Flying Cars...

[xthread]

Some predictions for the next thirty years.

1. 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.
   
2. 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.
   
3. 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.
   
4. 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 zunger points out, this will be geopolitically... interesting. <cheap shot> especially when large petroleum reserves are discovered in the arctic</cheap shot>
   

Comments

Re: What you are about to hear may be shocking.

[palecur.livejournal.com]

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.

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.

[a-steep-hill.livejournal.com]

If the moral objection is considered valid, then the linkage is legitimate.

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.

[palecur.livejournal.com]

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.

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.

[a-steep-hill.livejournal.com]

Our basic beliefs are not so far apart as you might think. I entirely agree that self-determination is a fundamental, no THE fundamental right.

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.