[MLUG - DISCUSSION] predicting the future

[Mike Miller <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

On 60 Minutes yesterday, Andy Rooney got out an old tape of a show CBS had 
made in 1986 predicting what the world would be like in 2001.  They were 
pretty much wrong about everything.  Populations didn't grow as fast as 
expected and we didn't cure cancer or mental illness.

A few weeks ago I watched "Soylent Green" and "Blade Runner."  Both take 
place in the future -- in the 2020s or 2010s -- not too far into our 
future, so I think it's pretty clear that they were both way off.  Why?

People seem to expect faster change in some variables than is reasonable. 
For example, homes built today will probably still be standing in 100 
years or more, so we shouldn't expect cities to look all that different in 
only 50 years.  Filmmakers can only show us what they can imagine and have 
the technology to display.  So, the computers of the "future" as shown in 
the 1970s and 1980s were really, really lame by today's standards. 
You'll get a kick out of the computer game in "Soylent Green."

I think our predictions about technology are driven partly by people who 
exaggerate because they are paid to do so.  Ask a scientist what wonderful 
things he might accomplish with a $10 million grant and he will tell you 
that he might cure cancer and the common cold.  Or he might not, but he 
won't tell you that.  So there is a tendency to be overly optimistic about 
future developments in medicine.

I also watched "The Andromeda Strain."  That movie doesn't take place in 
the future, but it uses a lot of special effects.  Back then, the computer 
images they were showing were astounding.  Today they seem like nothing. 
The movie is very boring to today's audience, but in 1971 it was a lot 
more interesting.  I can't recommend it my teenage son, but I remember 
that I really liked it when I was a teenager.

Mike

_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion