Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Biotech Businesses Technology

Technology Innovation Areas For 2025 131

Posted by kdawson from the i-just-want-my-rocket-car dept.
Kyle Spector writes "A global futurist research firm convened an expert panel to forecast the major areas and potential advances in technology innovation through the year 2025. This blog entry contains the full list of 12 areas and some details about each, including personalized medicine, distributed energy, pervasive computing, and nanomaterials."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Technology Innovation Areas For 2025 More

Technology Innovation Areas For 2025

Comments Filter:

  • I know the first two! (Score:5, Funny)

    by stormguard2099 ( 1177733 ) on Wednesday November 21, 2007 @06:15AM (#21433039)
    1. Penis enlargement

    2. Hair regeneration

  • consultants ? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by polar red ( 215081 ) on Wednesday November 21, 2007 @06:20AM (#21433055)
    The site reads a bit like the site of a hot-air factury.
    from their front-page 'Social Technologies is a global research and consulting firm specializing in the integration of foresight, strategy, and innovation.' djeezes.

    On energy, they say nothing about renewable energy like solar or wind, while it's clear even to me that solar will take a very big part of the production in the next years.

    transportation : 'personal transportation coordinated through wireless computer networks,' I think they're spot-on. In 2025, nobody will be allowed to steer vehicles anymore. (currently there are more deaths per year on the road than you wanna know)

    • Re:consultants ? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Slashidiot ( 1179447 ) on Wednesday November 21, 2007 @06:37AM (#21433125) Journal
      Well, they don't name renewable energy as such, but when they refer to "Distributed energy", they are clearly meaning solar and wind (and others), as one of the things about those energy sources is that it's hard to create a big central that produces most of the energy needed, but it's easy to have bits of electricity generation here and there, saving in line losses.

      About in 2025 nobody steering any vehicles anymore, I'm still waiting for my year 2000 flying car, good luck with your self steered 2025 car. Truth is, we are still VERY far from having those type of cars, and will probably never happen. What will happen (and is already happening) is that sensors and electronics will make driving far easier. For example, on the latest models of BMW, you have cruise control that keeps safety distance, on screen radar that let you see position of objects when parking, the steering wheel vibrates if you are on cruise control and go out of your lane, and many more cute things like those.

      But for the moment we are quite far from letting the car drive itself, as it's really difficult to control all variables and preview all unexpected things that could go wrong. I'm not saying a human will do them better than a computer, but when the self steered car appears, it'd better be 100% safe, as people don't like to put their lives on a computer's hands.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by polar red ( 215081 )

        "Distributed energy"
        I have to see it first before i believe electricty companies giving up their grip on our b@lls. I would like to be in control of my own power instead of paying a monthly bill ... give me those advanced batteries !

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by RRR111 ( 1151867 )
          That's already here. You can put in a grid-tied wind/solar/whatever power source at your house. You deliver electricity back to the grid when you're not using it, and they pay you. It's just that right now, IIRC, your break-even is something like 10-15 years out, so mostly only people driven by "survivalist" thinking are into it. I have to figure this article is indicating that it will become more cost effective.
        • At least here in Europe, people can install electricity generators powered by renewable sources and sell the surplus to the company. Isn't the same happening in the US?

      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by MichaelSmith ( 789609 )

        good luck with your self steered 2025 car.

        I want to know how he plans to make my bicycle steer itself in 2025.

      • About in 2025 nobody steering any vehicles anymore, I'm still waiting for my year 2000 flying car, good luck with your self steered 2025 car. Truth is, we are still VERY far from having those type of cars, and will probably never happen

        They're being implemented, now in the UK.
        http://www.atsltd.co.uk/media/pictures/ [atsltd.co.uk]

        But for the moment we are quite far from letting the car drive itself, as it's really difficult to control all variables and preview all unexpected things that could go wrong.

        Which is why the other way to do it is to remove the variables. You then get the additional benefit of eliminating traffic congestion as well which actually makes it faster than a traditional car.

        • Pretty cool initiative, but let's be realistic. From the site you linked to :

          The ULTra system is an innovative form of PRT (Personal Rapid Transit). It is a system of driverless automatic pods travelling at a speed of up to 25 mph on their own guide-way network.

