2)
A lot of that wood will be coniferous waste, mainly varieties of pine. Pine contains pine oils, which are used in pine-sol household cleaner ("pine solvent" would be the source of that name) and the like.
It surprises me that the cows don't get deathly sick from the pine chips.
Yes, they are also being fed "traditional" processed feed, which does contain rendered animals in it, including bits o' cattle (though, apparently, not any sheep this week, according to the delivery sign at the local byproducts rendering plant).
Now, the rendering plant, there's a whole other topic for discussion. My god, the shite that goes into that place is appalling. Not just the kibbles'n'bits left over from cutting animals into meat, but also a lot of whole dead animals. WTF they die from? If they were sick, WTF you wanna put 'em into animal feed for? Good god.
On the whole, the entire scene is enough to make a person turn vegetarian.
One person I met had an interesting perspective: "Eating factory meat is disrespectful to the animal." Ain't that the truth!
--
Re:My scorecard on this: hits and misses (Score:2)
--
Re:My scorecard on this: hits and misses (Score:3)
Roads reserved exclusively for business traffic - a possible hit, when considering high-occupancy vehicle lanes.
Lightweight metals in large building construction - a hit, for sure.
Houses that cost $36k. My god. If only. If only...
Plastic plates that decompose at 250F - surely this is a hit. Biodegradeable/recyclable, no?
Plastic waterproof furniture - only deck chairs. Although... you can buy entire suites of inflatable furniture.
Loss of culinary skills - damn straight that's a hit. Way too many people can't boil water without burning it these days.
Woodpulp into food - a hit: ever seen a cattle feedlot? Those poor buggers are eating nothing but woodchip waste, it seems. Ugh.
Videophones in every home - QuickCam, perhaps?
Rocket-powered planes - in his terms, probably a hit: what else would you call some of the military jet engines? Nearest thing to a rocket.
Cars running on alcohol - a hit. Brazil has shiploads of 'em. Hellva thing.
Yes, some of these are hair-splitting.
--
Re:My scorecard on this: hits and misses (Score:3)
Actually, I think it's straw. And I don't think concrete is dripped over it.
You start off with a shipload of straw. It's compressed like hell into a massive, dense brick, and sprayed with fire retardent. Damn stuff won't burn anyway; it's packed hard enough that there's no airspace, so at worst you could drop a torch on it and it *might* eventually sorta smolder.
You pour a bit of a concrete base for the bales, raise 'em up off the ground, and have rebar spikes. You spike the bales, using 'em like bricks.
Then you use adobe/concrete/whatever to finish.
You get a house with walls a couple feet thick and extremely insulated. There's nearly no heating cost: your computer, dinner-time cooking, television, and body heat will probably heat the place adequately through most of the winter.
And best of all, you get huge windowsills. Oh, yah, baby. Lotsa plants and pillows...
--
Where exactly is the prediction accurate? (Score:2)
Re:Where exactly is the prediction accurate? (Score:2)
Re:Not all of these were misses, exactly... (Score:2)
Except that it wouldn't be oil companies feeding off their government-granted monopolies on hard-to-find and expensive-to-exploit underground reserves. An ethanol-based fuel economy would be dominated by large agricultural companies scattered all over the globe. Not that these companies are likely to be any better behaved than the oil companies, but there are more of them, and therefore more competition.
--
Not all of these were misses, exactly... (Score:3)
3. Cheap electrical heating
It exists, but there has been little financial incentive to promote it.
11. Use of plastics to construct houses
Ditto.
13. Houses that cost $36,000 (year 2000 dollars) and last only 25 years
Ditto.
14. Chemical removal of facial hair
Depilatories are widely available, but they're uncomfortable, smell bad, and not typically used by men. There are also chemical treatments to kill hair follicles altogether.
15. Use of plastic plates that decompes at temperatures above 250 F
Ever heat a plastic plate to 250 F? Of course, I'm not sure I'd call that decomposition...
16. Cleaning plastic waterproof furniture by turning a hose on it
Well within the reach of existing technology, but only for people who don't live in humid climates.
18. Loss of culinary skills due to all food being delivered "fresh frozen"
A near miss. People lost their culinary skills because women are no longer required to be household slaves, and most men are content enough with frozen foods not to bother learning.
19. Processes to turn wood pulp and sawdust into edible foods
They exist. The problem is that edible != yummy.
20. Discarded paper linen and rayon underwear turned into candy
Then WTF are Gummi Bears made of?
21. Videophones in every home
Obviously, the technology exists and has existed for decades. Problem is, almost no one wants to worry about how they look on the phone.
27. Cars burning denatured alchohol as their primary fuel
Possible, even practical. But the oil companies have a vested interest in preventing it.
--
Re:My scorecard on this: hits and misses (Score:2)
I kind of have to disagree on that.
What people have not figured upon is the rapid development of new kitchen appliances and improvements to pot and pan technology that have dramatically reduced the drudgery of cooking food.
As an owner of a set of Wearever non-stick pots and pans, I love them because cleanup is now 1/4 the time it used to take with regular metal pots and pans (no stuck-on foods that require way too much elbow grease to remove them).
Kitchen appliances have made some amazing strides in the last 20 years. The development of food processors and high-speed hand-held wand-like mixers have made it possible to make foods that would have been difficult if not impossible to do from scratch in the past.
