No sooner have I mentioned 1960s expectations of what the future would be like — “future cities in which we’d all be whizzing about in our personal aeroplanes” — than I read John Kay in the Financial Times doubting whether our age is, as commonly supposed, one of unprecedented technological advance:
I began to doubt the conventional wisdom when I discovered a Hudson Institute report from the mid-1960s that predicted technological changes from then till 2000. Its prognostications about information technology were impressively accurate - it foresaw mobile phones, fax machines and large-scale data processing.
But in other areas the Hudson Institute was wide of the mark. Where are the personal flying platforms, the space colonies, the artificial moons to light our cities, the drugs that make weight reduction a painless process? Progress in IT has fully matched the expectations of three or four decades ago. But advance in other areas has, by historic standards, been disappointing.
Worth a glance.
Seems to me that the nineteenth century was that of radical techological change, and things have slowed down since then.
But reconsidering these 60s forecasts, recently we have got molecular biology, and might get nanotech, quantum computing and other technologies not foreseen back then which may well be far more transformative than flying cars (I suppose we needed first hand experience of the ghastliness of large scale car use to realise what a non-starter that idea was?)
“Progress in AI has fully matched the expectations of three or four decades ago” Pish. Where are the AIs?
Compare also the widely cited paper by RJ Gordon: Does the New Economy Measure Up to the Great Inventions of the Past at: http://faculty-web.at.northwestern.edu/economics/gordon/GreatInvention.pdf
Less than worthless without the ability to read the article he is basing his piece on. There’s not even a real reference to it. I mean, shit, Star Trek predicted mobile phones, fax machines and large-scale data processing in the mid 60s but I ain’t romancing hot green Orion slave girls am I?
There’s body paint.
Alexander Field claims that the 1930s — well, 1929 through 1941 — were the most technologically progressive decade of the last century. He makes a good case.
C.
For all I know we might not be in one of the middle of some of the fastest paced technological changes, but reading his article does nothing to change the argument. First, it is clear that he is taking the very most optimistic predictions and noting their failure. Second, his litany of things predicted and discovered has some pretty glaring omissions. The internet may be hugely more important than a flying car, but it was predicted by no one 40 years before its existance, and almost no one even 15 years before. He also fails to distinguish between necessary and unnecessary. We typically don’t need flying cars, because wheeled cars are quite adequate for most purposes—and much cheaper. (Flying car-like things do exist, they are just quite expensive).
The predictions on medical science are even weaker. He seems to be quoting about a cure for cancer back when there was the idea that cancer was mostly one or two diseases. Basically we were so ignorant about medical science that certain problems appeared much easier than they really were.
I think the same may have happened with AI. It was commonly believed in the 1950s and 1960s that when a computer was designed that could beat the best chess masters, we would have AI. We have learned that it is possible to design a computer which is narrowly expert at one matter without making any major progress on general intelligence. I suspect we understood intelligence so poorly at the time that we underestimated the difficulty of designing it.
In a different vein there are biological technologies which were not seriously predicted 50 years ago. Oil eating bacteria, who would have guessed?
“He also fails to distinguish between necessary and unnecessary. We typically don’t need flying cars, because wheeled cars are quite adequate for most purposes—and much cheaper. (Flying car-like things do exist, they are just quite expensive).”
We don’t “need” regular cars, either, but they’ve turned out to be really useful.
Flying cars would allow us to have homes, workplaces, and shops separated by hundreds of miles. “Sprawl” wouldn’t be miles of strip malls; it would be homes, office buildings, and stores strewn across entire states with wilderness in between, and no roads or highways needed to connect them
It would mean that you could live practically anywhere in the country and still be able to have a decent job, regardless of the state of the “local” economy. There wouldn’t really be “local” economies in the sense we think of them now… Louisiana, for instance, would be a “suburb” of Houston-Austin-Dallas, instead of being a job-deficient economy of its own; Houston-Austin-Dallas, meanwhile, would scatter to dot the eastern half of Texas with isolated homes and businesses surrounded by wilderness.
And with the population scattered in that fashion, high-body-count attacks become less difficult.
“(I suppose we needed first hand experience of the ghastliness of large scale car use to realise what a non-starter that idea was?)”
I don’t see much ghastliness in large scale car use. It’s not Utopia, but it sure as hell beats the alternative.
And large scale aircar use would have the advantage of there being much more room to play with, given three dimensions and all; combine that with the population dispersion that would become possible, and I don’t see any “ghastliness”.
How to get there from here? The best way I can think of is to replace the FAA requirements for private pilots with mandatory liability insurance. The insurance companies would then reward skilled pilots and the use of more easily controlled and foolproof aircraft; a market for better aircraft would develop, a bigger population of potential pilots would drive down the cost-per-unit, and a virtuous cycle would develop.