          On their own guide-way network, which means not road. We already have something like this. It's called "train". This ULTra system cannot even share the tracks with cars, as tramways. It is just a battery-operated-concrete-track-train. SLOW battery-operated-concrete-track-train. Looks cool, but in practice it's stupid.

          My job is studying transport projects. This one is crap. Take my word.

          • On their own guide-way network, which means not road. We already have something like this. It's called "train".

            Ah, no.

            There's a crucial difference between Ultra and a train. Ultra transports individuals, a train transports groups.

            That means that Ultra can drive non stop directly to your destination, or as near as damnit. A train, because it transports groups, cannot do that. Ultra is on demand, you go to an Ultra stop and there's one waiting there for you. A train cannot do that because it's transporting groups.

            Basically, a network of ultra stops is faster than a car while a train is a corridor solution which can'

          • My job is studying transport projects.
            So, if it's your job... How come you didn't notice the difference between a corridor solution which transports groups and a network solution which transports individuals?

            This one is crap. Take my word.
            Thanks but your word is rather suspect given the above.
             
      • but when the self steered car appears, it'd better be 100% safe, as people don't like to put their lives on a computer's hands.

        But we've had autopilots on planes and ships for a long time now and people seem quite happy to put their lives in the computer's hands in these cases...

        • But we've had autopilots on planes and ships for a long time now and people seem quite happy to put their lives in the computer's hands in these cases...

          That's 'cause there's always been pilots in the cabin and on the bridge to take over if something comes up that the limited autopilot can't handle and because there aren't many planes or ships around them when the autopilots are on.

          Autopilots in cars would have to navigate through much denser traffic. They'd also have to be much more reliable because the f

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by rs79 ( 71822 )
      " On energy, they say nothing about renewable energy like solar or wind, while it's clear even to me that solar will take a very big part of the production in the next years. "

      Agreed. Their big deal ? Batteries. Never mind there's been no advances in them since the Li ion cell a decade ago or that there were more 2 recent breakthroughs in solar cells this past year covered on this site.

      You want a real energy prediction? People in rural areas will continue to dump their oil furnaces in favour of wood. Wind t
    • while it's clear even to me that solar will take a very big part of the production in the next years.

      Are you saying that you're an idiot, and even to idiots it's clear than solar will be big? I don't get why the "even to me" is there otherwise.
    • There's also more garbage about carbon storage. How do you store carbon without producing more carbon? I don't see anything in the article about increasing our use of nuclear, solar, or wind power (which are non-chemical processes that don't emit carbon compounds)-- so are they going to invent a perpetual motion machine to squirrel away the carbon?
  • Flying cars? I guess, like fusion power, it's 20 years away, not 12.
  • Where is my god damned flying car! Don't tell me I have to wait until I'm pulling a pension.

    Advanced transportation--In addition to the consideration of energy sources for transportation, the experts identified potentially significant breakthroughs in the management of private mobility, as well as advances in public transport. These include:
    personal transportation coordinated through wireless computer networks, information systems, and the Internet

    Sure, you think video is going to be responsible for brownouts. Can I travel from home to work for free but cost per homeward travel? Or will my upload be counted?

  • pfft...the 'predictions' are a joke, right? (Score:5, Informative)

    by djupedal ( 584558 ) on Wednesday November 21, 2007 @06:29AM (#21433091)
    What a conjob
    "# With the initial mapping of the human genome, scientists are moving rapidly toward the following likely breakthroughs for gene-based products and services:
    * creation of an individual's genome map for a retail price of less than $1,000

    This was announced last week...no waiting. Come on down. [wired.com]

    • What a conjob
      Whatzitnow? There was no mention of airports or bathrooms in the article.

