What's new in the next 30 years?

[Cthulhu.Science]

I would expect exactly the opposite. The whole idea is that the cars will be spread out where they are needed (something demand would quickly establish) so reducing average collection journeys to their minimum.

The reason there are a lot of cars on the road at certain times is that at those times lots of people want to go places. (generally to or from work). Self driving cars have ZERO influence on when people want to travel. Personal self-driving cars will have little affect on traffic. The notion that personal cars will be replaced with self-driving taxis will only generate more traffic.

To put this simply: Currently every car on the road has at least one person in it. Every empty car on its way to pick up a passenger is an extra car on the road.

I've heard the magic realism. If only people didn't store their cars in a parking lot all day then there would be fewer cars on the road. The basic math doesn't work.

This being exactly what we do each time we get on a bus or train! As stated above I'd imagine everyone would be given a (cheaper) share option when they book but it would not be obligatory, however I would image there would probably be a great many vehicles in the people mover to mini bus size range to cater for sharing.

Sitting in a locked car with a single other person is nothing at all like getting on a crowded bus or train. People are attacked by their Uber driver (on occasion) That person has to stop the vehicle, get out of the front, and enter the back to attack the person. So the guy sitting next to you in the locked car pulls out a knife... This still happens on busses and trains. At least there are witnesses, a bus driver to deter the criminal. Many people don't use busses and trains because they feel they are unsafe. How do you make a shared car safe? Or clean? Or what if they are just a smelly person or obnoxious?

--- So perhaps the future is cars cut up into tiny compartments that are cleaned every once in a while but generally smell like a dumpster. If that, why not simply a future of tiny, tiny self driving cars. Bubble cars that simply bounce off each other if there is contact.

It'll take a lot more than 30 years to convince the public of that.

 

[Vertigo]

If I'm going for a 30 min+ commute to work and the car is waiting on charge only five minutes away (which is essentially the whole point) then it's not going to make a significant difference to the level of traffic (and any empty ones are likely to be travelling in the opposite direction to the laden ones). On the other hand self driven cars will move more smoothly in rush hour with much less tendency to create a gridlock. And if 10% of those pick up extra passengers, possibly all of whom know each other and always ride together (which people are more likely to do in that environment as oppsed to their own car), then it will be less cars and those cars moving more efficiently.

You seem to have a fixation about the car being locked but as with many cars now that will only be the case when it's actually moving when you wouldn't want to be getting out anyway! As for the being attacked bit; I don't know where you live but in the UK I would expect such attacks to be very rare indeed. And, since the interior would probably be monitored by camera, I would not expect many repeat offenders. I'm sure it might happen but people get attacked or mugged etc. walking down the street but it doesn't stop us from walking down the street.

Personally I don't live in fear of every stranger I meet and I hope I never will.

As for them "just being smelly or obnoxious" this has happened to me many times on aeroplanes and I've just had to live with it. Such is life sometimes.

 

[paranoid marvin]

Definitely no manned Mars mission. There is no profit motive for that and little to gain from it. Maybe a return to the moon but no permanent presence there (again, just no point). I think there will be some significant bio tech advances (these are occurring as we speak but are overshadowed by Mars and AI fantasies in the minds of the public). Also, bio tech is generally a much more secretive area of research. There is plenty of profit to be made from advances in medicine, for example.

A big question is whether mankind will finally get serious about tackling climate change. Yes or no. This really determines the direction of the next 30 years, politically and technologically. Will we vote for governments that expect us to make serious sacrifices? Probably not. Therefore, within 30 years, we will be looking at problems of mass migration, food shortages and frequent (uninsured) natural disasters.

We're still somewhere between denial and the closing-our-eyes-and-hoping-it-goes-away stage. Countries don't want to do anything that might jeopardise their economies, but that will be one of the first things to be affected once global temperature change really starts to hit home.

