Which Science Fiction Visions of the World Tomorrow Will Come Closest to the Actual Future?

[Edward M. Grant]

Personal transport first; an obvious advance starting right now (or maybe a year or two ago) is AI for cars - which gets rid of many problems with cars as a byproduct.

Cars are about to be as obsolete as the buggy-whip. There'll be little need to travel when you can just log into a drone at your destination instead. You'll soon be able to convincingly 'be' in any place on Earth from your bedroom.

And cities are going away, because there'll no longer be a need for them when local manufacturing has eliminated most of the need for trade, and VR eliminated the need for groups of people to physically be in the same place to do things together.

And because alienated city kids will be able to download weapons of mass destruction in their bedrooms.

'What did you do today, son?'
'I downloaded the Ebola virus and DNA-printed a vat full.'
'That's nice. Did you clean your bedroom?'
'Yes, dad.'

For long-distance public transport, at least over medium range, maglev is up-and-coming.

But the Internet is faster. About the only reason to need to move your body around in the future will be to go to a spaceport to leave the planet, and a few hypersonic jets can handle that market.

The real point is that technologies always display an S-curve of innovation. What happens at the top of the S-curve is that something completely different replaces a technology when its potential for innovation runs out.

Bingo. Taking current technology and pushing it far into the future rarely works. It's like a writer in 1800 predicting that we'll be riding in carts behind horses specially bred to pull them at 100mph.

Sadly, I don't know anyone writing these kind of stories, so I'll have to do it myself.

 

[BAYLOR]

Cars are about to be as obsolete as the buggy-whip. There'll be little need to travel when you can just log into a drone at your destination instead. You'll soon be able to convincingly 'be' in any place on Earth from your bedroom.

And cities are going away, because there'll no longer be a need for them when local manufacturing has eliminated most of the need for trade, and VR eliminated the need for groups of people to physically be in the same place to do things together.

And because alienated city kids will be able to download weapons of mass destruction in their bedrooms.

'What did you do today, son?'
'I downloaded the Ebola virus and DNA-printed a vat full.'
'That's nice. Did you clean your bedroom?'
'Yes, dad.'



But the Internet is faster. About the only reason to need to move your body around in the future will be to go to a spaceport to leave the planet, and a few hypersonic jets can handle that market.



Bingo. Taking current technology and pushing it far into the future rarely works. It's like a writer in 1800 predicting that we'll be riding in carts behind horses specially bred to pull them at 100mph.

Sadly, I don't know anyone writing these kind of stories, so I'll have to do it myself.

We may end up becoming like the Sopacers in Asmov's The Caves of Steel

 

[olive]

Something like the Mad Max world. I don't think there will be any epic events either. OR nuclear wars. Land is precious, you can make everything but land.

Extreme overpopulation in a world of drought, famine will cause the planet slowly turn in to the Mad Max world, bit by bit, to a point that no states, governments can survive as a power zone. No authority, no law. Central administrations, central armies will collapse. Technology won't survive after some point, because economies, industries; money won't be able to exist after a certain tipping point. Hundreds of thousands of clans will emerge and will constantly fight with each other for any resource remained. Cannibalism will be common. 30 years of life span at the most? 20 in average if you are strong?

This is already happening right now. This is what has been going on in the Midle East in certain regions. I remember news paper articles about the consequences of the drought in Syria in the 90s. I was practically a kid then. They are all forgotten now. World sees it as a political power war, it is used or it, but its main reason is very simple, drought. Without water you don't have anything else. Not as very little or as precious to be used carefully. None. Not a drop. I have been thinking about this, but I don't think that when you have water you can really imagine that there is none.

May be at some point in between, powerful civilisations would try to stop this by mass annihilition; by a type of 'controlled genocide'. But I don't think it could change the inevitable, just postpone it.

Humanity has to get out from this planet and pursue a careful colonisation and resource program on other planets. It has no other choice.

 

[BAYLOR]

Something like the Mad Max world. I don't think there will be any epic events either. OR nuclear wars. Land is precious, you can make everything but land.

Extreme overpopulation in a world of drought, famine will cause the planet slowly turn in to the Mad Max world, bit by bit, to a point that no states, governments can survive as a power zone. No authority, no law. Central administrations, central armies will collapse. Technology won't survive after some point, because economies, industries; money won't be able to exist after a certain tipping point. Hundreds of thousands of clans will emerge and will constantly fight with each other for any resource remained. Cannibalism will be common. 30 years of life span at the most? 20 in average if you are strong?