    • Re:pfft...the 'predictions' are a joke, right? (Score:5, Funny)

      by Walt Dismal ( 534799 ) on Wednesday November 21, 2007 @06:40AM (#21433131)
      Frankly, I think predictions #28: "Playstation 9 will sweep market", #31: "Blu-Ray 3D conquers adult entertainment market", #60: "President Chelsea Clinton announces new Green Initiative with husband Tommy Lee Gore", and #81: "Windows 2025 requires 16 TB PC memory and delivers faultless DRM with only 23 minute bootup time" are all too likely to come true. However, I'm rooting for #110, "RealDoll 2025 cooks, vacuums, and comes with MUTE button" and #111, "Android-Human marriage legalized".
      • #111 if this comes true, there will subsequently be a lot of rich men, recently divorced by their smart Android wives, who are 50% less rich than they were before... honestly why would you want to "Marry" an android? There's little enough benefit for men to getting married to a real woman (having a stable family is the only one you might hope for) much less an android woman who's going to be smarter than you and guaranteed to outlive you.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by javilon ( 99157 )
      At this speed of improvement by 2015 an individual's genome will go for $100 and by 2025 by $10.

      So it looks like they are off by two orders of magnitude :-)

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by skoaldipper ( 752281 )

      What a cronjob
      # With the initial mapping of the human genome, scientists are moving rapidly toward the following likely breakthroughs for gene-based products and services:
      * 47 6 * * 7 root test -x /usr/bin/creation --individual --genome ~/.map && /usr/bin/sh retail-price -lt 1000 | exit
      Fixed it for you.

  • Evolutions, not Revolutions (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Aminion ( 896851 ) on Wednesday November 21, 2007 @06:33AM (#21433105)
    The list is so general that it is bound to be accurate to a certain degree. Also, I seriously doubt that even the brightest and knowledgeable people can predict the really revolutionary stuff that's going to happen. I mean, back in 1989, how many (few?) people could envision the Internet in its current form? Certain societal advances are so revolutionary and disruptive that we cannot even begin to imagine them.

    Not that any of this means that the predicted future isn't amazing and great for mankind, of course. What's really encouraging is the focus on health and the environment. Advances in (bio) medicine, improved water purification, carbon management and engineered agriculture will arguably save and improve the lives of millions of human beings lessen mankind's impact on the environment. And it's all thanks to technology, and not /Modern society is evil!/We must go back to nature!/ thinking.

    • I mean, back in 1989, how many (few?) people could envision the Internet in its current form?

      My dad did apparently. As well as inventing the fax machine, graphical user interfaces, the European Economic Community, doormats, capitalism, speed cameras, and gravity. He just forgot to go to the patent office.

    • Re:Evolutions, not Revolutions (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Gr8Apes ( 679165 ) on Wednesday November 21, 2007 @07:59AM (#21433455)
      Envisioning the internet as it is today back in 89 would most likely have predicted today's internet in about another 10 years. It's only the speed, not the internet itself, that would have been hard to predict. Most of the things done on the internet today already existed in some form back in 89, some far before then. Email (and IM,SMS), the Web (a combination of FTP repositories, WAIS, Archie, Gopher, and USENET with a better interface), streaming media/video conferencing [ezinearticles.com]. And as for P2P, the internet started with people sharing things off of their systems available to all, became somewhat centralized due to the explosion of end users, and now is moving back to a decentralized format again.

      The major surprise was the speed of cabling and price drops in hardware, making internet access ubiquitous.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by maxume ( 22995 )
        Forums have a shinier interface than USENET, not a better one.
        • Of course it's a better interface. Usenet was shit. Complete anonymity, no accountability, no images, no formatting, no decent threading, no subforums or categories, nothing but spam and endless flamewars lasting literally years. Having to download a huge list of newsgroups, then 'subscribe', then sit there and wait for every message to download, only to see 4000 posts arguing the same shit over and over again, with posts quoted 50 deep so you have to scroll down five pages just to get to the actual post.

          Fa

          • Re: (Score:1)

            by Gr8Apes ( 679165 )

            Of course it's a better interface. Usenet was shit. Complete anonymity, no accountability, no images, no formatting, no decent threading, no subforums or categories, ...

            I can see lots of arguments about this. USENET itself offered no interfaces, only content. Major difference there. Much like RSS today, and in essence, an RSS feed is virtually identical to a USENET feed. Now the readers... I'm certain that readers have gotten better over time. There's some that look almost like, gasp... forums out on the web. DejaNews was a pretty decent web interface.

            • Complete anonymity: no more than exists in any forum from an end user perspective. I would argue that anonymity is good in
    • Really, I'm interested.

