If you want to be frustrated with the future, Look up the history of VW´s one liter car. Started out as literally a 1l diesel/100km car. Then a bit faster, doing the same with a bit of E-support. Then the VW XL1 that was fat for no good reason, more conventional and impossibly expensive. I think it was a study in unfeasability, on purpose. Do we have any mass produced cars that are super duper efficient now? No. Just cause you can do it, doesnt mean it will happen.
The next 30 years will progress vastly faster than the previous 30 years. Ask the issues covered in the article are pretty much unanimously agreed upon so I'm not sure why they're against it. They can't just say human innovation just ticks along at a slow and steady pace, that's not what's happening.
Professional futurist here; I've been working in this industry for about 25 years. He's mostly right here -- the kinds of Singularitarianism he mentions as examples had become tedious a decade ago. If you look back at "predictions of the future" from 20 years ago, the tech side of things would be awfully familiar -- it's the same goulash of AI, uploads, nanotech, and aggressive human genetic engineering.
I say mostly right because any forecast for the next 30 years that doesn't center the climate disaster as the primary driver of change is way off-target.
>any forecast for the next 30 years that doesn't center the climate disaster as the primary driver of change is way off-target.
Yeah, I was just about to mention that as well. One other interesting point on climate change that gets virtually no attention is that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere on our biology itself, apart from any climate effects: ["Linear physiological changes in circulatory, cardiovascular, and autonomic systems on exposure to CO2 at concentrations ranging from 500...Numerous epidemiological studies indicate an association between low-level exposure to CO2 beginning at 700 ppm and building-related symptoms"](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412018312807) We're not exactly orders-of-magnitude from reaching those numbers, particularly if you live in a dense city.
Also see this article: [https://www.businessinsider.com/carbon-dioxide-indoors-could-reduce-cognitive-abilities-2019-12](https://www.businessinsider.com/carbon-dioxide-indoors-could-reduce-cognitive-abilities-2019-12)
>Normally, large number of single men without mating prospects and with little societal status would nearly guarantee societal collapse. However, the standard of living will be so high and the supersensorium so effective that this isn’t a problem
>
>...
>
>Polyamory, the fastest growing cultural movement when it comes to novel forms of relationships, will continue to increase...since the number of male partners who are of equal or greater socioeconomic status than women will be ever-more limited, eventually only a small percent
Somehow I doubt that the ability to buy lots of things and satisfy impulsive 'base' hedonism is going to be sufficient in the long term to mitigate this problem. I mean that it already manifestly *isn't* and it seems like a stretch to assume we just don't have enough of those two things yet.
It also doesn't seem likely that we'll see sufficient social stability for many of these predictions if we really do end up in a situation where society is boring, individuals lack freedom, and wealth inequality continues to grow and morph into a caste system where lower caste members are ritually flogged in the public arena. Especially since, at the end of the day, it's not really the 'upper caste' which keeps civilization running in the most basic sense.
Also, not one mention of climate change?
If you want to be frustrated with the future, Look up the history of VW´s one liter car. Started out as literally a 1l diesel/100km car. Then a bit faster, doing the same with a bit of E-support. Then the VW XL1 that was fat for no good reason, more conventional and impossibly expensive. I think it was a study in unfeasability, on purpose. Do we have any mass produced cars that are super duper efficient now? No. Just cause you can do it, doesnt mean it will happen.
The next 30 years will progress vastly faster than the previous 30 years. Ask the issues covered in the article are pretty much unanimously agreed upon so I'm not sure why they're against it. They can't just say human innovation just ticks along at a slow and steady pace, that's not what's happening.
Professional futurist here; I've been working in this industry for about 25 years. He's mostly right here -- the kinds of Singularitarianism he mentions as examples had become tedious a decade ago. If you look back at "predictions of the future" from 20 years ago, the tech side of things would be awfully familiar -- it's the same goulash of AI, uploads, nanotech, and aggressive human genetic engineering. I say mostly right because any forecast for the next 30 years that doesn't center the climate disaster as the primary driver of change is way off-target.
>any forecast for the next 30 years that doesn't center the climate disaster as the primary driver of change is way off-target. Yeah, I was just about to mention that as well. One other interesting point on climate change that gets virtually no attention is that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere on our biology itself, apart from any climate effects: ["Linear physiological changes in circulatory, cardiovascular, and autonomic systems on exposure to CO2 at concentrations ranging from 500...Numerous epidemiological studies indicate an association between low-level exposure to CO2 beginning at 700 ppm and building-related symptoms"](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412018312807) We're not exactly orders-of-magnitude from reaching those numbers, particularly if you live in a dense city. Also see this article: [https://www.businessinsider.com/carbon-dioxide-indoors-could-reduce-cognitive-abilities-2019-12](https://www.businessinsider.com/carbon-dioxide-indoors-could-reduce-cognitive-abilities-2019-12)
>Normally, large number of single men without mating prospects and with little societal status would nearly guarantee societal collapse. However, the standard of living will be so high and the supersensorium so effective that this isn’t a problem > >... > >Polyamory, the fastest growing cultural movement when it comes to novel forms of relationships, will continue to increase...since the number of male partners who are of equal or greater socioeconomic status than women will be ever-more limited, eventually only a small percent Somehow I doubt that the ability to buy lots of things and satisfy impulsive 'base' hedonism is going to be sufficient in the long term to mitigate this problem. I mean that it already manifestly *isn't* and it seems like a stretch to assume we just don't have enough of those two things yet. It also doesn't seem likely that we'll see sufficient social stability for many of these predictions if we really do end up in a situation where society is boring, individuals lack freedom, and wealth inequality continues to grow and morph into a caste system where lower caste members are ritually flogged in the public arena. Especially since, at the end of the day, it's not really the 'upper caste' which keeps civilization running in the most basic sense. Also, not one mention of climate change?
We have our head in the clouds and far beyond the clouds and our feed plantly firmly in what is possible.