Pre-fab homes not so far-fetched (Score:2)
In fact, this has become reality in a number of countries. In Japan, this has been the norm for a couple of decades; we're starting to see this becoming widespread even here in the USA. Imagine the idea of a custom house where you mix and match pre-fabricated rooms to create the house--that will be the future of homebuilding. This concept could be applied to condominium and townhouse design also.
Re:Plastic (Score:2)
Try starting a garden grown entirely in used styrofoam.
Re:accuracy? (Score:2)
The article mentions that in 1950, most people were using "safety razors". I'm not sure if he meant ones like this [greatbasin.net] or this [innovationtrail.com]. Either way, most people today usually use cheap disposable razors [gillette.com] or electric ones [gillette.com].
I guess he never predicted what a revolution the Mach 3 disposable razor would be.
Re:My scorecard on this: hits and misses (Score:2)
> American people cannot cook anymore
While I won't argue that Americans have not had the greatest culinary influence on the planet, I don't think they've necessarily gotten any worse in the last 50 years.
My folks assure me that my aunt's famously bad cooking pre-dates 1950.
Plastic (Score:3)
Reminds me of a comic I once saw. In the first panel, "Scientists in 1950: Wow! Plastic lasts for ever!" This scientists are in awe. In the second panel, "Scientists in 2000: Ugh. Plastic lasts forever!" Scientists realize the ecological disaster...
Re:Plastic (Score:3)
On the other hand, George Carlin may have been right. Maybe the whole reason human beings came into existence was because the Earth wanted plastic and couldn't produce it any other way.
Re:Bigger Changes- Last 50 or Next 50 Years? (Score:2)
With all due respect, I disagree with this assertion.
We've seen a substantive shift in religious philosophy, but our current religious heavyweights seem to be scientific naturalism, materialism, pragmatism, and existentialism.
We haven't rejected "religious philosophy." We're simply adherents to a new religion.
Christianity, once a broadly accepted philosophy within the US, has become so watered down within the mainstream of American churches that it essentially compromises the basic message of the original texts.
Authentic Christianity is world-changing. The foundation of the church was a band of 12 rag-tag men from different parts of society. Their non-violent message changed the known world in a profound way.
Profound changes are occurring once again, but these philosophical shifts are leading to "money-grubbing and power-mongering as the predominant forces " not to mention self-actualization and personal fulfillment.
Anomaly
PS - God loves you and longs for relationship with you. If you would like to know more about this, please contact me at tom_cooper at bigfoot dot com
Re:My scorecard on this: hits and misses (Score:2)
In the US, you are free to choose to abort your fetus if you desire to do so.
The social status of women is limited? In my "Fortune 100" company, the stated goal is to double the number of women and minorities in senior executive positions. Sounds like a good time to be a woman or a minority, if you work for my company.
I'm displeased with our current social valuation of life in general.
Scientifically, all of the necessary genetic material is in place for a person at the time of conception, and viability is a moving target rapidly approaching the time that the sperm penetrates the egg.
The question becomes, at what point does your self-declared 'reproductive right' stop, and the fetus' consittutionally defined 'human rights' begin?
Additionally the "right-to-die" movement is tearing down barriers that protect the weak and ill.
It won't be long now until people like my grandparents are put to death because of "poor quality of life." (My grandfather has alzheimer's disease, and my grandmother exhibits signs of has senile dementia sometimes.)
I know my position is unpopular, but what is right is frequently unpopular, and what is popular is not always right. (eg Jewish persecution in Germany 70 years ago.)
Anomaly
PS - God loves you and longs for relationship with you. If you would like to know more about this, please contact me at tom_cooper at bigfoot dot com
ecology (Score:2)
Before it has a chance to gather much strength and speed as it travels westward toward Florida, oil is spread over the sea and ignited
---------------------------------------------
Re:My scorecard on this: hits and misses (Score:2)
How about the "reproductive right" to have a society that also values those who choose not to have children?
Hell, how about a world where women don't lose 25% of their income simply because they are the child bearers?
bah.
rark!
Moon landing (Score:2)
To me, this seems like the biggest miss. When this was originally written, we were only 19 years away from a landing.
Show how fast things can develop when we're motivated as a society to do it. I think that had that motivation lasted, we would surely have made Mars by now.
GRH
Re:My scorecard on this: hits and misses (Score:2)
--
Re:Chemical removal of hair (Score:2)
American cars burning alchohol? You bet!!! (Score:3)
It's not denatured alchohol, but Ford Motor Company sells flexible fuel vehicles [ford.com] that run on E85, which is a mixture of 85% ethanol (an alchohol-based fuel made from corn) and 15% gasoline. So if it wasn't in exact hit, he was pretty darn close.
Hrmph (Score:2)
It was rejected.
Re:My scorecard on this: hits and misses (Score:2)
Uh, we do have that. May not be widely used, but it's there.
Flying Messages (Score:2)
Re:Where is my flying car? (Score:2)
"Electric Suns" (Score:2)
Oddly, what he's describing here sounds virtually identical to the "Moonlight Towers" that were popular from the 1880s to the turn of the century in many cities. Austin is one of the few places where they are sill in operation - there a probably a few dozen left, including the big one they use to make the Christmas tree in Zilker Park every year...
Re:My scorecard on this: hits and misses (Score:2)
Re:My scorecard on this: hits and misses (Score:2)
So long as demographics and geography map onto each other, marketing like this remains easy.
