sci-fi films made in the 50/60s depicted a world in which people whizzed around, space with limitless energy ! also people wore silver suits, and touched a dial to adjust heat, well people put on another jumper! another scenario, post apocalyptic, or fighting for oil, you get the point. do we expect too much from science, the major cancer's still have a high mortality rate, we are made aware of superbugs and the possible erosion of land from climate change etc, of course people can be saved from blindness, sometimes hearing loss, and we have false teeth! yet i wonder if science has been corrupted, by eg governments, and corporations. eg instead of weapons, how about more research on clean, cheap alternatives to petrol or would it somehow be blocked by self interest of oil companies, or abused by defense departments , swords to ploughshares, er a little fanciful i know
I think science is far more ahead than what they tell us. But the following is true. The world has to be a practical place to live. Thats why flying cars are not made, if people are dangerous on normal roads, why would you want flying cars. Futurists the best ones, understand that the world is practical. But i would think that science is far more advanced than they are telling us. Also the fact they probably have everything they need already, so they dumb down society to make a better world, but its really just a make believe pretend world, that is being run by humans with higher techs today. Most humans have no idea what goes into there decision making. They are taught they are free, lol. They will make a society where they can find enough smart people to run society, and thats all they need. The rest can be as stupid as anyone else. The world will move along as fast as whom ever runs our society wants. Just look at nuclear weapons, everyone thinks they are the best weapons humans have. Although they where made in 1940's. Do you really think we have not moved on? Always remember the world needs to be practical. Like virtual reality never came out when it did, as it would probably have made so many mental patients. That sort of techs are dangerous. Maybe in future such things may come, but the people running society know, that things like virtual reality could be dangerous, and thats why when it came out when i was a kid in 80's i knew it would not really come. But maybe after they know mankind is ready for it one day, who knows.
I don't. Nuclear weapons have never been anything but a terrorist weapon. They have little or no military value.
I love science, but yes people expect too much from it. Our problems are more political than scientific. And there is no clean, cheap alternative to petroleum, so we need to downsize society. This is the job of urban planning and local bureaucrats.
Science is very helpful when used wisely and by those with high regards to protection of humanity and environment. Fools can use science just as easily today as wise men so we need to take care to watch over what's going on.
Cars are already in the prototype phase which don't require "hands-on" driving. Just tell it where you want to go and it maintains the proper speed and distance from the other vehicles. In 15 years they'll probably be common, and in 30 years cars with brake pedals steering wheels will probably be illegal. There's no reason that a flying machine can't work the same way. The two major problems are 1) Land travel is much more fuel-efficient and 2) An aircraft large enough to carry a couple of humans would need to maintain a rather high speed (surely >100mph/160kph, any pilots here?) and even with avionics software in control that's impractical in an area with dense traffic. Maybe they could be used for long-distance travel but the fuel cost would be prohibitive and by then, all you've done is reinvent the airplane anyway. Glad to finally hear somebody agree with me. The best definition of terrorism is: violence used against a civilian population, with the implied threat of more to come, if they don't adopt a political position so repugnant to them that there is no other way to get them to adopt it. In other words, it is extortion writ large: the Mafia burning down a store whose owner didn't pay his monthly "protection" money so all the other storeowners will pay theirs. That's what Hiroshima and Nagasaki were. As military targets they had very little strategic or tactical value. But by demonstrating to the Japanese that we were willing to fight war in a new and (by their admittedly rather odd moral standards) utterly dishonorable way, we were extorting them to reconsider their intention to keep fighting until the last five-year-old girl was gunned down while honorably charging a battalion of U.S. Marines with her dead daddy's samurai sword. (You're supposed to look your enemy in the eye as you kill him, or something like that. That is "honor.") Unfortunately, it worked. Although, admittedly, not everyone agrees with that observation, what matters is that terrorists do. Each one of them says to himself every morning, "It worked for the United States, so it will work for us." * I'm sure nobody in Washington cared about the tens of millions of Japanese casualties (they'd already been firebombing civilians in Tokyo, many of whom "escaped" into the water and simply drowned), but they figured that an invasion and occupation of Japan would cost at least 100,000 American casualties.
I am sure there is lots of this going on in testing. But there will never be flying cars. Look how dangerous the skies can be, and already the roads are dangerous. But of course some sort of remote driving by computers will come on normal roads, and i am sure there is lots of testing already going on. This is something that is practical, and probably will come. I have never driven a car, and i am sure lots of there are like me, would welcome computers doing it. Not sure if it will come in my life though. Flying cars - stupid idea Computerised driven cars on normal roads - good idea