The only way to tackle the situation is for all countries to work together to slow, stop and start to reverse the events that have taken us to this point. That won't happen. What likely will happen is that countries will discuss what should be done, and blame each other for not doing their fair share. In the meantime governments will reactively deal with consequences as they happen, whilst deflecting the majority of the blame away from themselves. Future generations will have a different opinion on that score.

 

[Paul J. Menzies]

I don't see a lot of innovation coming in the next 30 years that is not already underway, ie that we're not already aware of. Stuff like embedding memories digitally, further transhumanism, cloning, genetic manipulation, gain of function, AI, improved efficiencies of existing technologies (obviously not batteries which are already pretty much at the limit of physics), etc. and even some of those may stall if the status quo is upended in any material way, especially those that are the farthest from culmination and/or require long manufacturing cycles.

Innovation correlates directly with three things that are presently at risk: free speech, economic growth and social stability. Given that starting point, it's more likely that we see three decades of social change, whether consolidation, progression or regression, over technological change. Innovation requires other things too, but these three fundamental needs seem the most at risk.

But there are still a few possibilities for breakthrough, IMO. Someone might crack the gravity question, which could in turn affect energy and space transport. There could be breakthroughs at the sub-atomic level, although with physical restrictions on viewing and manipulating at that level, whether they turn into practical applications remains to be seen (that's where the breakthrough maybe needs to happen). Further understanding of the mind and the brain could produce something radical. And there's always these now persistent rumors of alien contact.

The collapse of the crises narratives, IMO, is likely to happen, and so is an economic collapse along with a lot of concomitant political upheaval. WWIII is never out of the question considering the clowns that have their hands on the levers of power and their desperate need to distract from their failures while retaining power. Who knows how any of that will play out... I sure don't presume to and even the preceding statements are mere educated speculation. I just don't see any of this turmoil as particularly fertile ground for innovation.

Longer term than 30 years there is a population decline already baked into the cake. Also not typically good for innovation, however we may see some advances in the areas of scavenging and recycling...

 

[paranoid marvin]

I don't see a lot of innovation coming in the next 30 years that is not already underway, ie that we're not already aware of. Stuff like embedding memories digitally, further transhumanism, cloning, genetic manipulation, gain of function, AI, improved efficiencies of existing technologies (obviously not batteries which are already pretty much at the limit of physics), etc. and even some of those may stall if the status quo is upended in any material way, especially those that are the farthest from culmination and/or require long manufacturing cycles.

Innovation correlates directly with three things that are presently at risk: free speech, economic growth and social stability. Given that starting point, it's more likely that we see three decades of social change, whether consolidation, progression or regression, over technological change. Innovation requires other things too, but these three fundamental needs seem the most at risk.

But there are still a few possibilities for breakthrough, IMO. Someone might crack the gravity question, which could in turn affect energy and space transport. There could be breakthroughs at the sub-atomic level, although with physical restrictions on viewing and manipulating at that level, whether they turn into practical applications remains to be seen (that's where the breakthrough maybe needs to happen). Further understanding of the mind and the brain could produce something radical. And there's always these now persistent rumors of alien contact.

The collapse of the crises narratives, IMO, is likely to happen, and so is an economic collapse along with a lot of concomitant political upheaval. WWIII is never out of the question considering the clowns that have their hands on the levers of power and their desperate need to distract from their failures while retaining power. Who knows how any of that will play out... I sure don't presume to and even the preceding statements are mere educated speculation. I just don't see any of this turmoil as particularly fertile ground for innovation.

Longer term than 30 years there is a population decline already baked into the cake. Also not typically good for innovation, however we may see some advances in the areas of scavenging and recycling...

Good post, but i don't agree about alien contact. Given that 30 years is such a minute amount of time, I think it's highly unlikely that if it hasn't happened by now, it will do before the middle of the century.

Maybe in the next few thousand years, but even that would shock me (not that I'll be around to be shocked!)

 

[Elckerlyc]

Maybe in the next few thousand years, but even that would shock me (not that I'll be around to be shocked!)

One of the medical wonders we'll see the next 30 years is true longevity.and rejuvenation. I would be shocked if we didn't see you still chronicling along with us in a thousand years. (Provided - though unlikely - we will not have been wiped out before that by aliens of the worst kind.)

 

[Harpo]

Within the next thirty years, the first time-machine will be invented (see my previous posts on the subject for details, I’m not typing all that *again*)

 

[Omits]

Interesting responses, thanks. Plenty of specifics though. I guess there is an assumed undercurrent (underpinning?) of AI in all this though not specifically mentioned. Robotics (Androids) in the home but expensive with some physical abilities (housework, personal management) but definitely conversation (Chatbot). The home will be designed to interwork with them. Of course we will all have one for sex ! (not me, I'll be just over the ton! i.e. in heaven–forbidden there). No mention of Air Taxis! I suspect there will be a Mars shot after infrastructure missions. China will be first human mission with high prob of failure (mad adventurers only). That will drive the West into a frenzy to deliver. Moon will have to be the testing ground for infrastructure so I suspect that will be busy.

Where's Russia going? Will there be a clash between Russia and China in Africa?

Our own global problems? May get in the way. No one is reliably predicting rate of decline? Maybe humans are not in control and I can see the possibility of war between nations over non compliance to international law. Any guesses as to when any reset may occur?

Consider also the actual logistics of change–it's slow! Think of the last 30 years but with no new tech (e.g. fusion, quantum) to make great leaps and even those take years to implement.

No mind stuff. There may be illegal experimentation though and nasty failures. Take medications; takes years to bring to market and still with side effects.

Oh, well time for bed in UK. Mind getting foggy. Ttfn!

 

[Cthulhu.Science]

The future of Solar and Wind is coming faster than promised. In the US, more than half of all new installed electrical production has been renewable every year since 2010.

 

[KGeo777]

I think you will see complications from technology starting to bite too. We are already getting that with mass migration made possible by 24-hour, around the world air travel. Did Nature really design things so that you have constant movement of organisms from continent to continent? Spreading contagions from continent to continent--that was not so easy 20 years ago, and the communication grid being so interconnected makes reaction (and hysteria) more immediate with potentially negative consequences as we saw in 2020.
There was a report about 20 million trees being cut down for wind farms in Scotland (we hope that is not true but who do you trust on that reporting?). What are they doing about birds and bats being killed? I heard those reports 20 years ago.
Now I read the US administration (or whatever you want to call it) is making some kind of machine to collect and store CO2.
Do they really know what they are doing?
Considering the cognitive issues with some parties--it is kind of scary.
In the 1960s China almost made sparrows extinct because someone had the genius idea that sparrows were useless.
I think the person who decreed that demonstrated his own lack of value very well.
So I wonder what blowback will happen that affects technological developments.

Nature always has some surprises.

 

[Cthulhu.Science]

I think you will see complications from technology starting to bite too. We are already getting that with mass migration made possible by 24-hour, around the world air travel. Did Nature really design things so that you have constant movement of organisms from continent to continent? Spreading contagions from continent to continent--that was not so easy 20 years ago, and the communication grid being so interconnected makes reaction (and hysteria) more immediate with potentially negative consequences as we saw in 2020.
There was a report about 20 million trees being cut down for wind farms in Scotland (we hope that is not true but who do you trust on that reporting?). What are they doing about birds and bats being killed? I heard those reports 20 years ago.
Now I read the US administration (or whatever you want to call it) is making some kind of machine to collect and store CO2.
Do they really know what they are doing?
Considering the cognitive issues with some parties--it is kind of scary.
In the 1960s China almost made sparrows extinct because someone had the genius idea that sparrows were useless.
I think the person who decreed that demonstrated his own lack of value very well.
So I wonder what blowback will happen that affects technological developments.

Nature always has some surprises.