Re:My scorecard on this: hits and misses (Score:2)
And of course, this is only one product. Anyone remember Nair?
Re:My scorecard on this: hits and misses (Score:2)
Vaccines aren't cures; they're preventive measures. Try getting the flu sometime and then get a flu shot; see how much good it does you. It doesn't matter if you're talking about a widespread nuisance like the common cold or a killer such as HIV or Ebola...no viral disease has ever been cured. The best that has happened was that some diseases have been contained and no longer exist "in the wild;" this is the case with smallpox (no new known cases since the late 60s or early 70s, IIRC), and polio is supposed to be almost as close to practical non-existence at this point.
Re:Stuff he got wrong in his own story (Score:2)
Check out this auction on eBay [ebay.com]. The scary part is that someone bought the item. I wonder if it'll be put to its intended use.
(whowouldbuythat.com [whowouldbuythat.com] is a pretty neat site for tracking down weird auctions. It's usually good for a chuckle or two.)
Re:My scorecard on this: hits and misses (Score:2)
Yow! (Score:2)
Am I livin' in SCIENTIFIC COMFORT yet?
</zippy>
--
Re:Bigger Changes- Last 50 or Next 50 Years? (Score:2)
--
Re:My scorecard on this: hits and misses (Score:2)
Another hit: fluorescent lights
While that is not how energy is generated in the sun, it is how fluorescent lights work! I think that qualifies as a definite hit.
Random text added to pass the lameness filter.[TMB]
Re:My scorecard on this: hits and misses (Score:4)
And reproductive freedom, though that's arguably part of the same thing. But that was the biggest thing I noticed about it... I had mental whiplash when he suddenly talked about how Jane Dobson cleans her house.
While he's clearly only thinking technologically, his biggest misses clearly are social, and are misses not in that he makes a false prediction but in that he doesn't predict major changes.
In addition to the women's equality / reproductive rights issue, he completely misses the civil rights movement. He doesn't predict that in 2000 there are no more racially-discriminant laws. He doesn't predict the two income family unit as the most common. He doesn't predict the de-formalization of the workplace. He doesn't predict the zillionaire entertainer (musician / movie star / sports player).
He doesn't set out to predict them, but the way he writes his account of life in 2000 shows that his social conceptions of 2000 are far off the mark.
Of course, the biggest thing he misses is the rise of the microbrew in the USA, making it finally possible to find good American beer! ;-)
[TMB]
Environment? Affordable? (Score:3)
His intro is kinda a self-fulfilling prophecy of sorts. The only obstacles to accurate prophecy are the vested interests, which may retard progress for economic reasons, tradition, conservatism, labor-union policies and legislation. Nice.
Ironically, the lack of economic and social change is what makes his predictions true today as much as extrapolating on the science. The past 20 or so years have been a non-stop spending spree that makes the 50's look like kid's play.
Fuller's one piece bathrooms, lightweight portable homes, world power grids, and Geodesic homes are probably things that can only come in an age where we're forced (or really want) to conserve resources.
Miracles Of 2050 (Score:5)
Jane has had 14 children by Joe, most since the 2038 repeal of abortion and contraceptive rights, but tithe taxes contribute to the development of their large family. Their children (all named after variants of "William") will each spend ten years in Approved Viewpoint Training, which is funded by Time/Warner/AOL/Disney/Duke Energy/Exxon (T.W.A.D.D.L.E.) which means that Joe and Jane pay nothing. "They are nice.." says Joe. "Nice. They teach kids good. Willy said first word yesterday: 'subscription'. Maybe he makes software someday."
Re:Pretty much right on (Score:2)
Re:Pretty much right on (Score:2)
Illegal to burn coal?! Just wait 'till next year! (Score:2)
Apparently he didn't expect _quite_ so much greedy industry involvement, and DEFINITELY not Bush jr. The rest of the world is going to have to stop selling him raw materials if he can't play nicely with the earth.
Re:Bigger Changes- Last 50 or Next 50 Years? (Score:2)
Well, I was in Ireland--both sides--last summer, and you know what? Most of the population is more interested in rebuilding, living together (or apart), and ending the bombings, because it's financially more intelligent to do so. In other words, money-grubbing is gradually replacing religion (which in this particular case, is a good thing).
Iran? Singapore? Israel? The fact that religion is the driving factor in these countries is the biggest factor acting to marginalise them as world powers! Yeah, Iran is big--how big would they be if they were a straighforward trading partner with the non-religious world? (and I mean all of it) Bigger! That's how big.
The thing is this: We're heading more and more towards some form of global economy, and the economically powerful nations will hold sway--that doesn't leave a lot of room for religious philosophy as a country's centre of existence.
I'm not saying this is a good thing. I'm just saying that I believe it's coming.
Re:Bigger Changes- Last 50 or Next 50 Years? (Score:2)
For starters, single points of progress aren't exactly linear, simply because they're single points. The invention of the airplane was a single point. The invention of the radio was a single point. The invention of the transistor was a single point. The fallout from those single points was a huge 'ramp' on the technology ladder, but over the long term they smooth out. Technology _as a whole_ advances exponentially.
Now, here's a hypothesis for you. First of all, you mention the invention of the plane as dramatic, and then you suggest that the computer is an extension/replacement of the radio.
