Flying Cars...
Apr. 30th, 2007 11:47 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
xthreadSome predictions for the next thirty years.
- We will identify an extrasolar object that is almost certainly life-bearing, as evidenced by being within the habitable zone of some other star, and has high concentrations of O2 in it's atmosphere. No, I have no idea whatsoever what telescopy advancements will allow us to determine that the atmosphere of an extrasolar object has large amounts of free oxygen. I am not an astronomer.
- We will find methods to cure type 1 and type 2 diabetes. There have been a lot of extremely exciting research results released in the last six months, I expect that we'll see those results pay off as we make the leap from lab to hospital.
- We will still not have flying cars. Ok, that one's a cheap shot, we may actually have flying cars, there are running prototypes now, but they're ferociously expensive. I'm also tempted to make other snide predictions like 'we will not be using IPv6,' but that's also just an inflammatory cheap shot.
- We will not see a global economic or environmental collapse of the first world. We will see significant environmental damage from global climate changes. We definitely will see a northern arctic freight passage, and I'll be surprised if we don't see human habitation of the Arctic. As
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
zunger points out, this will be geopolitically... interesting. <cheap shot> especially when large petroleum reserves are discovered in the arctic</cheap shot>
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-04-30 06:54 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-04-30 06:58 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-04-30 07:20 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-01 04:04 pm (UTC)We're seeing a much faster rise in median lifespan than we are in maximum lifespan.
But there are a lot of awfully promising things going on there.
no subject
Date: 2007-04-30 07:20 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-04-30 07:30 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-04-30 07:20 pm (UTC)Most cars will be smaller and plugin-only electric. When you need long range and/or big cargo, you will rent a trailer with a diesel genset in it. The trailer can pull its own weight and handle its own braking, so it's not even clear that you 're truly "towing" it.
Appliances will be increasingly durable.
What will people do with all the spare money these advance give them? People will buy larger and larger houses to store the pointless crap they will buy more and more of.
Very First World.
Date: 2007-04-30 09:27 pm (UTC)All organic garbage--yes, all--will be collected and fermented for the methane and ethanol, to fuel homes and vehicles.
Wars will again be fought over water. Terrorism over it will increase. "Wetbacks" will be eco-terrorists who blow up pumping plants so the water stays in the rivers.
A new major religion, arising from either Brazil or Indonesia, will sweep the world.
Atomic power will greatly increase. A reactor will blow, probably in India or Africa, but that won't obviate the need.
Terrorism across the world will increase. (No brainer.) Fascism will rise in response.
Brin's privacy concerns will become real.
Re: Very First World.
Date: 2007-05-07 03:18 pm (UTC)Yes but not the way you'd expect.
The "green zone" concept in Iraq is being replicated all over the world, but by corporations. A multinational corporation doing a little business in a small country and they "buy in" to a condo-ish green zone. These are heavily guarded by private security organizations.
They are guarded because they do get attacked. A lot.
My prediction is...
As droughts, famine or other disasters hit, those green zones are going to be attacked even more. People will want to get in. The companies (with help of the private militaries) will become the fascists you predict. Or they will use their economic power to demand that the government become increasingly brutal against the attackers. An escalation will occur and it will spin out of control.
And you thought gated communities in the 'burbs was a problem :-)
no subject
Date: 2007-04-30 08:14 pm (UTC)I also expect some oil shocks along the lines of the early 70s gas crisis.
Solar power seems poised to make real progress; plants are all running at capacity. It dodges the NIMBY power plant problem, and can usually be made to pay for itself. It's a major financing opportunity for financial institutions and they can probably get government loan guarantees and subsidies in the bargain.
Screw the flying cars, I want biodiesel hybrids or straight electric (off of solar, wind, or tidal chargers of course) with carbon fiber bodies that don't need human drivers. Every commuter with time to read and not stress out. No more soccer moms needed for getting kids shuttled around. Mass transit that doesn't stop running at night. No drunk drivers. Road capacity increased by a factor of five or ten by entrainment of vehicles. Vehicle fatality rates dropped 80% or more. We could be saving three or four September 11's worth of people every single year. No middle east oil wars. Massively decreased carbon loading. Less private vehicle ownership required; a third of the vehicles in the nation could be public transit, and poor people and the disabled would no longer have second-class access to transit, improving both their quality of life and their economic productivity. Getting there is the trick; it's too big a project to convert quickly, but running both systems in parallel is much more difficult than a straight from-scratch implementation.
screw the flying cars
Date: 2007-04-30 09:34 pm (UTC)Obviously a system based on tracks isn't as flexible as a system based on truly automatic cars, but it makes the autopilot a much easier technical problem. If the track is lightweight enough, you can build enough of it that you get near door-to-door functionality. And it eliminates alot of the secondary problems associated with a street grid: urban heat island effect, impermeable surfaces, loss of valuable urban real estate, and the fact that building siting and massing is currently totally dictated by the needs of the automobile.
Re: screw the flying cars
Date: 2007-04-30 10:47 pm (UTC)(Do you know what happened to the private jitney services that were being experimented with in the early 90s? They were proving to be more functional than the public bus system, but cheap enough that they were practical for low-income users, but I don't know how they evolved after various south Florida municipalities decided to back off from them...)
