20 Years From Now. Science and Technology.

In summary, 20 years from now, virtual reality will be as widespread as the internet, robots will be your friends, and we will have landed a human on Mars. Genetic engineering of humans will have begun, but still be in the beginning stages. China will close in on their superpower status, and India will catch up in science and economy. Flying cars will not be a reality, and cashless transactions will not be possible. The politicians will still be blowing smoke about the same problems as today, and the biotech bubble will still be within a few patents, permits, and acts of legislation from exploding. California will have pumped the Great Lakes dry, and be in the planning stages of diverting the Amazon River north
  • #1
BlackVision
28
1
What are your thoughts on how this world will be different 20 years from now? Here are my thoughts.


1. Virtual reality will be as widespread as the internet allowing you to escape the human world.

2. Robots are your friends. Every household will have one. Just like the Jetsons :smile:

3. We have landed a human on Mars! That's one small step for man, one giant leap for our sponsor Pepsi Cola!

4. We have built permanent resident stations on the Earth's orbit. Beginning the long process of space colonization.

5. Genetic engineering of humans has begun. But still in the beginning stages so only allowing you to select a handful of characteristics.

6. China is closing in on their superpower status. And just like historic times, have rised to the elite countries of the world in economy and science.
 
Computer science news on Phys.org
  • #2
Y'know, about 25 years ago, I predicted that we'd already have those robots and Jetson flying cars by now (actually, by the year 2000...it was one of those school projects, predicting what the world would be like in the year 2000). I'm sorely disappointed we don't have them already. Well, we have some of that, just not the little maid and butler robots like Rosie on the Jetsons!

As for genetic engineering, we already have the capability of doing genetic selection. I think using genetic engineering therapeutically is much closer than 20 years away.

Don't you think a better sponsor for Mars would be the M&M/Mars company? The employees already call themselves Martians.

Let's see, in 20 years, I think continued urban sprawl, increased traffic, rising fuel costs, reduced fuel availability, and deteriorating roads will spark a nationwide initiative for increasing and improving mass transportation that will actually get serious funding to make it happen.
 
  • #3
Not only China, but also India I think. And I would say China is already a "superpower" ;), but in Science and Tech it won't take too long to pass the US.

I think the robot portion is a little iffy, though. Especially "every household". Every household still doesn't have a computer/the internet at this point. Robots will, though, defenitely be able to do and understand more complicated things.

Landing on Mars is a defenite possibility, though.
 
  • #4
Pretty easy to show that India won't overtake the US economically in only 20 years (unless the US suffers some Argentinian-style catastrophe ... mismanagement of the budget a la CA?), and that China probably won't either ... it'll take closer to 40 years.

How? Take current GDP and populations, assume the US continues to grow at modest rates (cf history), assume India catches up in 20 years ... what would its average annual per capita GDP growth rate have to be?
 
  • #5
India doesn't have to catch up economically to catch up scientifically, though. Especially the way India/hinduism society is designed. It almost certianly won't catch up economically, at least not per capita, etc., but the advances will still be there, along with the infrastructure.
 
  • #6
I believe the current plan for a man on Mars is 30 years.

Robots in every home. Are we only speaking of industrialized countries? Surely countries such as Tibet and other countries without the current widespread technology we enjoy will be WAY BEHIND.
 
  • #7
If your library hasn't moved all the bound journal collections older than 20 yrs. to the attic/basement/Timbuktu annex, take a break and thumb through a few from 1950 --- you'll get a few laughs at the predictions in various essays and editorials. Y'all are just too stuck in the sci-fi Mars/robots/brave new world rut. They hit everything just about completely backward then, and dollars to doughnuts, you're hitting everything backward here.

Now, to shoot myself in the foot: we'll be within just a few years of commercial fusion power; we'll be --- of a cure for cancer, the common cold, and all the other persistent plagues; --- few years of men back from Mars.

Seriously? Cashless (you don't think the revenooers are going to put up with black market labor for much longer, do you?). The politicians will still be blowing smoke about the exact same problems as today --- they ain't about to "kill the job" and do things right --- then they'd either have to work for a living, or go through the pain and agony of learning about some new "looming, dire crisis/threat to mankind." The biotech bubble will still be within a few patents, permits, and acts of legislation from exploding like the dot.com bubble of the late 90s. And, finally, California will have pumped the Great Lakes dry, and be in the planning stages of diverting the Amazon River northward.
 