      Because everyone I know and have ever heard from, that doesn't resort to denialist idiocy when confronted with pollution and climate change, thinks we should be using our immense knowledge of science and technology to solve the problems we have.

      Never have seen anyone saying "OMG, technology is evil, we must go back to the dark ages". It seems to be the imaginary hippy strawman that people with a financial interest use to stop people thinking about alternative power sources and more ef

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Indiana Joe ( 715695 )
      I mean, back in 1989, how many (few?) people could envision the Internet in its current form?

      I've been on the Internet since 1989. It hasn't changed much. We just have prettier pictures now.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by wurp ( 51446 )

      The list is so general that it is bound to be accurate to a certain degree. Also, I seriously doubt that even the brightest and knowledgeable people can predict the really revolutionary stuff that's going to happen. I mean, back in 1989, how many (few?) people could envision the Internet in its current form? Certain societal advances are so revolutionary and disruptive that we cannot even begin to imagine them.

      Well, Vernor Vinge did a pretty good job of predicting the modern internet ('cept that he threw in

    • My understanding is that serious scientists and futurists actually did see these things coming.

      The "flying car," the "underwater hotel," and so on-- that was largely corporate imagery. "The future" was the Zeitgeist, and each company talked about the future they were going to bring. So the car companies rolled out ads of flying cars, the hotel companies rolled out ads of underwater hotels, and so on. Hardly the work of serious futurists. Most corporations practice serious future analysis on the order of
  • holodecks! direct-to-brain video upload! come on, the porn industry is always AHEAD of technology! DO SOMETHING CICCIOLINA!

  • Universal water thing... (Score:3, Informative)

    by Slashidiot ( 1179447 ) on Wednesday November 21, 2007 @06:52AM (#21433177) Journal
    They are not saying anything too futuristic about the Universal water. What they say is almost here (with a good margin for improvement). However, what they don't say is that all those expensive cool ways to get water only matter to the first world, and not third world countries. We'll be lucky if they have a couple of drops of bleach to put on their drinking water to prevent waterborne diseases for 2025. That would save 1.8 million lives a year. Without any cool ways to get the water, just some basic water treatment for everybody.

  • 2025? Try 2008. (Score:3, Informative)

    by ThreeGigs ( 239452 ) on Wednesday November 21, 2007 @07:03AM (#21433209)
    Every single one of the points mentioned in each of the 12 areas is something that's happening now. This is a 5 year outlook, not an 18 year one. I was hoping to read about the 'next big thing'. 18 years ago it was cell phones and the internet. 18 years before that it was space (satellite), computers and materials science. 18 years before that it was the transistor and rock and roll. Each one had radical, far flung implications that had revolutionary effects, not evolutionary ones.

    creation of an individual's genome map for a retail price of less than $1,000 - try $985
    advanced electric storage devices and batteries at all scales - lithium? Supercaps?
    very simple and inexpensive computing devices with integrated wireless telephone and Internet capabilities - www.nokia.com?
    the "semantic Web," - Google? Netflix?
    multiple variable and inexpensive sensors linked with computers - your door is ajar?
    ultra-fine filters (probably from nanotechnology) - semipermeable membranes? Reverse osmosis?
    affordable and effective carbon capture and storage technologies and systems for coal-burning power plants - riiiight... why not just re-burn the carbon after you capture it? Oh that's right, perpetual motion and all that.
    identification of specific genomes for desired growing and use qualities - you mean ones that Monsanto hasn't already patented?
    radio frequency tags for people and valuables - been shopping lately folks?
    onboard sensors and computers for smart vehicles - your door is... we know, we know
    advanced high-speed rail - presumably the high speed (400 km/h) rail we have now isn't advanced.

    This reads more like someone's current R&D budget.
    • Let's consider some of your comments:

      advanced electric storage devices and batteries at all scales - lithium? Supercaps?

      Supercapacitors based on nanotechnology will be coming within the next 7-10 years, and that will revolutionize the use of electricity, because it makes it possible to store on a large scale power generated by solar panels and wind turbines for later use. It also means electric cars don't need massive, space-hogging battery packs, since supercapacitor battery packs will be much smaller than

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by mh1997 ( 1065630 )

      Every single one of the points mentioned in each of the 12 areas is something that's happening now.