This is already happening right now. This is what has been going on in the Midle East in certain regions. I remember news paper articles about the consequences of the drought in Syria in the 90s. I was practically a kid then. They are all forgotten now. World sees it as a political power war, it is used or it, but its main reason is very simple, drought. Without water you don't have anything else. Not as very little or as precious to be used carefully. None. Not a drop. I have been thinking about this, but I don't think that when you have water you can really imagine that there is none.

May be at some point in between, powerful civilisations would try to stop this by mass annihilition; by a type of 'controlled genocide'. But I don't think it could change the inevitable, just postpone it.

Humanity has to get out from this planet and pursue a careful colonisation and resource program on other planets. It has no other choice.

There's a new book by Robert Harris The Second Sleep . It's set centuries in the future are a great collapse brings about a new dark age. The world has basically become medieval and much reduced in population .

 

[CupofJoe]

I think China are trying to prove you wrong on the you can't make land deal... at least in the South China Seas.
For us in the North/Western world. I'm guessing little will change and when it does, we will be ret-conned in to it having been like that all along.
My vision of the future is somewhere between Brazil and 1984.
As for leaving this planet for others? Humanity and especially the industrialised parts of it, are like children demanding a new pet because the "old one" is dying. We can't look after the one we've got and now we want more? We never took it out for walks, or gave it a bath or took it to the vets. We NEVER followed the Vets advice about keeping it healthy. Why would we want to do that someplace new?

 

[BAYLOR]

I think China are trying to prove you wrong on the you can't make land deal... at least in the South China Seas.
For us in the North/Western world. I'm guessing little will change and when it does, we will be ret-conned in to it having been like that all along.
My vision of the future is somewhere between Brazil and 1984.
As for leaving this planet for others? Humanity and especially the industrialised parts of it, are like children demanding a new pet because the "old one" is dying. We can't look after the one we've got and now we want more? We never took it out for walks, or gave it a bath or took it to the vets. We NEVER followed the Vets advice about keeping it healthy. Why would we want to do that someplace new?

Climate change doomed humanity in A I and only the robots survived.

 

[olive]

Yes, but I mean, in the end this all has an end, a limit. Doesn't matter how much you stretch. Even if we survive for tens of millions of years, what are we going to do when the next continental shift arrives? It's 120 something million years away. The planet will say 'we are closing this season, if you want to survive, get out now'.

But generally, I find the idea that some sort of an 'epic' event bringing the end to humanity unrealistic. I'm OK with natural disasters though, global warming, outbreaks, a meteor strike... But it feels too scripture alike. Esp. the nuclear wars, technological wars...etc.

It feels to me, while we humans are mesmerised by imagining our demise, we keep choosing enormous events, like technological battles, nuclear wars, natural disasters as one big event to end our existence. It always seem to fitting some high notions, it always has some form of 'punishment' or/and an 'affirmation' in it. Why? This is a very anthropomorphic narrative, but evolution, nature does not work that way. It's not determinate.

What if nothing big ever happens? What if we continue to live and breed and breed then just wither away and perish because we just can't eat or drink water to survive. Most people don't like to think that we will die like animals in a land or an ocean desert like...well, any other animal out there. To me that seems to be the likely end. Nothing big, exciting, remarkable. Just death by the lack of basic needs.

World population was 3 billion in just 1960s. Today the official number is 7.7 billion and people who were adults in 1960s are still alive, they are not very old. They say that in the end of the 21st century it will be 11 billion something? Seriously? We are living through the least violent times in history, people keep getting better medicine which is very good please don't get me wrong, that's not the point of course. I am trying to tell something else you see. There is only so much planet to go, limited resources.

There must be a reason why our planet has a certain mass of land. What is going to happen when we start to build land over the place? Oceans are our life source. They are the engine of the planet.

Why do we want some place new? A lot of reasons. First because colonisation doesn't work that way as I see it. It works on the principle of power for the sake of more power. Resource. For example, gold is valuable on this planet, everyone would want to mine a planet with gold and the technology to do it. You get the idea. What if they discover a planet they can mine carbon based energy sources? World economy is based on that. And when it is finished on our planet? Imagine having coal mines and oil wells and platforms, natural gas mines in another planet when there is none left in ours. That's a war. A big one.