  • #8
You guys are way too optimistic. Flying cars? Robots? Mars? Get real. Stuff doesn't get done unless there is money supporting the result. With insurance the way it is now, and people not taking care of their vehicles, flying cars will NEVER happen - ever. Robots might happen but probably not; people just aren't willing to buy expensive junk (segway?). We won't have peple on Mars because there is no reason to. Going there costs a lot of money and there's absolutely nothing to gain from it. Permanent space stations are not likely because there is really nothing to gain from doing that.

I have a few positive predictions for the future though.
1. HIV will be eliminated
2. Women will be even more beautiful (they're getting better all the time :wink:)
3. Fusion might actually work properly
4. Stereo speakers will be much more efficient (think of how much they sucked in the 80s compared to now!)
5. TVs will be really really good (I mean the TV itself, not the programming)
6. Deathmatch will be shown on TV (just like UT predicted)
7. Computers will be 00ber l337
8. Prostitution will be legal (remember that hardcore porn, organized prostitution, used to be illegal in the 80s)

Overall, it looks like a positive future, but I fear that the recent wave of stupid_people_taking_over could lead to anarchy.
 
  • #9
ShawnD said:
You guys are way too optimistic. Flying cars? Robots? Mars? Get real. Stuff doesn't get done unless there is money supporting the result. With insurance the way it is now, and people not taking care of their vehicles, flying cars will NEVER happen - ever. Robots might happen but probably not; people just aren't willing to buy expensive junk (segway?). We won't have peple on Mars because there is no reason to. Going there costs a lot of money and there's absolutely nothing to gain from it. Permanent space stations are not likely because there is really nothing to gain from doing that.
Of everything listed, the question isn't rather if, but when. That is the only debate. Nobody is debating if. By debating if, you begin to lose all credibility. Technology doesn't stand still.
 
  • #10
3. Fusion might actually work properly
You got to be kidding me if you think fushion energy is more plausible than going to Mars, etc.

Fusion requires temperatures of 200 million degrees F. The sun is 10 thousand degrees F to give you some comparison. The core of the sun is 27 million degrees F.
 
  • #11
So you're saying fusion cannot be done on earth? Hate to burst your bubble but it's done all the time. The only problem is that it takes more energy to create deuterium and tritium than the fusion actually releases. We'll eventually find a way to create deuterium and tritium without a lot of energy. That's just controlled fusion though.
Uncontrolled hydrogen fusion has been around for over 30 years (hydrogen bomb?).
 
Last edited:
  • #12
So you're saying fusion cannot be done on earth? Hate to burst your bubble but it's done all the time. The only problem is that it takes more energy to create deuterium and tritium than the fusion actually releases. We'll eventually find a way to create deuterium and tritium without a lot of energy.
Ever hear of hydrogen bombs? The thing is we can't control fushion, nor will we anytime soon. Definitely not within 20 years. And unlikely in this century. When you find a container that can withhold 200 million degrees, you let me know.

EDIT: Ok you added the hydrogen bomb part after I replied. And I explained this already here.
 
  • #13
BlackVision said:
The thing is we can't control fushion, nor will we anytime soon. Definitely not within 20 years. And unlikely in this century. When you find a container that can withhold 200 million degrees, you let me know.

I'm letting you know right now.
http://www.pppl.gov/projects/pages/tftr.html [Broken]

TFTR set a number of world records, including a plasma temperature of 510 million degrees centigrade -- the highest ever produced in a laboratory, and well beyond the 100 million degrees required for commercial fusion

Consequently, in 1994, TFTR produced a world-record 10.7 million watts of controlled fusion power, enough to meet the needs of more than 3,000 homes.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #14
ShawnD said:
I'm letting you know right now.
http://www.pppl.gov/projects/pages/tftr.html [Broken]
And how consistent is that? For how long did they manage that temperature? Was it even for a second? I'm guessing it wasn't for too long.

Even beyond the temperature barrier, there are so many other complications. The plasma gets exceedingly difficult to control.

We'll land on Mars before fusion power is pumping through homes, I assure you.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #15
ShawnD said:
2. Women will be even more beautiful (they're getting better all the time :wink:)
I wish I had your kind of optimism here. The way Botox got so popular, I think in 20 years everyone will be walking around unable to make a facial expression. :frown:
 
  • #17
BlackVision said:
And how consistent is that? For how long did they manage that temperature? Was it even for a second? I'm guessing it wasn't for too long.

Even beyond the temperature barrier, there are so many other complications. The plasma gets exceedingly difficult to control.

We'll land on Mars before fusion power is pumping through homes, I assure you.
Fusion power has already exceeded energy "break-even" for prolonged periods. The obstacle is economic "break-even".

