Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I know that trying to figure out where technology will be at the end of the 21st century will be impossible, but it is still fun. I was wondering what do you think technology will be like in 2100?
I honestly doubt that we will be living in a Jetsons like future in 2100. Maybe it will be like today but with more technology hidden. If we survive nuclear war or anything like that. I highly doubt that the Singularity is going to happen though.
The only real changes in technology in the past 100 years were miniaturization of circuitry, and the discovery of new materials, including plastic and various carbon or silicon compounds, which opened up a whole new generation of electrical and electronic applications. That could not have been foreseen decades before it happened. It is doubtful that anybody ever said "I wish we had smaller vacuum tubes" or "I wish we had new structural materials" and applied themselves to the task of searching for them. They presented themselves in the ordinary evolution of the amorphous body of science. Similarly, there is no way we can just "guess" what kinds of technological breakthroughs will occur in the next century.
We did not discover any "new science" in the past century, but only applied a few new ways of applying what we already knew or would accidentally stumble across. Plastic was found as a byproduct of motor fuel refining, and modern life would be impossible without it. The new developments of science conformed unsurprisingly with what we already knew as the physical laws of the universe. For example, television was not something "new", it was simply radio raised to a higher level of complexity.
There has been one interesting and possibly critical change, though. It was once said that "Necessity is the mother of invention". That is no longer the case. Profit is now the mother of invention, and in the 21st Century, there is diminishing prospect that scientific breakthroughs will occur unless they are driven by the profit motive. Which will have a profound effect on the direction of the movement of scientific thought and discovery.
In 1900 a prognosticator would have had no knowledge of DNA and and how it is used to code life. Superconductivity was not discovered until 1911 by Kammerling Onnes. There was no quantum theory of light although Max Planck was puzzling over the ultaviolet catastrophy. Rutherford and Bohr had yet to give us the modern conception of the atom and solve many empirical questions in physics and chemistry and lead us to nuclear physics and quantum mechanics. The prognosticator would be at a loss to accurately forcast the World of the year 2000. Would he have forseen nuclear weapons, lasers, solid state electronics, MRIs or Beta blockers or Statin drugs for high blood pressure? We are at a loss to explain Dark matter or energy, make artifical intelligence or create a unified theory of gravitation, or integrate all of the fundamental forces or even explain why we have the eight-fold way that is the foundation of the Standard Model. There is just as much unknown science to give us the magic we will call technology in the year 2100. Now just what is that spooky action at a distance stuff we call quantum entanglement all about?
There has been one interesting and possibly critical change, though. It was once said that "Necessity is the mother of invention". That is no longer the case. Profit is now the mother of invention, and in the 21st Century, there is diminishing prospect that scientific breakthroughs will occur unless they are driven by the profit motive. Which will have a profound effect on the direction of the movement of scientific thought and discovery.
The notion that there was some golden age of scientific discovery for the sake of learning which has now fallen to the profit motive, may be easily dispelled by reading a biography of Thomas Edison. If that does not do the trick, read the history of the war between Singer and Howe over the rights to the invention of the sewing machine.
The technology changes, but people do not. The profit motive has always been in place.
The notion that there was some golden age of scientific discovery for the sake of learning which has now fallen to the profit motive, may be easily dispelled by reading a biography of Thomas Edison. If that does not do the trick, read the history of the war between Singer and Howe over the rights to the invention of the sewing machine.
The technology changes, but people do not. The profit motive has always been in place.
At my age, I think of the 1880s as being "about a century ago", but time has slipped by me. Your Edison reference places the watershed more like 125 years ago, illuminated well by the Edison-Tesla dichotomy. Before the 1880s, Tesla would characterize the drive of scientific endeavor, and Edison represented the new profit-motive, even selling Tesla's science to the highest bidder. Of course, even before the industrial revolution, a few anecdotal examples can be found of scientists recognizing the monetary value of technology and being driven accordingly. The great names that are household words of science (Galileo, Curie, Darwin, Priestly, ad naus) had little interest in personal wealth from industrial patents.
You know that you cannot "easily dispel" anything with one or two anecdotal examples. So the Singer/Howe dispute was 160 years ago. What do you have before that from the golden age of science, for your profit motive that has "always been in place"?
You know that you cannot "easily dispel" anything with one or two anecdotal examples. So the Singer/Howe dispute was 160 years ago. What do you have before that from the golden age of science, for your profit motive that has "always been in place"?
Your thesis, so your burden of proof. In that your assertion was a general one, then all that is required to displace it is a single counter example.
Ball is in your court....you must prove that profit at one time was not a primary consideration.
Your thesis, so your burden of proof. In that your assertion was a general one, then all that is required to displace it is a single counter example.
Ball is in your court....you must prove that profit at one time was not a primary consideration.
If the only rejoinder to my thesis is a couple of anecdotal examples selected from centuries of scientific and technological progress, it stands effectively unchallenged. Nothing in my thesis implied that it was "in general" or otherwise intolerant of any exceptions. In fact, I never said Necessity was the mother of invention, but only that that premise was widely held, so I don't need to defend it. If you wish to argue that Necessity was never the mother of invention, and that invention was always as profit-driven as it is today, we will all be happy to entertain your well-documented presentation of the thesis. Ball is in your court.
Last edited by jtur88; 04-08-2013 at 03:31 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