In any event, every industry should be subject to the same rules as the computer hardware and software industry were. No permission needed to sell new products, no permission needed to buy any products, no license needed to work in the field. Just let products go to market, and new ones build on old ones, without delays from having to play Mother May I being inserted into every step of the way. That’s how we kept getting new inventions in the 19th Century, and how we can pick up the pace and get real technological advancement in the 21st.
And, if we apply that to medicine as well, we might live to see the 22nd.
“And with the population scattered in that fashion, high-body-count attacks become less difficult.”
That should, of course, read “… become more difficult”.
Ken, those type of flying cars already exist. I know a number of people who live in LA and work in the San Fransisco area. They typically work in medicine, fly up on Southwest for $60 for 3 day stints, take 4 days off, work 4 days, take 3 days off.
When a car motor fails, the car doesn’t fall from a mille high.
If two cars meet it may be easily quite bad, when two flying engines meet it is difficult for it to do no harm.
Flying requires more energy.
Et coetera.
DSW
On the other hand, cars won’t be nearly as densely packed in the sky as they are on the ground, given three dimensions to play in and a lack of buildings and things in the air to route around. Also, unless you spend all your time flying over a big city, which will happen less and less as overall population disperses, you are exceedingly unlikely to hit someone on the ground if you crash.
IANAATC (an air traffic controller), but it seems like the addition of an extra dimension does not outway the danger of having every idiot FLYING IN THE AIR. Think drunk driving, for starters. The energy thing antoni mentioned is a good point too.
À Gauche
Jeremy Alder
Amaravati
Anggarrgoon
Audhumlan Conspiracy
H.E. Baber
Philip Blosser
Paul Broderick
Matt Brown
Diana Buccafurni
Brandon Butler
Keith Burgess-Jackson
Certain Doubts
David Chalmers
Noam Chomsky
The Conservative Philosopher
Desert Landscapes
Denis Dutton
David Efird
Karl Elliott
David Estlund
Experimental Philosophy
Fake Barn County
Kai von Fintel
Russell Arben Fox
Garden of Forking Paths
Roger Gathman
Michael Green
Scott Hagaman
Helen Habermann
David Hildebrand
John Holbo
Christopher Grau
Jonathan Ichikawa
Tom Irish
Michelle Jenkins
Adam Kotsko
Barry Lam
Language Hat
Language Log
Christian Lee
Brian Leiter
Stephen Lenhart
Clayton Littlejohn
Roderick T. Long
Joshua Macy
Mad Grad
Jonathan Martin
Matthew McGrattan
Marc Moffett
Geoffrey Nunberg
Orange Philosophy
Philosophy Carnival
Philosophy, et cetera
Philosophy of Art
Douglas Portmore
Philosophy from the 617 (moribund)
Jeremy Pierce
Punishment Theory
Geoff Pynn
Timothy Quigley (moribund?)
Conor Roddy
Sappho's Breathing
Anders Schoubye
Wolfgang Schwartz
Scribo
Michael Sevel
Tom Stoneham (moribund)
Adam Swenson
Peter Suber
Eddie Thomas
Joe Ulatowski
Bruce Umbaugh
What is the name ...
Matt Weiner
Will Wilkinson
Jessica Wilson
Young Hegelian
Richard Zach
Psychology
Donyell Coleman
Deborah Frisch
Milt Rosenberg
Tom Stafford
Law
Ann Althouse
Stephen Bainbridge
Jack Balkin
Douglass A. Berman
Francesca Bignami
BlunkettWatch
Jack Bogdanski
Paul L. Caron
Conglomerate
Jeff Cooper
Disability Law
Displacement of Concepts
Wayne Eastman
Eric Fink
Victor Fleischer (on hiatus)
Peter Friedman
Michael Froomkin
Bernard Hibbitts
Walter Hutchens
InstaPundit
Andis Kaulins
Lawmeme
Edward Lee
Karl-Friedrich Lenz
Larry Lessig
Mirror of Justice
Eric Muller
Nathan Oman
Opinio Juris
John Palfrey
Ken Parish
Punishment Theory
Larry Ribstein
The Right Coast
D. Gordon Smith
Lawrence Solum
Peter Tillers
Transatlantic Assembly
Lawrence Velvel
David Wagner
Kim Weatherall
Yale Constitution Society
Tun Yin
History
Blogenspiel
Timothy Burke
Rebunk
Naomi Chana
Chapati Mystery
Cliopatria
Juan Cole
Cranky Professor
Greg Daly
James Davila
Sherman Dorn
Michael Drout
Frog in a Well
Frogs and Ravens
Early Modern Notes
Evan Garcia
George Mason History bloggers
Ghost in the Machine
Rebecca Goetz
Invisible Adjunct (inactive)
Jason Kuznicki
Konrad Mitchell Lawson
Danny Loss
Liberty and Power
Danny Loss
Ether MacAllum Stewart
Pam Mack
Heather Mathews
James Meadway
Medieval Studies
H.D. Miller
Caleb McDaniel
Marc Mulholland
Received Ideas
Renaissance Weblog
Nathaniel Robinson
Jacob Remes (moribund?)