Maybe the computer is replacing air travel? For the most part that is--people will always travel places and visit people. However, you can learn more about other places and visit with remote friends better now than in the history of the world--I suspect that airflight is going to begin dropping off in the next few years as a result.
Computers have had a more enourmous effect on people than we can measure--we just don't realise quite yet what parts of society it's affecting the most.
Furthermore, something--that is, some _single_thing_--will come about in the near
future and will crank up the rate of technological development as it relates to society. Ten years might be too narrow of a time frame, but technology _does_ advance increasingly fast.
Oh, and the bit about students needing 3000 pages to understand a proof--the fact that advances are much harder than before--is right on the money. However, look at when academics are starting to get permanent jobs now. Can you imagine a bright, dedicated, persistence student not getting a tenure-track job until their mid-30's a century ago? Soon we'll be in school until age 30, just to get a technicians job.
Re:Bigger Changes- Last 50 or Next 50 Years? (Score:3)
First of all, technological change will always be greater in the future than it was in the past, unless some large scale disaster sets us back horrendously. Change in philosophy? Well, we've seen the end of religious philosophy as the major force in the world. It seems that we're stuck with money-grubbing and power-mongering as the predominant forces now. What will tomorrow bring? Something better, I _hope_.
Real world peace will never happen. Not until we find someone else to fight. Humans (and in fact, earthlings in general) are just too violent and ambitious.
Fifty years from now, we won't have computers, so to speak. Hell, they're so prevalent now that they're starting to dissappear. I suspect that in a mere ten years you won't often buy a computer--you'll just have it as part of your house, apartment, or what have you.
New power sources? Not if that idiot who took power in the US has anything to say about it. The oil companies are _powerful_ worldwide, and the only way they'll let significant amounts of alternate energy be developed is if they really start to run out of oil.
Space will be badly neglected, except for 5 year "sprints" once in a while. Maybe two of them in the next 50 years.
Violence, chaos, paranoia, and polution will thrive. On the other hand, art should be magnificent.
Computing scale (Score:2)
On the other hand, he also asserted that there are 50 variables in predicting the weather, which is also absurdly low.
--
Re:Stuff he got wrong in his own story (Score:2)
10 acres of solar panels in Arizona get about 40 Mw/day, if I'm doing the math right; solar panel conversion of 60% = 24Mw over about 10 hours = 2.4Mw available on average. You'd still need a bunch of this to put a dent in the West Coast power shortfall, which is maybe 10,000 Mw capacity right now. The good news is that it is available when needed, during peak cooling needs; the bad news, as he pointed out, is that it takes a lot of space; also that it is not cost effective using historical wholesale electric rates. At the current spot rates, solar should be close to competitive right now. But who is going to build 5000 acres of solar power plant at ~$300/sq meter? That's like 6 billion dollars Wait a second -- that's about what California has had to overpay the producers for power for the last year.
-dB
Chemical removal of hair (Score:2)
Hmm, brings up an interesting point. Did women routinely shave their legs in 1950?
The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that, it's all learned.
Heavy power (Score:2)
Solar power remains marginal. The biggest installations are in the Mojave Desert, and produce 360MW at peak on a really good day. (They're not photovoltaic; they're mirrors focused on oil tubes driving heat engines.) Wind power, though, is doing much better than expected.
Inflation and housing costs (Score:2)
Miss. $5,000 in 1950 was $36,000 in 2000. Most homes in 2000 were in the $80,000 to $120,000 range, often much higher. This was partly due to the use of "expensive" materials alluded to earlier in the article, and also because we still built houses that would last a century or more. Building codes were probably one reason. Another was that a cheaply built house would probably cost more to maintain over its lifetime than a more expensive one.
People still forecast the weather (Score:2)
Hit and Miss. Computers made weather forecasting a lot more accurate, and in 2000 they handled a lot more than fifty variables! But the computers collected the information and provided sophisticated weather models; people still did the bulk of the analysis and prediction. We didn't get the hour-to-hour predictions, either, because the chaos theory that came out of research done in the 1980s proved it would be impossible to do so.
My annotated version of this article (Score:2)
The results are here. [wpcusrgrp.org]
Antibiotics (Score:4)
Hit and Miss. Antibiotics were wildly successful for the four decades following 1950. However, by the 1990s their overuse had resulted in a classic Darwinian selection process taking place within their intended target populations. One by one many bacteria actually became resistant to the antibiotics we were using on them. Ironically, tuberculosis was one of the diseases affected by this phenomenom.