      Which is why I don't know why anyone bothers to read futurists predictions. They assume that current technology is going to develop in a linear fashion and it usually doesn't, the next big thing is likely going to be something completely new, or take several unrelated technologies and combine them in a new and unexpected way. Sure you can make connections through history, but rarely are they linear.

  • Utopia or Dystopia? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by owlnation ( 858981 ) on Wednesday November 21, 2007 @07:06AM (#21433219)

    Security and Tracking
    As an inmate of the UK, can I suggest that those of you who live in other countries begin fighting these "advances" before they ever happen? You do not want this to be your future. In the UK we already have some of it as our present, and it is run by corrupt and incompetent politicians. What's currently happening in the UK is a warning to you all. This is no Utopia. There won't be any British flying cars.

  • In 2025... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by doyoulikeworms ( 1094003 ) on Wednesday November 21, 2007 @07:15AM (#21433253)
    We'll look back on how naively optimistic we were. I remember there was an article back in 2000 about what a group of so-called futurists in the '50's predicted the year 2000 to be like. The only one that was right was "Television in Every Classroom."

    • You want a pessimistic futurist? Try reading some of Belyaev's [wikipedia.org] stories. I remember reading one of his stories about the future (2000?), where an artificial island has been built in the Atlantic Ocean, to help aircrafts cover the distance between Europe and America.

  • Sure Warp drive and all the fun stuff we hear about in Sci-Fi is still a pipe dream, but what about expanding our space exploration?

    I would like to hope that within 15 or so years, we would have developed ways to send long-term exploration missions to other planets like Mars. Sure, we've sent Rovers there and the like, but I'm sure there is much more research that can be done when there are actual people present.

    Another interesting possibility regarding space exploration is the possibility of finding very
    • Mars. Sure, we've sent Rovers there and the like, but I'm sure there is much more research that can be done when there are actual people present.

      True; as von Braun famously said, "Man is the best computer we can put aboard a spacecraft, and the only one that can be mass produced with unskilled labor." But consider advances in other scientific fields that may give us an advantage: with upcoming VR technologies, we may no longer need to strap a scientist into a rocket in order to put human minds on Mars.

  • very western, very expensive (Score:5, Interesting)

    by petes_PoV ( 912422 ) on Wednesday November 21, 2007 @07:29AM (#21433317)
    The only item on the list that will affect the vast majority (including the 1/3rd of the population that has no electricity) is universal water. Even that presumes there's some rainfall for the filtration to work on.

    If you want major breakthroughs for the "other" 90% of the world they'll have to cost less than $10 to the end-user.

    When all these pundits (and their audiences) start thinking in those terms, that'll be a real breakthrough

    P.S. My suggestion for the list would be a viable neural interface.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by khallow ( 566160 )

      Distributed energy, pervasive computing, and carbon management too. Distributed energy technology is going to be the only way isolated parts of the world can get electricity. Pervasive computing includes computational devices cheap enough for most of the world (ie, those above starvation level) can afford. Finally, carbon management will include economic opportunities for poor countries as rich countries overproduce CO2.

      And over such a short time frame, what happens to the 10% is more important than what

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by maxume ( 22995 )
      Cost $10 when, and in what years $10? $10 ain't gonna be much money at all in 2030.
    • What a surprise, technological breakthroughs only occuring in place with technology. Who'd have thought that these innovations wouldn't be relevant to countries that can't even last five years without a military coup?

      I won't shed any tears if breakthroughs don't happen for people who consider it a valid aspect of war to shoot children in the vagina, or that raping babies cures aids. No, let's keep the innovation for civilised places that actually have law and order.

  • DUPE ALERT (Score:3, Interesting)

    by SmallFurryCreature ( 593017 ) on Wednesday November 21, 2007 @07:47AM (#21433385) Journal

    Well it feels like it anyway, I am pretty sure I saw this list before. Oh yeah, every damn year. It is just a blessing the flying car ain't on it anymore, have you got yours yet? Mine must be stuck in the mail. I knew there would be problems going all email.

    But hey, I got time, so lets go through the whole list shall we.