Christopher Sheil
Red Ted
Time Travelling Is Easy
Brian Ulrich
Shana Worthen
Computers/media/communication
Lauren Andreacchi (moribund)
Eric Behrens
Joseph Bosco
Danah Boyd
David Brake
Collin Brooke
Maximilian Dornseif (moribund)
Jeff Erickson
Ed Felten
Lance Fortnow
Louise Ferguson
Anne Galloway
Jason Gallo
Josh Greenberg
Alex Halavais
Sariel Har-Peled
Tracy Kennedy
Tim Lambert
Liz Lawley
Michael O'Foghlu
Jose Luis Orihuela (moribund)
Alex Pang
Sebastian Paquet
Fernando Pereira
Pink Bunny of Battle
Ranting Professors
Jay Rosen
Ken Rufo
Douglas Rushkoff
Vika Safrin
Rob Schaap (Blogorrhoea)
Frank Schaap
Robert A. Stewart
Suresh Venkatasubramanian
Ray Trygstad
Jill Walker
Phil Windley
Siva Vaidahyanathan
Anthropology
Kerim Friedman
Alex Golub
Martijn de Koning
Nicholas Packwood
Geography
Stentor Danielson
Benjamin Heumann
Scott Whitlock
Education
Edward Bilodeau
Jenny D.
Richard Kahn
Progressive Teachers
Kelvin Thompson (defunct?)
Mark Byron
Business administration
Michael Watkins (moribund)
Literature, language, culture
Mike Arnzen
Brandon Barr
Michael Berube
The Blogora
Colin Brayton
John Bruce
Miriam Burstein
Chris Cagle
Jean Chu
Hans Coppens
Tyler Curtain
Cultural Revolution
Terry Dean
Joseph Duemer
Flaschenpost
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
Jonathan Goodwin
Rachael Groner
Alison Hale
Household Opera
Dennis Jerz
Jason Jones
Miriam Jones
Matthew Kirschenbaum
Steven Krause
Lilliputian Lilith
Catherine Liu
John Lovas
Gerald Lucas
Making Contact
Barry Mauer
Erin O'Connor
Print Culture
Clancy Ratcliff
Matthias Rip
A.G. Rud
Amardeep Singh
Steve Shaviro
Thanks ... Zombie
Vera Tobin
Chuck Tryon
University Diaries
Classics
Michael Hendry
David Meadows
Religion
AKM Adam
Ryan Overbey
Telford Work (moribund)
Library Science
Norma Bruce
Music
Kyle Gann
ionarts
Tim Rutherford-Johnson
Greg Sandow
Scott Spiegelberg
Biology/Medicine
Pradeep Atluri
Bloviator
Anthony Cox
Susan Ferrari (moribund)
Amy Greenwood
La Di Da
John M. Lynch
Charles Murtaugh (moribund)
Paul Z. Myers
Respectful of Otters
Josh Rosenau
Universal Acid
Amity Wilczek (moribund)
Theodore Wong (moribund)
Physics/Applied Physics
Trish Amuntrud
Sean Carroll
Jacques Distler
Stephen Hsu
Irascible Professor
Andrew Jaffe
Michael Nielsen
Chad Orzel
String Coffee Table
Math/Statistics
Dead Parrots
Andrew Gelman
Christopher Genovese
Moment, Linger on
Jason Rosenhouse
Vlorbik
Peter Woit
Complex Systems
Petter Holme
Luis Rocha
Cosma Shalizi
Bill Tozier
Chemistry
"Keneth Miles"
Engineering
Zack Amjal
Chris Hall
University Administration
Frank Admissions (moribund?)
Architecture/Urban development
City Comforts (urban planning)
Unfolio
Panchromatica
Earth Sciences
Our Take
Who Knows?
Bitch Ph.D.
Just Tenured
Playing School
Professor Goose
This Academic Life
Other sources of information
Arts and Letters Daily
Boston Review
Imprints
Political Theory Daily Review
Science and Technology Daily Review