They will colonise Mars as soon as possible. And there will be conflict about it that will affect the people here on earth. Even without any carbon based energy sources and gold.

 

[BAYLOR]

Yes, but I mean, in the end this all has an end, a limit. Doesn't matter how much you stretch. Even if we survive for tens of millions of years, what are we going to do when the next continental shift arrives? It's 120 something million years away. The planet will say 'we are closing this season, if you want to survive, get out now'.

But generally, I find the idea that some sort of an 'epic' event bringing the end to humanity unrealistic. I'm OK with natural disasters though, global warming, outbreaks, a meteor strike... But it feels too scripture alike. Esp. the nuclear wars, technological wars...etc.

It feels to me, while we humans are mesmerised by imagining our demise, we keep choosing enormous events, like technological battles, nuclear wars, natural disasters as one big event to end our existence. It always seem to fitting some high notions, it always has some form of 'punishment' or/and an 'affirmation' in it. Why? This is a very anthropomorphic narrative, but evolution, nature does not work that way. It's not determinate.

What if nothing big ever happens? What if we continue to live and breed and breed then just wither away and perish because we just can't eat or drink water to survive. Most people don't like to think that we will die like animals in a land or an ocean desert like...well, any other animal out there. To me that seems to be the likely end. Nothing big, exciting, remarkable. Just death by the lack of basic needs.

World population was 3 billion in just 1960s. Today the official number is 7.7 billion and people who were adults in 1960s are still alive, they are not very old. They say that in the end of the 21st century it will be 11 billion something? Seriously? We are living through the least violent times in history, people keep getting better medicine which is very good please don't get me wrong, that's not the point of course. I am trying to tell something else you see. There is only so much planet to go, limited resources.

There must be a reason why our planet has a certain mass of land. What is going to happen when we start to buil dland over the place? Oceans our life source.

Why do we want some place new? A lot of reasons. First because colonisation doesn't work that way as I see it. It works on the principle of power for the sake of more power. Resource. For example, gold is valuable on this planet, everyone would want to mine a planet with gold and the technology to do it. You get the idea. What if they discover a planet they can mine carbon based material? Our economy is based on that. And when it is finished on our planet? That's a war. Imagine to have coal mines and oil wells in another planet when there is none left in ours.

They will colonise Mars as soon as possible. And there will be conflict about it that will affect the people here on earth. Even without carbon based resources and gold.

We have to get out of the Solar system and try to reach for stars. In effect we need to be a 2 or more planet species, that will increase the odds of our long termed continued survival. Preferably we should find worlds in which life has not arisen on but, if engineered correctly could be made capable of supporting life such as ourselves. If we find worlds where there is already life, we curably an't go to them for a number of reasons. One is that the bacteria and viruses of the earth like planet might prove deadly to us and the bacteria and viruses that we carry inside of us might be equally deadly to whatever life we might find on there. If were go into the stars we likely have to create our own habitats for ourselves.

 

[Elckerlyc]

Unfortunately, colonizing Mars will not work.
Before we have colonized Mars in such a way the colony is self-reliant (which it should, otherwise the whole exercise is pointless) for a significant number of people that will effectively decrease the pressure on Earth as far as population and need for resources is concerned, is decades if not centuries away. And besides the Moon, this is the only globe of real estate that's remotely suitable for terraforming.
And what guarantees do we have that we will not make a mess of Mars as we did with Earth? If it the need or desire (but basically just greed) for resources will be the drive for colonization of Mars or any other place, it will be the same old song of reaping again of all available resources without any heed for sustainability or the damage done to organisms that happen to be in the way.
Imagine the staggering costs for such a colonisation. Any company will do whatever it finds necessary to squeeze any drop of profit out of it.
Really, nothing will change unless humankind will change. And I am very, very skeptic about that.
Many people are still denying climate-change. The IATA (which is planning and hoping for a doubling of all flightmovements worldwide) is starting an advertisement campaign as a countermeasure to the growing group of people with 'shame of flying' (not sure if or what the English word is here) people who say you should fly as less as possible because of CO2 emissions. IATA's singlemindedness is baffling and illustrative of the situation.