My scorecard on this: hits and misses (Score:5)
Anyways, here's my list. Feel free to update as you see fit
HITS
1. Electric ranges
2. Widespread distribution of natural gas
3. Broad highways
4. Multidecked highways
5. Mercury and argon based street lighting
6. Failure to accept nuclear generated power widely
7. Generation of electricity using nuclear power to heat water
8. Use of nuclear reactors in military vessels
9. Microwave ovens
10. Videoconferencing
11. Shop at home via TV (the Internet)
12. Computer and robotic assisted manufacturing
13. Using computers to analyze weather data
14. Widespread international travel
15. Faster than sound travel
16. Supercities
17. Drop-off in the use of trains for travelling
18. Widespread use of facsimile machines
19. Widespread use of antibiotics
20. Manufacture of drugs from synthetic compounds
21. Recombinant DNA techniques to improve existing drugs
22. Lifespan of 85 years (close: Canadian female life expectancy is 84)
23. Use of equipment to peer inside the body in real-time
24. A cure of cancer being "just around the corner"
25. Use of elecrical devices to gain relief from medical conditions
25. People in 2000 are just as conformist as in 1950
MISSES
1. Airports in the centre of town
2. Lack of pollution
3. Cheap electrical heating
4. Factories burning gas
5. Highways with different decks for different speeds
6. Roads reserved exclusively for business traffic
7. Widespread use of nuclear generating stations in Canada and South America
8. Widespread use of solar power
9. Use of nuclear reactors in civilian passenger cruise ships
10. Use of lightweight metals in large building construction
11. Use of plastics to construct houses
12. One multipurpose unit to handle a home's hot water, heating and cooling
13. Houses that cost $36,000 (year 2000 dollars) and last only 25 years
14. Chemical removal of facial hair
15. Use of plastic plates that decompes at temperatures above 250 F
16. Cleaning plastic waterproof furniture by turning a hose on it
17. Paper tablecloths that are burned after use
18. Loss of culinary skills due to all food being delivered "fresh frozen"
19. Processes to turn wood pulp and sawdust into edible foods
20. Discarded paper linen and rayon underwear turned into candy
21. Videophones in every home
22. Using computers to generate forecasts (people still make the calls)
23. Preventing hurricanes by buring oil on the ocean
24. Not making it to the mooon
25. $36,000 (year 2000 dollars) to fly from Chicago to Paris
26. Rocket powered planes
27. Cars burning denatured alchohol as their primary fuel
28. Family helicopters
29. Ariel busses that hold 200 people for 100 mile commutes to work
30. Easy cures for bacterial diseases such as TB
31. Physical signs of aging no longer apparent
32. Widespread cures for viral diseases
33. Widespread treatments and cures of Parkinson's and Cerebral Palsy
Re:Inflation and housing costs (Score:2)
Steinbeck made a big deal about how trailer houses were going to change the face of the country in "Travels with Charlie". I'm not sure whether they did, but change did happen.
Re:My scorecard on this: hits and misses (Score:2)
Compared to 1950? Again absolutely yes"
We have wiped out some virii from existence through the use of inoculations but we have as of yet to cure any virus.
And if we did find a cure for a virus it would not see the light of day.
Ancient Pharmaceutical Proverb:
Cure a virus get a one-quarter revenue increase.
Treat a symptom and have a sustainable business model.
Re:Virus Cures (Score:2)
Not cured. Everyone who got it died.
Re:Moon landing (Score:2)
"Nobody has yet circumnavigated the moon in a rocket space ship, but the idea is not laughed down."
Some would say this is a big hit -- that we actually never went to the moon.
In 2000, People Have No Personalities! (Score:2)
Obviously they thought the people of the future would have no desire for a warm environment they'd like to call home. The idea of living in an entirely plastic, safe-and-waterproof home sickens me.
At least they didn't mention silver jumpsuits in the article.
But this line is my favorite:
Discarded paper table "linen" and rayon underwear are bought by chemical factories to be converted into candy.
Mmmmm... underwear candy.....
50-year mood swing (Score:4)
The utterly optimistic view of the future.
Everything's supposed to be better, cleaner, tastier, healthier, and more efficient. Nobody's sick, hungry, or homeless (presumably, due to cheap housing).
Nowadays, we look fifty years down the road with dread, anticipating polluted air, nighmarish crime, phenomenal urban and suburban congestion, overpopulation, famine, powerful and overbearing corporations, ubiquitous surveillance, and disastrous climatological changes.
After fifty years, maybe we're just let down. Sure, we can cook a TV dinner in sixty seconds, but is anybody's life really better because of it? We still spend a third of our lives at work, still struggle with mortgages and rents, still eat poorly despite fifty years of accumulated nutritional expertise, still wage war over land and resources, and still wring our hands over social injustice.
Further, it's remarkable how we've clinged to the "old ways" in the face of technological change. Most people probably prefer a cooked-from-scratch meal to a microwaved sawdust-derivative. Millions of Americans still commute to work in their personal autos instead of taking the train or bus. Growing your own vegetables, though often unnecessary, remains an engaging and rewarding pasttime. Often when buying a new home, many people (myself included) will actually look for older, built-to-last homes.
I think that fifty years ago, Americans needed less of this year-2000-fantasy tripe. They (or we or whomever) should have instead paid more attention to the Aldous Huxleys, Ray Bradburys, and George Orwells who cautioned that the future is not necessarily bright and shiny.
Re:Plastic (Score:2)
Re:My scorecard on this: hits and misses (Score:2)
Looks like someone hasn't been reading labels.
14. Chemical removal of facial hair
This is available, though not widely used.
25. $36,000 (year 2000 dollars) to fly from Chicago to Paris
Have you priced a trip on the Concorde?
Re:One thing they got right: (Score:2)
Technology changes, people don't (Score:3)
For example, even if you had "plastic dishes that melted under hot water", it's unlikely you'd be comfortable with having 250 degree water coming out of your faucets. Or that a "telegraph company" can exist that "never makes a mistake, only the sender".
orwellian (Score:2)
Actually... (Score:2)
Although, the chemical to remove hair instead of shaving would be nice. Why hasn't anyone come up with a solution? When Gilette said they were doing "the next big thing" a few years back, I thought they meant a laser-guided (or laser-edged) razor. Instead, they bring a razor with 3 blades. The next innovation: 4!