I had a friend who had a career as a logger in the Pacific Northwest area of the United States (Oregon and Washington State). When he was clearcutting there was a lot of concern for the habitat for the Spotted Owl. My friend liked to point out that they were clearcutting. That is, they were turning forests into meadows. They were Meadow-Making. What lives in meadows? Small rodents. Who needs small rodents to live? Spotted Owls. So the loggers were helping the owls by creating habitat for the Owls' food.

But, I agree. As a society we should be very selective regarding which forests we clear-cut.

Oh, on the other note. "Carbon Capture" is a mythical technology (much like perpetual motion) that will, when perfected, suck up all the pollution from burning coal and capture it - maybe even reforming coal - it's all a bit fuzzy. Funding for "Carbon Capture" technology shows up in budgets as a gift to the coal industry. The same people/hedge funds/corporations that own the coal industry also own the companies that are "researching carbon capture technology."

 

[Robert Zwilling]

In the next 30 years the weather is going to get tougher and tougher, pushing everyone to do something. The weather is forcing people to respond to current situations whether they want to or not. Its taking the option of just talking about what is happening out of the equation. People always do better by responding to a situation rather than talking about it. The wind turbines, as well as other alternative power systems, desperately need a way of storing the power they generate before it is sent anywhere. Without that ability, the concept is half baked. Power supplies need a way of stabilizing their output. The easiest way is to put a capacitor across the output which minimizes ripples and output fluctuations. Over the next 30 years the number of electric vehicles is going to drastically increase. This will create a huge supply of used batteries which won't power a vehicle from zero to 60 in 10 seconds anymore, but can easily be charged up by turbines, so the stored power can be added to the grid in a controlled fashion. The batteries will automatically be put in place over time as the used batteries will otherwise pile up. Using used batteries will be cost effective and cheaper battery prices will make it easier for anyone to make their alternative power systems complete.

 

[Omits]

The same people/hedge funds/corporations that own the coal industry also own the companies that are "researching carbon capture technology."

We're Doomed! Doomed! (by greed)!

 

[Omits]

In the next 30 years the weather is going to get tougher and tougher, pushing everyone to do something. The weather is forcing people to respond to current situations whether they want to or not. Its taking the option of just talking about what is happening out of the equation. People always do better by responding to a situation rather than talking about it. The wind turbines, as well as other alternative power systems, desperately need a way of storing the power they generate before it is sent anywhere. Without that ability, the concept is half baked. Power supplies need a way of stabilizing their output. The easiest way is to put a capacitor across the output which minimizes ripples and output fluctuations. Over the next 30 years the number of electric vehicles is going to drastically increase. This will create a huge supply of used batteries which won't power a vehicle from zero to 60 in 10 seconds anymore, but can easily be charged up by turbines, so the stored power can be added to the grid in a controlled fashion. The batteries will automatically be put in place over time as the used batteries will otherwise pile up. Using used batteries will be cost effective and cheaper battery prices will make it easier for anyone to make their alternative power systems complete.

Will these capacitors (which I assume will be as large as a house) be an environmental hazard like batteries? How will these products which have hazardous contents be recycled?

 

[Robert Zwilling]

Reusing the used EV batteries cuts down on recycling that tears the whole thing apart. Reused as is, repurposed for power storage, then complete deconstruction of the battery comes last.

The electric vehicle batteries are the capacitors. For residential use it gets bolted to the side of the house. Its a decentralized power system. It replaces the oil and natural gas tanks currently being used. The batteries are already a hazard but everyone ignores that. The risk is low under normal conditions. The electric vehicle batteries are thoroughly tested before being reused. Aside from car accidents, the problems with batteries catching on fire seems to be restricted to the e-bike industry. Strangely, you don't hear about scooters having problems but the bikes have been particularly hard it. It seems to be the companies making the batteries specifically for the e-bikes are not putting out the best product.

I have seen one article where the power company was talking about being able to tap into electric vehicle batteries during an emergency when they are charging up overnight. The charging cable would be a two way connection. Imagine going to bed with a full charge and you get in your car in the morning and it has no charge.

Low voltage DC use for residential, even businesses could become common place.