Re: screw the flying cars
Date: 2007-04-30 11:03 pm (UTC)I would argue that it is vastly superior to a car for most purposes: No need to own and maintain a car, and no need to drive or deal with traffic, to start with. I don't think most people appreciate how valuable that is. Since I moved to the city and mostly stopped driving about a year ago, my general level of stress has been much reduced.
Unfortunately, these benefits have to be experienced to be understood, so you have an adoption problem. Worse, the American attachment to the car goes far beyond its functional value. Practically speaking, we're going to pry the car out of the cold, dead hands of many of their owners. Or more accurately, out of the dead-flat-broke hands of their owners.
I'm not familiar with the jitney experiment. More information or references?
Re: screw the flying cars
Date: 2007-04-30 11:15 pm (UTC)For a non-negligible proportion of current car owners, those two things, far from being benefits, are negatively valuable. So that's going to be a bit of an adoption sticky wicket right there.
the American attachment to the car goes far beyond its functional value.
It's a freedom thing. The ability to just take off, any time, in any direction, for no reason at all, is not something given up lightly.
the freedom thing
Date: 2007-04-30 11:47 pm (UTC)The point about freedom is a valid one. On the other hand, I'm an American with a credit card. I can fail to own a car, and still go wherever, whenever, for whatever reason, by any of a variety of transport mechanisms (including a rented car). On the flip side, how many car owners have the free time to exercise their freedom of movement? If I work all day to make the payments on a car that I never have a chance to take further than the grocery store, how much freedom do I actually have?
The converse, I think, is more true: Not having a car, on the other hand, really does constrain one's freedom. But that's not inherent in urban life. It's a function of the infrastructure and development patterns that have resulted from ubiquitous car ownership.
What you are about to hear may be shocking.
Date: 2007-04-30 11:53 pm (UTC)It is...not impossible...to own a car and make no payments on it.
On the flip side, how many car owners have the free time to exercise their freedom of movement?
Is this a seriously meant question? I ask in the spirit of free inquiry.
Re: What you are about to hear may be shocking.
Date: 2007-05-01 12:12 am (UTC)The point is, there are real financial and opportunity costs associated with car ownership (personal costs, not counting the externalized costs), which are underestimated. There is also a very powerful mythology associated with car ownership, one which often does not hold up under scrutiny.
Most people would object to losing their cars because that would mean a real loss of flexibility going about their day-to-day business. That's perfectly legitimate, but it's a function of urban design, which itself is a function of (and largely dictated by) the ubiquitous car.
There are also lots of people who would object to losing their cars because they represents a "loss of freedom" of the type you are pointing at. Most of those people, however, have that freedom only in the hypothetical. They have lives and commitments that keep them attached to someone else's schedule 99% of the time. Breaking out of that pattern would carry a cost they are unwilling or unable to pay. In the meantime, they are paying alot of money (and generating even more externalized costs) in order to maintain their "freedom", which they only rarely get to exercise.
There are exceptions, of course. Lots of them, even. But here I am describing the typical American commuter, which is an overwhelmingly dominant demographic. They have all this "freedom" and all these toys, and nearly no time. And yet they maintain a death-grip on all of it.
Why?
Re: What you are about to hear may be shocking.
Date: 2007-05-01 12:20 am (UTC)Stipulated.
There is also a very powerful mythology associated with car ownership
Likewise stipulated.
one which often does not hold up under scrutiny.
I cannot agree.
Most people would object to losing their cars because that would mean a real loss of flexibility going about their day-to-day business. That's perfectly legitimate, but it's a function of urban design
People do live outside of metro hives like SF. Even places where public transit is infeasible due to low population density are deemed marginally habitable.
But here I am describing the typical American commuter
I submit to you that your internal model of the typical commuting US citizen may not be accurate.
Most of those people, however, have that freedom only in the hypothetical.
Freedom is always hypothetical until it's exercised. You're telling me, in effect, that because a man spends 24 hours a day in a room with a bed, a toilet, and a computer, playing World of Warcraft every waking moment, that he won't object -- more importantly, that we won't curtail his freedom -- if we lock the door. It is with this point that I disagree vigorously.
Re: What you are about to hear may be shocking.
Date: 2007-05-01 12:46 am (UTC)You're telling me, in effect, that because a man spends 24 hours a day in a room with a bed, a toilet, and a computer, playing World of Warcraft every waking moment, that he won't object -- more importantly, that we won't curtail his freedom -- if we lock the door. It is with this point that I disagree vigorously.
Your analogy is conflating two issues: the moral/philosophical case (curtailing freedom) with the psychology of behavior (whether or not he objects). I've been talking about the later issue almost exclusively here.
Re: What you are about to hear may be shocking.
Date: 2007-05-01 12:51 am (UTC)Since the first is the root and source of the second, I must object to the use of the word 'conflate,' which implies an inappropriate linking. The objections spring precisely from the curtailment.
Re: What you are about to hear may be shocking.
Date: 2007-05-01 12:59 am (UTC)If the moral objection is invalid, then the linkage is valid only in the mind of the subject, and it becomes a question of pure psychology.
