Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] predicting the future

[Stephen Montgomery-Smith <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

I believe that the reason why we haven't yet found the cure for cancer 
or mental illness is because these are extraordinarily difficult 
problems to solve.  I for one am very impressed by how far we have come.


Michael wrote:
> 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


--

Stephen Montgomery-Smith
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://www.math.missouri.edu/~stephen

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