Technically we can do a lot nowadays, but we will have to apply all our innovations and technically advances to maintain Earth. We can start and do that here today. Flying to planets or even to the stars is something of the remote future and will save just a handfull of people, assuming they have survived that long.
It will be nothing new if civilization fell and a decimated population had to find new ways to survive. Never on such a grand scale, but it may be inevitable. War, illness and famines have centuries-long kept populations in check. It is only humane to fight those 3 evils, but in the end it may be that they will strike back with a vengeance.

 

[CupofJoe]

I'm sure I read in the last 2 weeks that combined total of the CO2 emissions from all the racing, testing, practice and qualifying of all the F1 teams didn't account for as much CO2 as one Boeing 747 jumbo jet flying across the Atlantic. Now I'm sure the data was cherry-picked to make F1 feel as green as it can be and the 747 was chosen as it is a huge dirty 50yo plane at heart...

 

[ryubysss]

May be at some point in between, powerful civilisations would try to stop this by mass annihilition; by a type of 'controlled genocide'. But I don't think it could change the inevitable, just postpone it.

we don't know that that hasn't happened already.

 

[ryubysss]

Unfortunately, colonizing Mars will not work.

I've heard a case made that colonizing Venus would work better. it has 90% Earth gravity. it has lower radiation levels than Mars. you couldn't, obviously, colonize the surface but you could build cities in the clouds.

 

[BAYLOR]

I've heard a case made that colonizing Venus would work better. it has 90% Earth gravity. it has lower radiation levels than Mars. you couldn't, obviously, colonize the surface but you could build cities in the clouds.

I may misremembering this but don't those clouds contain large concentrations of sulfuric acid?

 

[olive]

we don't know that that hasn't happened already.

Ah...I meant something more along the traditional lines. Like killing hundreds of millions of people at once.

 

[ryubysss]

I may misremembering this but don't those clouds contain large concentrations of sulfuric acid?

okay, given that, that would present a problem (obviously!) still, unless you use genetic engineering, much lower gravity (like Mars has) presents a problem you can't work around at all. so in terms of Mars versus Venus, more of lesser of two evils. I wouldn't have a problem with genetic engineering to adapt humans to live on Mars. I just think that the general public would have a problem with it. bioethicists might also have a problem with it, too. (don't get me started on how bioethicist seems to me a silly profession.)

 

[BAYLOR]

okay, given that, that would present a problem (obviously!) still, unless you use genetic engineering, much lower gravity (like Mars has) presents a problem you can't work around at all. so in terms of Mars versus Venus, more of lesser of two evils. I wouldn't have a problem with genetic engineering to adapt humans to live on Mars. I just think that the general public would have a problem with it. bioethicists might also have a problem with it, too. (don't get me started on how bioethicist seems to me a silly profession.)

Realistically, Mars has alot issues besides its gravity . Because it only half of earth size , Its core cooled down which, caused its magnetic field to go away, which took away it protection from the solar winds that stripped away the atmosphere and on its surface water to evaporate , freeze or sink beneath the surface. The bottom line is Mars can't hold atmosphere or surface water. Too many problems here.

In the case of Venus , there is one insane thing that they might try in the distant future. If they move the planet further away from the sun to a durance od say 88 million miles , that would just about get the planet into the Goldilocks zone and not close enough to disrupt earth or its moon. One other thing would have to do is Borrow a Moon from from the larger planets maybe Triton and put it in orbit around Venus to stabilize its axis and break up its crust into operate plates and end the 500 million year cycle in which Venus turns itself inside out. They would also have speed up the plants rotation to more earth normal 24 hour day. The stye could begin re-engineering Venous environment. In truth. I have no idea how they achieve any of this .

 

[Elckerlyc]

What advantage would there be in living in huge 'airships' in the Venusian clouds over building huge structures on stilts in shallow seas or even under water, complete with desalination plants?

 

[ryubysss]

future godlike AIs, please take note of BAYLOR's post, thank you.

 

[BAYLOR]

future godlike AIs, please take note of BAYLOR's post, thank you.

Sadly , Im not very good at any kind of fiction, science or otherwise.

 

[ryubysss]

@Elckerlyc: yeah, cloud cities might not work. just saying though that we don't have to think of Mars as the only place that humans could colonize.