Re:accuracy? (Score:2)
Men and women 70 years old, look as if they were 40?
Compare a well-to-do American (the only demographic he is concerned with) 70 year old today with 40- and 70- year olds of 1950. In 1950, someone 70 years old was probably on his deathbed. Today, with improved cancer and heart therapies, the advent of sunscreens, plastic surgery, laser vision and skin therapy, artificial joints, the exercise/health booms of the latter century, vastly improved dietary science... In 1990, my grandfather was 70, and was WATERSKIING after three replacement hips and a cancer surgery. No way that could have happened in 1950; he'd have already died. And now we have another 10 years of technology. This prediction certainly hasn't come true for every single person, but many first-world 70's folks do look and act like the 40's, or at least 50's, folks of the 1950.
"Cooking as an art is only a memory in the minds of old people"
Again, not universally, but what fraction of people graduating college today both know how to cook a real meal and do it almost every night? About 50% of american meals are not eaten at home now. And what percent of the remaining ones are accounted for by TV Dinner/rehydrated pasta/di giorno pizza/some other prepared food? Nearly all of it. I consider myself an accomplished cook for my age (27), but even I only make a *real* meal about twice a week. The rest of the time it's a quick batch of spaghetti, papa johns pizza, or just snacks. Very few people really cook much today. EVERYONE cooked ALL THE TIME in 1950, or rather, the housewives did.
I personally think the most interesting failed "prediction" he made was simply an assumption - he assumed the typical family would still have a working husband and a housewife.
And oh, I still shave the normal way
Really? In 1950 a lot of people still used and sharpened their straight razors. Disposables wouldn't hit the markets for another decade, and the few existing electrics sucked. I've shaved with an electric since the very first day I shaved, only using a razor on the few occasions it wasn't available. I may not actually be using a chemical, but it doesn't really take me any longer to shave than what he describes. About a minute, most days.
Wood, brick and stone is too expensive, so we build in something else (poured plastic)?
Actually, stone *is* too expensive for most houses, and brick use is down as well. When we do use stone or even brick anymore, it's frequently decorative over a steel frame rather than truly structural. Wood has managed to stay competitive, largely because it's light and strong, and advanced power tools have made working with wood now even easier than pouring concrete into a form.
But have you noticed how many new houses have tyvek wrappers, advanced polymer insulations that are blown into the walls by fans, polymer carpets, spray-on stucco outer coatings, composite-material fireproof roofing tiles, etc.? Not precisely what he said, but maybe only because we found new materials even better.
Re:My scorecard on this: hits and misses (Score:3)
1. Airports in the center of town
I don't know about your town, but there's one in the center of my town. The city of Burbank developed around the Burbank airport, the San Fernando valley developed around the Van Nuys airport. In fact the number of airports in the L.A. county is staggering. What didn't happen was wide spread use of personal aircraft, and this is a direct result of government control, i.e.: the FAA.
2. Lack of pollution
Though it is true that we have not completely eliminated pollution, there have been many significant strides in pollution control similar to the ones he predicted.
3. Cheap electrical heating
Well there is Seattle which heats almost exclusively with hydroelectrically produced electricity.
4. Factories burning gas
In fact, the majority of our power plants burn gas, clean burning coal or natural gas.
5. Highways with different decks for different speeds
Though the use of multi tiered highways has yet to become common, there are areas where the tiers are used as express lanes, and express lanes themselves as well as carpool lanes are very common.
6. Roads reserved exclusively for business traffic
I believe that what he was referring to as business traffic, was trucks, and there are quite a few dedicated truck routes.
7. Widespread use of nuclear generating stations in Canada and South America
Though nuclear power is outlawed in Canada, the French seem to be willing to sell nuclear power plants to anyone willing to pay for them. There was no way for the gentleman to foresee such disasters as Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, that have dampened the enthusiasm for nuclear power
10. Use of lightweight metals in large building construction
This is actually very common
11. Use of plastics to construct houses
Plastics are heavily used in the construction of prefab housing though not to the extent described
13. Houses that cost $36,000 (year 2000 dollars) and last only 25 years
They're called mobile homes.
14. Chemical removal of facial hair
Hair removal compounds are readily available and in common use, men are just resistant to change.
15. Use of plastic plates that decompose at temperatures above 250 F
There are many manufacturers of biodegradable plastic plates, though why he thought anyone would be willing to dispose of these at home is beyond me.
17. Paper tablecloths that are burned after use
Again very common in areas that allow incineration of waste. 18. Loss of culinary skills due to all food being delivered "fresh frozen"
What, you don't own a microwave? (the industrial ovens he was referring to)
19. Processes to turn wood pulp and sawdust into edible foods
Though work is still going on to utilize the proteins from wood by-products, the FDA does allow a certain percentage of sawdust as filler in ground beef and other products.
21. Videophones in every home
What, you don't own a web cam either?
22. Using computers to generate forecasts (people still make the calls)
Using data compiled and correlated by computers
25. $36,000 (year 2000 dollars) to fly from Chicago to Paris
The price of a ticket on the concord is about $9,000, and I'm sure if you wanted to, you could get it up to $36,000
31. Physical signs of aging no longer apparent
Raquel Welch is over 60, if you can afford it, you can look young
What I think is real telling is his statement that what would prevent many of these things from coming about, would be resistance from corporations who have an interest in outdated technologies (such as the oil companies). He also vastly underestimated the power of computers, but he was basing is projections on existing technologies, and the simi conducter was still a couple years away.