    Personalized medicineWith the initial mapping of the human genome, scientists are moving rapidly toward the following likely breakthroughs for gene-based products and services:

    • creation of an individuals genome map for a retail price of less than $1,000 Good one, with the dollar going DOWN, that means you can get your genome mapped for the price of a coffee.
    • correlation of specific genes and proteins with specific conditions, such as cancers, Alzheimers, heart disease, and diabetes, which will allow both physicians and patients to anticipate, plan for, and mitigate, if not cure, DNA-based health challenges Well, duh, and can I predict that women will get tested for breast cancer so it can be detected earlier? Oh wait, this is already happening. It ain't much of a predition if it is already happening. That is pretty much the problem with this entire list
    • development of pharmaceuticals that treat gene-based diseases, replacing surgeries and chemotherapy Same as above, no not just my comment, this one is part of the previous point.

    Distributed energyThe evolution of distributed energy will reflect that of computing: just as computing has migrated from the 20th centurys centralized model (powerful mainframes delivering applications to remote workstations) to todays decentralized model (PCs and networks), so energy generation and delivery will move from central to distributed sources, increasingly featuring local generators that can be linked when needed for greater output. Specific innovations will include:

    • advanced electric storage devices and batteries at all scales WoW, batteries will be better then they were before. Gosh. This includes small batteries and big batteries. Who would have thought. The future is bright indeed.
    • new power systems with source-switching flexibilityNot even sure what the hell this means. Is this like my laptop that can switch over from battery to net power without a hitch?
    • new energy management systemsWhat kind of energy management systems, are we talking new CPU throttling here OR management of nation wide energy? But hey, whatever. I am pretty sure new systems will be introduced. Sale people got to make a living you know.

    Pervasive computingAlmost every device or object in consumers lives will be both smart and networked, giving rise to an Internet of things. Pervasive computing will drive the convergence of computing, the Internet, voice communications, and televisionultimately blurring categories of infotech products and services. Specific breakthroughs will include:

    • very simple and inexpensive computing devices with integrated wireless telephone and Internet capabilities (the $100 computer) Ah, that is cheap, now I can get a computer for less then a visit to the toilet. Damn inflation is a bitch eh. Bit lazy to predict the $100 dollar computer after it launched (at 200 dollars but lets not be picky). Also kinda ignores that the really hot item is the overpriced iPhone. We may GET simple and inexpensive but do we WANT it? Anyway, computers will be cheaper. WoW. I wish I had known that before I robbed a bank to pay for my PC
    • the semantic Web, enabled by Web data that automatically self-organizes based on its content, allowing search tools or software agents to better identify relevant Web pagesnot just find keywords on them The semantic web cannot exist until you somehow manage to stop people from spamming pages with all kinds of drivel just to get them listed. Google some obscure game and IGN will come up as the ultimate source of info for it, despite the fact that they have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ON I
  • It's 2007 now, so this is 18 years in the future. If you look at columns from 18 years ago, i.e. 1989, do you see anything about the iPhone, Linux live CD's, asynchronous XML-HTTP calls, Google, Segway, etc. as research areas of interest?

  • Social impact of technology (Score:5, Insightful)

    by pubjames ( 468013 ) on Wednesday November 21, 2007 @07:54AM (#21433419)
    This list looks 18 years into the future, if we look back 18 years, it takes us to 1989. In 1989 practically nobody had predicted the web or its implications. A single development, and yet the implications of it are profound and are still in progress.

    The thing about technology is that it develops at a different rate to the social changes it causes. For instance, the social impact of the web is still happening and is likely to continue for a couple of decades, even if web technology doesn't change much. Why? Because people that grow up with a technology behave differently that those that didn't, so the profound social changes sometimes only happen when children grow up and enter active society.
  • Reading this has given me a thought - we need a standard unit for measuring the cost of something. Take this, for instance - "creation of an individual's genome map for a retail price of less than $1,000" - with the dollar losing value every day, what does that mean in reality? Will it mean the same thing in a months time? Not really.

    There's a ball of atoms in a vault somewhere that weighs exactly one kilogram, and should weigh pretty much exactly the same in 10,000 years time. Why don't we have a universal

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by khallow ( 566160 )

      Any thoughts how we could create a fixed unit of value that would be as valid today as it will be in 10,000 years?