Putting a man on Mars has been possible for quite a long time. There is just no reason to do it. It might get done. It might not. Either way, it is just of no significance. We put a man on the moon to show we could do it. There was no scientific value to it at all. Since we know we can put a man on Mars, why bother?

Njorl
 
  • #18
Njorl said:
Fusion power has already exceeded energy "break-even" for prolonged periods.

Are you serious? That's excellent; now all we need to do is make it economical and we'll have infinite power!
 
Last edited:
  • #19
My mistake. There are design concepts that are well accepted as being capable of energy break-even. They are not econimical to build.

I had thought that break-even had been reported, and I posted based on that recollection. So far, I have not found a reference for it. Strangely, information seems to dry up after 1996 or so.

Njorl
 
  • #20
Concept said:
I wish I had your kind of optimism here. The way Botox got so popular, I think in 20 years everyone will be walking around unable to make a facial expression. :frown:

LOL! Well, 20 years is only one generation, so I'm not expecting any big changes in appearances by then, but in 40, 60 or 80 years, we're going to start having some really ugly kids running around...with all the plastic surgery, lasik, orthodontics, botox, etc, you just don't know how ugly your kids are going to be based on your partner's appearances.

Oh, and the kids will all be wearing suits and ties to look cool, just to irk their parents who still wear pants falling off their rear-ends (but that's not related to technology). Hearing aids will also be fashionable and sold with multi-colored face plates to match your outfits since today's teens will be experiencing hearing loss at an unprecedented young age of 30-something.

Everyone will own a plasma screen TV as they start selling dirt cheap while the next new technology trend comes along. Long gone will be the cable box, all your television programming will be received through your computer.

SUVs will be the old clunkers and sleeker compact cars will regain popularity. Hybrid cars will become more popular, but we will not have eliminated fossil fuel usage by a long shot.
 
  • #21
20years? What is that? :)
 
  • #22
Uncontrolled fusion posts

ShawnD said:
So you're saying fusion cannot be done on earth? ...it's done all the time.
In Farnsworth devices, yes.




The only problem is that it takes more energy to create deuterium and tritium than the fusion actually releases.
No. The fusion releases more energy (as it turns the fuel into helium, etc.) than it takes to make or collect and refine the fuel. It is the confinement energy cost which causes the energy deficit.




We'll eventually find a way to create deuterium and tritium without a lot of energy.
Deuterium is easy to get, in respect to its potential energy release via fusion. Canada literally has tons of it; she uses it as a moderator in her (un-enriched uranium) CanDu reactors. Approximately 1 in 6000 parts of ocean water is deuterium, and separating it out can be done chemically in at least one simple way since its vast weight difference from light water causes its boiling point to differ by the relatively substantial amount (as far as chemical differences between isotopes of the same elements are concerned, since isotopes of the same elements famously are nearly identical in chemical properties {and hence the difficulty in separating U-235 from U-238}) of about one degree celsius.

Tritium can be made as part of a parasitic process (e.g., a breeding blanket) involving lithium-6 in fission reactors. This is where the tritium for boosted fission devices comes from.




Uncontrolled hydrogen fusion has been around for over 30 years
...For 51.5 years. The 10.4-megaton Mike shot took place November 1, 1952.


The folks at Know Nukes can tell y'all a lot more about this stuff.
 
  • #23
Moonbear said:
LOL! Well, 20 years is only one generation, so I'm not expecting any big changes in appearances by then, but in 40, 60 or 80 years, we're going to start having some really ugly kids running around...with all the plastic surgery, lasik, orthodontics, botox, etc, you just don't know how ugly your kids are going to be based on your partner's appearances.

Oh, and the kids will all be wearing suits and ties to look cool, just to irk their parents who still wear pants falling off their rear-ends (but that's not related to technology). Hearing aids will also be fashionable and sold with multi-colored face plates to match your outfits since today's teens will be experiencing hearing loss at an unprecedented young age of 30-something.

Everyone will own a plasma screen TV as they start selling dirt cheap while the next new technology trend comes along. Long gone will be the cable box, all your television programming will be received through your computer.

SUVs will be the old clunkers and sleeker compact cars will regain popularity. Hybrid cars will become more popular, but we will not have eliminated fossil fuel usage by a long shot.
Moonbear, you have hit the nail on the head. With the nose jobs, orthodontia, liposuction, chin implants, and other various procedures, the "beautiful people" are becoming less and less beautiful. How true and how funny.
 
  • #24
I don't know about that one, Evo. Have you seen The Swan? They turn fugly chicks into hot chicks. The only problem with that, as stated by moonbear, is that you won't know how fugly your kids will end up. After having kids, you find out that your wife originally had a huge nose, an ass-chin, was bald, had lopsided boobs, and had a serious underbite.