Speaking of the lake..... (Score:2)
The cost for something like a water based one is huge and its not worth the savings in electric bills. I mean who knows how to fix it when something goes wrong. Americancs are very conservative and he mentioned conservatism might be one of the obsticules of these inventions. He is also correct about solar power cars being best only for area's like pheonix or Los Angeles where there is alot of sunshine. However he didn't consider the cost of developing a solar powered car that can be used only in a few selected area's. The 1950's was an amazing time in America. Everyone was just so optimistic about everything. I guess the author assumed economic factors would not make a difference because America would continue to grow and everyone would be happy and wealthy as most people thought back then. I suppose we could easily accomplished all the things the author here mentioned but we do not want to or doesn't make economic sense.
Anyway if anyone is interested, the hotel is the four seasons hotel in Houston that has the water based unit. Basically its a pond with a huge evaporating coils on the side of it. The air-condition is quite effecient. Even when the temp gets up to 95 degree's outside.
250-degree water = steam, no? (Score:4)
Re:Pretty much right on (Score:2)
I give him 100% right on that one. From the vantage point of 1950, a home computer *is* a kind of TV. You know: it has a screen, it gives access to information transmitted remotely, it provides audio and video output. He also gets 100% on the integration of telephone/TV/etc. and teleconferencing (interesting that he expected a separate screen for each participant, though). The fax revival and the decline of the USPS are other good calls.
And I think that some of the other items are closer than they seem at first. For example, the whole thing about disposable and washable items in the house is basically true; and though we don't hose things down, we do have Scotchguard, and we don't have to clean as religiously as we used to. Same thing with cooking: frozen food, microwaves, etc. have pretty much destroyed the traditional home meal.
All in all, quite an interesting read.
More predictions! (Score:4)
He even made a book about the known universe, based on what we wrote in the trilogy. I haven't read it, but I am going to! The book is The Confederation Handbook [amazon.co.uk].
I hightly it!
The Sad Thing Is (Score:2)
They are right-- it is only economic and political interests that keep these things from happening.
You missed his point. (Score:2)
Re:eh? (Score:5)
Naivety always makes me smile. Is "The Future" some event which has passed, has its outcome been thoroughly documented?
Only last weekend I slept under a geodesic dome in the woods of coastal Georgia (U.S., not EurAsia). I briefly contemplated Fuller and his myriad ideas while falling asleep. We don't have the Dymaxion car, the instant houses, the one-cup-of-water showers, let alone his economic visions. How come? Some of his ideas may be actually impossible to bring to fruition, but that is not reason enough. The answer is that society is not ready--not ready to let go of the notion of scarcity of wealth. Fuller's ideas, whether socio-political or mechanical in nature, transcend economics. In his mind, all people are equally valuable and all rightful heirs of the earth and of humanity. Any object he designed shared the same properties: cheap, useful, sustainable, and democratic. These are all anathema to our greed-oriented society, which is tripping over itself in its attempts to consolidate all wealth and power in the hands of a few wealth addicts.
This is from one of my favorite Robert Anton Wilson articles, "Ten Good Reasons to Get out of Bed in the Morning", published in Oui back in 1977 and reprinted in Illuminati Papers [rawilson.com]:
Though Fuller may have failed many a time--by the 'adult' definition of failure--his ideas still inspire and perplex. When the time comes when we have been torn asunder by Treaty-Capitalism, we can begin to save ourselves not only through Fullers inventions, but his shining example of optimism.Ewige Blumenkraft!
I bet he didn't predict this.. (Score:5)
The only statement that cannot be questioned, is that every statement can be questioned.
Big miss: Viagra (Score:2)
Don't forget the tubes! (Score:2)
Let's not forget that nobody uses vaccum tubes in computers anymore. Unless, of course, you're using a Mac. I've looked into one of their more transparent models and seen vaccum tubes!
I saw a better one (Score:2)
Then Jeremy showed us the latest and greatest vauxhall corsa. I burst out laughing.
Re:My scorecard on this: hits and misses (Score:2)
Ugh (Score:2)
Re:Plastic (Score:2)
Re:Moon landing (Score:2)
Re:50-year mood swing (Score:2)
Yeah, I was thinking about all that so I watched Soylent Green again a couple of weeks ago. I'm afraid that the movie could be almost as accurate predicting 2050 as this article's prediction of 2000. (I know the movie is set in 2020, but I doubt it'll be that bad by then.)
Where is my flying car? (Score:2)
Re:I bet he didn't predict this.. (Score:2)
Stuff he got wrong in his own story (Score:5)
"But the process of generating the light is more like that which occurs in the sun. Atoms are bombarded by electrons and other minute projectiles, electrically excited in this way and made to glow."
This could be taken in two ways. Either he's saying the nuclear power that he later goes on to say won't pan out is generating the light, OR he just described the electric light bulb.
"Engineers can do no more than utilize the heat generated by converting uranium into plutonium."
First off, that's not the nuclear process. Secondly, most of the feasable large-scale solar power plant ideas I've seen are also steam plants.
"It was known as early as 1950 that an atomic power plant would have to be larger and much more expensive than a fuel-burning plant to be efficient."