      Short answer. You can't. The usual approach is to take the value of a basket of goods (like an ounce of gold or the constantly shifting weighted pile of stuff used in the US Consumer Price Index or CPI). But even that will depend on where you are and what methods you use to adjust for what you think are changes in the value of the goods (say via hedonics). And there's no apparent consistency between valuation methods. Even if I know the price of everything (in US dollars) in 2100, I won't know what the CPI

      • Short answer. You can't.

        Or we haven't worked out how to do it yet...

        Even if it is impossible to create a unit that works over time, it should be possible to have one that works for a given moment. The basket of currencies approach seems good, if the basket is large enough. In fact these of course exist already, for instance I understand airlines use a standard currency unit for certain things. It's just that we need a universal unit that everyone knows so it can be quoted in articles like this.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by khallow ( 566160 )

          Even if it is impossible to create a unit that works over time, it should be possible to have one that works for a given moment.

          But once the moment is over, you lose the valuation. Looking back, I improperly explained my argument. The problem isn't that you can't find a valuation, any combination of goods, the weighting changing in arbitrary ways, is a valuation. And people respond to changing prices. For example, you don't see a lot of buying of whale oil and beaver fur hats. Inflation also looks different based on what you do. If you raise a kid, get educated, or maintain a house, you will see more inflation than the single pers

    • Any thoughts how we could create a fixed unit of value that would be as valid today as it will be in 10,000 years?
      Football Fields per Library of Congress.
    • It may not be ideal but something like the average hourly wage might work.

  • sounds reasonable, but not much to read (Score:5, Interesting)

    by zappepcs ( 820751 ) on Wednesday November 21, 2007 @08:08AM (#21433485) Journal
    Necessity is still the mother of invention. All you have to do is look at problems that will not be solved next year, and think a little bit about it, you too can be a futurist. I'm not saying you will be great at it, but you can be a futurist. Being able to predict likely future trends used to be something useful and difficult to do. With the advent of the Internet, you have a veritable research facility in your home. What? you need to know about materials engineering? Google it bro! Oh, need to know about animal husbandry? Google it bro! At no previous time in man's history has so much information been available to so many people. I really am saddened to see that such is left out of the loop on how the future is going to look.

    We are currently at some point of compromise between where society was when the original Star Trek was written, and where it predicts we will eventually go. The world has become much more flat, as they say, with regard to commerce, news, politics, and many other things. None of this seems to be affecting technology predictions. Well, I'll make a prediction; the things I've just mentioned will have a far greater impact on future technology than people generally give credence to.

    Look at the results of what some of the current technology will bring: Health insurance industry upheaval with bio-tech innovations; big pharma industry upset with open source style medicines; auto insurance upheaval with computer driven vehicles; in general, all of the current trend in innovation is about to upset the big business apple cart. Trouble with this is not that things will change, but that third and second world countries are better poised to take advantage of it as it happens. Big businesses will fight tooth and nail to keep their stranglehold on their markets with the same determination that we have seen the **AA use. There is no good that can come from this.

    I also predict that business will change in general. There will be polarization of business practices. Simply opening a company with one cash cow will not be good enough. There will be more vertical integration of business as well as more single mom-n-pop salons. Walmart and their ilk will crumble under their own weight. That seems to contradict what I said of vertical integration, but it does not. There will be more self reliance in business as technology becomes more important, and wise CEO's will see that they need in-house expertise rather than simply paying someone else to do what they can no longer trust another company to do for them. As the world becomes more flat, and regulation of industries becomes more equalized, it will not be possible for some huge multinationals to remain that way. Yes, shrinking profits is what is ahead for the globe.

    It will take only one invention to upset the entire global economy, say for instance, free fuel. Hydrogen power for free or very cheap and made open source would destabilize a huge section of the global economy. None of these 'futurists' seem to get any of that in their predictions.... ?

