Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] predicting the future

[Rick <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

Mike Miller wrote:
> 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?

Are we really that far away from Blade Runner? Granted, we can't seem to 
stop killing each other long enough to develop decent space-based 
technology, but neither huge multinational corporations that essentially 
carry their own sovereignty nor flying cars are really that far off...


> 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.

When it comes to predicting future innovations, I think your best bet is 
to figure out what will make someone money. Is there any money in a cure 
for cancer? Probably a little, but it makes a lot more sense, 
financially anyway, to treat cancer. That way you grow your revenue 
stream instead of eliminating it.

While I agree with those that would say this is a very cynical way of 
looking at it, I also think that the companies spending billions on 
pharmaceutical R&D are thinking the exact same thing. The only way I see 
someone actually discovering and sharing a cure for cancer is if it's 
from a university setting where the motives are somewhat different.

> 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

I've never heard "The Andromeda Strain" special effects described as all 
that spectacular. I have, however, always considered it as a higher 
level sci-fi flick (vs the stuff blowing up in space caliber) similar to 
2001 or Clockwork Orange.

--
We simply can't idiot-proof everything. Sometimes the idiots just have 
to suffer and die.
--http://www.overheardintheoffice.com/

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