While the fossil fuel power plants of his day may have been "smaller" and "cheaper" than the nuclear power plants, he failed to take into account all the extra stuff you'd need to put into that fossil fuel power plant to clean up the pollution, which he mentioned earlier in the paragraph.
"Because they sprawl over large surfaces, solar engines are profitable in 2000 only where land is cheap."
Why is having a larger power plant such a bad thing for nuclear energy, but not for solar?
After all, by his own words:
"Theoretically, 5000 horsepower in terms of solar heat fall on an acre of the earth's surface every day."
Aside from the fact that he's confusing power and energy, just how many of the coal-burning steam locomotives of his day would be required to match that power output? Do you really think they'd take up anywhere near an acre?
"Many farmhouses in the United States, are heated by solar rays"
And when did farm land become cheap? When it's competing for space with your corn and soy crops, it ain't cheap.
But the really confusing part, though, after dogging on nuclear power, stating that it is both inefficient and expensive...
"The first successful atomically driven liners began to run in 1970 after the U. S. Navy had carried on many expensive, large-scale secret experiments."
Sounds like a total about-face to me. I'm not gonna rag on him for not realizing that it's not all that easy to hide the fact that a ship is nuclear powered (nearly no stacks, no fuel stops, new shore-based infrastructure), but after going on and on about how solar and fossil fuel power is better, why go nuclear for shipping?
Besides, why worry about passenger liners when the suburb of the future is built around an airport?
"The Dobson house has light-metal walls only four inches thick."
I have two words for this: Thermal expansion. Sure, you could air-condition the heck out of the interior of that tin box, but you're not going to stop the house from digging divots in the lawn as it expands in the summer heat.
"Though it is galeproof and weatherproof, it is built to last only about 25 years. Nobody in 2000 sees any sense in building a house that will last a century."
If it will only last 25 years, how can you say it's weather-proof? Houses that last centuries do so because they are weatherproof.
"Jane Dobson throws soiled "linen" in the incinerator."
That will really help the air pollution problem...
"In eight seconds a half-grilled frozen steak is thawed;"
I thought we were talking about miracles of technology here, not physics. :)
"In the middle of the 20th century statisticians were predicting that the world would starve to death because the population was increasing more rapidly than the food supply."
I'm curious about these numbers, because as it stands now, we have more than enough food to feed everybody. The trick is getting it from point A to point B.
"Thus sawdust and wood pulp are converted into sugary foods."
Ready for the $50,000 question? If everything is made out of paper, and homes are made out of metal and plastic... where's all this sawdust coming from? Wood pulp in this futuristic vision would be too valuable to the paper industry (for cloths and computer punch-cards) that sawdust probably wouldn't be quite so available for other things.
"Before (the hurricane) has a chance to gather much strength and speed as it travels westward toward Florida, oil is spread over the sea and ignited. There is an updraft. Air from the surrounding region, which includes the developing hurricane, rushes in to fill the void. The rising air condenses so that some of the water in the whirling mass falls as rain."
Aside from the pollution issues, if you have oil that burns that hot, who needs nuclear power? Or is this the same "unobtanium" that's used to thaw those steaks earlier?
Besides, he seems to have forgotten that the gulf stream that pulls the hurricane towards North America would also pull the flaming oil slick as well. In order to get it to work, you'd pretty much have to put the oil down while the hurricane is raging overhead. Playing with extremely flammable oil in the middle of a tropical depression at best. Any volunteers?
And another hole in his idea, what would an up-draft do to stop a hurricane? It's already a gigantic vacuum cleaner (where do you think storm swells come from?). Sure, if the oil burns hot enough, the air directly over the oil will expand to help fill up the low-pressure system, but to get it to expand enough to stop that hurricane, you'll still need oil that violates a thermodynamic law or two.
"Nobody has yet circumnavigated the moon in a rocket space ship, but the idea is not laughed down."
I dunno, maybe it's the whole "hindsight is 20/20" thing, but how could anybody that's seen what a V-2 could do in WWII not believe that it would be possible to get to the moon by the end of the century?
"Instead of taking electrocardiographs, doctors place heart patients in front of a fluoroscopic screen, turn on the X-rays and then, with the aid of a photoelectric cell, examine every section of the heart"
Aside from the fact that their patients would glow in the dark in no time flat, why does he think that X-rays would go through some soft tissue (skin), but not others (heart)? X-rays are only reflected by bone, just like we've known about for over a century.
"Any marked departure from what Joe Dobson and his fellow citizens wear and eat and how they amuse themselves will arouse comment."
"If old Mrs. Underwood, who lives around the corner from the Dobsons and who was born in 1920 insists on sleeping under an old-fashioned comforter instead of an aerogel blanket of glass puffed with air so that it is as light as thistledown she must expect people to talk about her "queerness.""
I guess they didn't know just how itchy fiberglass was back then.
"And after all, is the standardization of life to be deplored if we can have a house like Joe Dobson's, a standardized helicopter, luxurious standardized household appointments,"
Now I'm wondering if this guy ever had to testify before the House UnAmerican Activities Comittee. "Everybody has exactly the same things" sounds an awful lot like the ol' "worker's paradise."
"and food that was out of the reach of any Roman emperor?"
Ancient Rome didn't have sawdust?
One thing they got right: (Score:3)
Discarded paper table "linen" and rayon underwear are bought by chemical factories to be converted into candy.
--