  • Distributed energy (Score:4, Insightful)

    by khakipuce ( 625944 ) on Wednesday November 21, 2007 @08:27AM (#21433563) Homepage Journal
    Really good idea, perhaps we could ... errm ... how about ... oh I don't know ... use metallic cables to distribute the energy.

    so energy generation and delivery will move from central to distributed sources
    So we have lots of little, local power sources - which are harder to regulate (both in terms out power output and in terms of ensuring that emissions are clean up etc.), less efficient in terms of materials consumption, and need yet more batteries to store energy at times when the generator is not working. I know, let's cover the world in lead, acid, lithium and cadmium - that will solve lots of problems.

    • Really good idea, perhaps we could ... errm ... how about ... oh I don't know ... use metallic cables to distribute the energy.

      Oh, you mean those heavy, inefficient copper wires that waste an enormous amount of energy as heat?

      Think of energy as data, and cables as bandwidth. Why do you think bittorrent is so popular? Because they save resources by distributing the data flow. What makes you think distributed energy won't be different?

      So we have lots of little, local power sources - which are harder to regula

  • Don't make me laugh, they've been pushing that for decades now. It's not going to happen as long as humans can control their own metadata.

    Maybe I should read some more recent papers on the idea, bt last I knew of it it was a pipedream and would only work in a world where everyone was honest.

    I'd like to live there, it's a shame we don't.
  • I agree with other posts that there is not much new or visionary in the article. It's a summary of current research, basically, as practically all the points have actual research projects which have started. Put researchers from different top universities together and they will come up with such a summary.

    (Of course I appreciate that all this current research being done is very difficult and important work. Just that for a "visionary" article it would have been more interesting to predict what is beyond
  • Love that tag - it immediately brought Hawkwind's Spirit of the Age [sweetslyrics.com] to mind.

    "Your android replica is playing up again
    it's no joke
    When she comes she moans another's name"

    And that was from 1977 - Quark Strangeness and Charm is still one of my favourite LPs, even though I no longer have a turntable, the whole album's etched in my mind.

    Really, though, TFA was complete tosh. Most of the 'predictions' exist now, and those that don't are easily forseeable or too vague to interpret meaningfully.

  • Where's that amazing Randi? Why is pseudoscience even submitted to slashdot, let alone published on the front page?

    If you don't think "futurism" is pseudoscience, then tell me where I can get my docrorate in "Futurism?" Or even take a single course in it (but if there are no PhDs in this pseudofield, who's teaching the courses)?

    Once you reach geezerhood it's pretty evident that these futurists are so full of shit it's spilling out of their ears. You've all, of course, heard about the "global cooling" they w
    • That he felt the one big thing he missed was miniaturisation. Multivac is not the internet, it's one enormous computer. Asimov genunely thought we'd have less and less computers that got bigger and bigger. He didn't realise that whilst they do get more powerful, they also get smaller and so they get everywhere.

      Makes you wonder what sort of futures he would have imagined had he got that right.

      OTOH, at least he wasn't claiming his fiction was anything but fictin and though experiments, grounded somewhere in r
  • Cheap Solar energy would make a lot of problems go away. Problems like water desalinization, air pollution, expensive and damaging personal and mass transport, environment control (heating and cooling) for those who are sensitive - think heat waves killing the elderly... even making a lot of science and technology a lot cheaper to develop and maintain.

    Remove fuel costs from our economy and replace them with one-time batter expenses and everything would get a lot cheaper real quick. Food production, manufact
  • your brain in a computer = immortality and any sensation any time
    Since "you" = "your brain" = electrical and chemical reactions that can be fully modeled in a computer there is no difference between you and your model in the computer (there is a slight difference in that sensory inputs are done electrically, instead of a mix of electric and chemical0
    to put it another way, if the hardware fully models your brain, is there any difference to you ? your personality is the same and your sensory inputs can be any
  • Personally, I'm excited to check out my $1,000 genome map. Imagine how convenient it will be when Google crawls my genome map and places relevant text ads that can cure any problems I may have.
  • that in the year 2025 futurists will be the second largest segment of America's economy, right after the service sector. As much as 30% of Americans will be hard at work figuring out what technologies smart people will come up with next.

    Futurism: If you're not smart enough to make the future happen, why not predict it?

Slashdot Top Deals

I have hardly ever known a mathematician who was capable of reasoning. -- Plato

Close