Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] predicting the future

[Michael <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

I think social change happens slower than technological change. We could 
have cured cancer or mental illness by now. I'd even say we should have 
cured these by now. The primary reasons we haven't is that we, as a 
society, haven't committed the resources needed. Problems such as 
litigation issues, religious issues, government red tape, and just plain 
lack of funding has kept important science from being done. It's not 
that we've stopped working on these things - we just haven't committed 
to making happen what needs to happen. Look at the difference in our 
space program today than it was in the Apollo age. It's a lack of 
motivation and interest more than anything.
> 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.


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