About suits being fashionable, wasn't that already a fad sometime in the 80s or something? I would like to see that make a comeback.
 
  • #25
ShawnD said:
I don't know about that one, Evo. Have you seen The Swan? They turn fugly chicks into hot chicks. The only problem with that, as stated by moonbear, is that you won't know how fugly your kids will end up. After having kids, you find out that your wife originally had a huge nose, an ass-chin, was bald, had lopsided boobs, and had a serious underbite.

About suits being fashionable, wasn't that already a fad sometime in the 80s or something? I would like to see that make a comeback.


GAH! Horrible flashback to skinny ties and suits with the sleeves pushed up! :eek:

Njorl
 
  • #26
Are men into liposuction (etc) too? Not a few would seem to be in need of such :wink:
 
  • #27
It doesn't work. If you don't change your diet and exercise, you'll gain the weight back in less than a year.
 
  • #28
Male need for liposuction

Nereid said:
Are men into liposuction (etc) too?
Surely, some men are very into liposuction.
 
  • #29
ShawnD said:
I don't know about that one, Evo. Have you seen The Swan? They turn fugly chicks into hot chicks. The only problem with that, as stated by moonbear, is that you won't know how fugly your kids will end up. After having kids, you find out that your wife originally had a huge nose, an ass-chin, was bald, had lopsided boobs, and had a serious underbite.
That's exactly what I was saying.
 
  • #30
Oh sorry, I misunderstood. By "beautiful people" you mean the NORMAL beautiful people. I thought you meant the ones who became beautiful after getting surgery.
 
  • #31
ShawnD said:
Oh sorry, I misunderstood. By "beautiful people" you mean the NORMAL beautiful people. I thought you meant the ones who became beautiful after getting surgery.
I did mean the ones who became beautiful after surgery. That's what moonbear was describing.

ShawnD said:
Have you seen The Swan? They turn fugly chicks into hot chicks. The only problem with that, as stated by moonbear, is that you won't know how fugly your kids will end up. After having kids, you find out that your wife originally had a huge nose, an ass-chin, was bald, had lopsided boobs, and had a serious underbite.
and apparently you too?
 
  • #32
I said they become better looking after surgery.
You said the become ugly after surgery.

Are you sure? There are some really fugly people that can be made into good looking people after surgery.
 
  • #33
ShawnD said:
I said they become better looking after surgery.
You said the become ugly after surgery.

Are you sure? There are some really fugly people that can be made into good looking people after surgery.
Ah, I see what you mean.

When I said "Moonbear, you have hit the nail on the head. With the nose jobs, orthodontia, liposuction, chin implants, and other various procedures, the "beautiful people" are becoming less and less beautiful. How true and how funny." I was being facetious.

I meant, by plastic surgery, artificially, on the outside, they become more beautiful, but in actuality, their offspring will be ugly, because they are physically ugly.

I think I may have a problem expressing ideas, you are not the first to misunderstand my posts. :frown: I understand my posts. Does anyone else understand them?
 
Last edited:
  • #34
Just add more smileys to set the tone.
 
  • #35
ShawnD said:
About suits being fashionable, wasn't that already a fad sometime in the 80s or something? I would like to see that make a comeback.

Yep, seems suits being fashionable skips generations. So does the length of hemlines. 20s and 30s, era of the flapper dresses (short hemlines), 40s and 50s, longer hemlines, all the men wear suits (think June Cleaver), 60s and 70s, microminis and bellbottoms become popular, 80s the Miami Vice suit look is popular, as are longer skirts for women again (the exception was Madonna and the bras on the outside look...maybe the boxers on the outside is the men's response to the women's trends in the 80s)...the longer hemlines continued into the 90s a bit, but the suit thing didn't last a full generation this time. 90s and 00s, back to shorter hemlines, lower necklines, lower waistlines and the whole grunge look (between rising hemlines and lowering waistlines, there's not much left in between...why do clothes still cost so much?). So, I predict by the 2010s and 2020s, we'll see longer hemlines and suits returning again. Not quite like our father's suits, and not the Miami Vice look, but some version of suits. Fashion trends really seem to be all about rebelling against your parents, even if it means repeating what your grandparents did.
 

Similar threads

Replies
59
Views
2K
  • Computing and Technology
2
Replies
40
Views
3K
  • Computing and Technology
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Computing and Technology
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • Computing and Technology
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
983
Replies
19
Views
15K
  • Art, Music, History, and Linguistics
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
931
Back
Top