The personal automobile is one manifestation of our pattern of industrialization, which involves liquidating natural resources as rapidly as possible without regard to side effects and calling it "economic growth". The price of the pattern is paid by the human poor, non-humans, and future generations of both.
The car is not in any way unique as such a manifestation. It is, however, arguably the worst single such example in terms of total destructive impact.
There is no such thing as a legitimate right to drive in the context of our current technology and culture, any more than there is a right to sit in a room and play WoW all day.
Re: What you are about to hear may be shocking.
Date: 2007-05-01 01:19 am (UTC)Of course there is. Self-determination is a basic human right. If we're approaching this from such widely divergent models of humanity, there may not be sufficient commonality of culture and experience between us for meaningful communication.
Re: What you are about to hear may be shocking.
Date: 2007-05-01 03:23 am (UTC)But as the Libertarians are so fond of saying, your right to swing your arm stops at my nose, and driving is damaging to non-drivers and innocent bystanders in a variety of ways. Ergo, no right.
there be method in't
Date: 2007-05-01 12:55 am (UTC)Gas taxes seem like such an inefficient way to achieve that goal -- I should think that privately owned roads, charging by mile driven on the road-owner's property, would be a more direct form of funding roadbuilding and maintenance.
As for the carbon externalities, I'm frankly suspicious of explicitly charging for them -- anything that explicitly reduces life expectancy in an actuarially detectable amount would nigh-automatically be taken care of, economically speaking, through life insurance rates, and if it doesn't reduce life expectancy, why should we care, one way or another?
Re: there be method in't
Date: 2007-05-01 01:03 am (UTC)And the damage to my quality of life (not life expectancy) resulting from the loss of biodiversity in nature and in the food supply is also irrelevant?
Re: there be method in't
Date: 2007-05-01 01:15 am (UTC)Beg pardon? This is the first mention of climate change yet in the discussion. I've said nothing at all on the topic.
And the damage to my quality of life (not life expectancy) resulting from the loss of biodiversity in nature and in the food supply is also irrelevant?
It certainly is to me. I support making any bits of nature we want to keep around into private preserves, and support the Nature Conservancy's efforts in that direction. The organization gets money from members, spends it to acquire land, then keeps that land free from further interference. Simplicity itself; you get the biodiversity you pay for.
I oppose attempts to enforce a value structure on people who don't share it. I pay for my nature already, and I think it's a good thing to do so -- but I won't pick Joe Escalade's pocket to pay for his nature, on his behalf, for his own good. Such behavior is abhorrent to me.
Re: there be method in't
Date: 2007-05-01 01:54 am (UTC)But we already do that with national defense and roads and police and a whole host of other services that just plain ONLY WORK if we do them on a large scale where everyone participates. Nature is no different than those things - it doesn't work if you only do it small scale.
Re: there be method in't
Date: 2007-05-01 02:59 am (UTC)Yes.
where everyone participates.
No.
Participation need not be 100%, nor compulsory, to achieve a subscription rate high enough to meet a goal. Yes, the free rider problem remains a problem -- but the use of coercion to solve it is a cure far more toxic than the disease.
Re: there be method in't
Date: 2007-05-01 03:28 am (UTC)To hell with protecting Joe Escalade from himself. If he wants to poison his environment, he can do so. But he can't do it to mine. And, inconveniently, we are share the same environment. What he does to his environment, he also does to mine.
Re: there be method in't
Date: 2007-05-01 03:31 am (UTC)You mentioned "carbon externalities". The most common use of that term is in the context of climate change. There are other interpretations, sure, but that's what I assumed you meant.
However, from the context of your further posts, I now suspect that we have entered that alternate reality known as the Climate Change Denialist Zone.
Re: screw the flying cars
Date: 2007-05-01 01:50 am (UTC)For a non-negligible proportion of current car owners, those two things, far from being benefits, are negatively valuable.
Exactly. I enjoy driving and I vastly enjoy being able to permanently store crap in my car and be able to customize my car. Compared to those two advantages, maintenance is so not a big deal.
Can't believe I forgot these.
Date: 2007-05-01 12:22 am (UTC)Duke Nukem Forever still won't be released.
Re: Can't believe I forgot these.
Date: 2007-05-01 12:34 am (UTC)Predictions
Date: 2007-05-01 12:53 am (UTC)Coal may well have peaked, on a net-BTU's basis if not on a total tonnage basis. But if we're still pursuing coal as a primary energy source, then the falsification of xthread's fourth prediction is only a matter of time.
Incidentally, what counts as "collapse"? Does it require mass starvation and infrastructure failure, and a 90% reduction in population? That's probably not going to happen.
Does it count as "collapse" if the symptoms are a pattern of monotonic decrease in biodiversity, agricultural production, available fresh water, standard of living, average income, and political freedom over a period lasting longer than our lifetime?
no subject
Date: 2007-05-01 02:08 am (UTC)Saturday Night Live will be in its 62nd season.
It will be widely reported that Fidel Castro is in ill health.
no subject
Date: 2007-05-01 06:21 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-06-24 09:33 am (UTC)