Appliances running on low voltage DC started out as 12 volt devices powered by lead acid vehicle batteries in RV vehicles. A smaller market was the original solar powered homes using lead acid batteries for storing electricity. The RV market is still using these devices but there has been a gradual shift to 5 volt DC appliances. There already is a huge selection of computer, communication, and entertainment devices that run on 5 volts. DC is more efficient than AC for these devices and other appliances, which means a shift to low voltage DC appliances could result in energy savings from generation of the power to the end use.

 

[Cthulhu.Science]

As in the past, over the next 30 years new technology will generate new and different waste streams. And each of these will be managed in new and different ways. But I am always amazed by people who insist progress should stop because there will be new and different waste streams.

The implication is that current waste streams are so great we should expand upon them.

 

[Cthulhu.Science]

During cynical moments I like to contemplate this datum.

Global debt currently stands at $305 trillion

(I always ponder, "To whom?")

In the next 30 years the space aliens who are owed the debt are coming to collect.

How does US debt rank compared with the rest of the world?

The United States has the world’s largest national debt at $31.4 trillion.

www.aljazeera.com

https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/GGXWDG_NGDP@WEO/OEMDC/ADVEC/WEOWORLD

 

[Justin Swanton]

From what I've seen green energy works fine as a corollary to fossil fuels, but not if it has to replace them. I can't find any authoritative study on the amount of infrastructure needed for an economy that runs exclusively on green energy - battery arrays, creation of components for the vast quantity of solar panels, wind turbines, etc., and the amount of maintenance that infrastructure will need, but everything seems to indicate it will require far more than the current fossil fuel infrastructure - how many batteries do you need to store the same amount of energy contained in a drum of oil?

So my take is that the next 30 years will look pretty much like now but with a gradual increase in energy prices as oil, natural gas, coal and uranium start to run out and the remaining reserves become more difficult to access. As a result whether you do or don't trust the people in a bus, public transport will begin to supercede private car ownership.

Any developments in technology will be of a fringe nature, i.e. in fields that affect only a few people like health care. For most of us the big technological leaps ended decades ago - hard tech with energy, transport and big conveniences like microwaves and fridges, soft tech with computers, smart phones and the internet. Every branch of technology eventually reaches a wall beyond which it cannot go unless at ruinous cost (which is why supersonic commercial flight eventually tanked).

Much more interesting is social cohesion and war. Social cohesion is dissolving in the West, i.e. the old norms that held society together by telling people how and why they live are largely gone. As social cohesion vanishes, the optimism that drove Western technological and industrial innovation also dissolves and everyone starts asking "What the hell?" Here in South Africa we are living through an accelerated version of this process. When a people as a whole are no longer sold on working and sacrificing for a bright future then everyone lives for the present and corruption becomes rampant. Money that should have gone into long-term maintenance of development of the infrastructure goes into private pockets instead (our electrical grid is falling apart because of this). The end result is a Zimbabwe, where things continue to tick along at a very basic level - you don't get complete anarchy - but the old prosperity is never recovered.

War. Don't know if I can go there, but everything in the political sphere points straight at the biggest conflict in human history. I'd be delighted to be wrong. We would survive a war. Chernobyl pumped out the equivalent of about 30 one-megaton nuclear bombs and Ukraine and Russia are still there. But, yeah. I'm just glad I live in Africa.

 

[Cthulhu.Science]

In 1889, Charles H. Duell was the Commissioner of US patent office. He is widely quoted as having stated that the patent office would soon shrink in size, and eventually close, because…

“Everything that can be invented has been invented.” 1889

Charles H. Duell*, 1899

 

[Justin Swanton]

Oh sure, new stuff will always be invented. But hypersonic personal pleasure jets for $2000 or DIY snap-together Martian holiday ships won't. It comes down to the fact that practical application followed hard on theoretical knowledge until the application became just too difficult to implement. So we've known for decades what antimatter is; we can even create a few atoms of it (at enormous cost), but we can't use it as a practical fuel source.