First off, what Bob and other people seem to not realize is that the current scientific paradigm, i.e. general and special relativity basically makes space travel a pipe dream
in principle. Theoretically you could travel close to the speed of light and the time elapsed from your perspective would seem slight, but everyone you knew and loved back home would have died thousands of years ago. Who's going to do that? Unless we could all travel as a society it's hardly worth it.
BgRdMchne said:
You are never going into space.
You will never own a jet pack.
Your car will never fly.
HIV will not be cured in your lifetime.
Cancer will not be cured in your lifetime.
The common cold will not be cured in your lifetime.
Don't these things bother you?
Those are some awfully bold predictions. The last three should be solved in the next 50 years or so once we've mastered our understanding of genetics. At this point they are merely known unknowns. There's really no excuse why they shouldn't other than complete corruption. However, you couldn't bury cures and medicinal breakthroughs like alternative energy because it's too easy to produce and distribute it, someone will inevitably have too much of a conscience to be bought off and they'll end up screwing the pharmaceutical companies. Corruption can keep systems like our dependency on oil going because changing the system would involve a massive industrial overhaul. E.g. we would have to create an entirely new system of hydrogen pumps across the nation, or build an effective nation-wide mass transit system, both of which are massive investments and thus can be more easily argued against when people don't care. But with medicine there is no such problem. Once someone comes up with a cure it is easy to produce and distribute. At most it will be set back by the patent for a few years, but that won't last very long because people will clamor for a cure and ultimately society will be more efficient as a whole if it is burdened with less sick people. The pharmaceutical industry will eventually lose out.
You're clearly some sort of conspiracy theorist. Let me let you in on some bad news: we aren't in control of our own destiny. There is no illuminati. Society is driven by blind forces.
The reason why we are stagnating right now is because we have grown decadent. We are too busy enjoying what we already have and there is no reason to invest in anything revolutionary. Businesses are in it for profits. They aren't deliberately stealing our future, they are just doing what is in their nature to do. They won't invest in long term high risk/reward scientific research because it is too risky from an economic standpoint. This is just the way the world works, sorry. There isn't much you can do.
Think of the conditions which brought about the most revolutionary technologies... computers and the splitting of the atom just to name a few.. all were brought on by WORLD WAR. When engaged in an epic struggle a society is more willing to invest in high risk/reward revolutionary technologies. Europe isn't more technologically advanced because of some Hegelian world spirit; other civilizations such as Japan, India or China could just have easily stumbled upon the industrial revolution and scientific method. In fact, they came very close at certain points. The reason why it happened in Europe is because Europe was at constant struggle with itself, and thus was much more willing to invest in new technologies.
For instance, the optics that paved the way for Copernicus and Galileo were useful because they allowed one to see an approaching armada hours earlier and thus constituted a tactical advantage.
Other civilizations fell off in technological advancements once they became secure enough from external threats. Japan passed on rockets and gunpowder because it was largely concerned with
internal struggles within its own society. Thus even though there was violence, it was a controlled violence and not an existential threat. The different sides were able to come to agreements about honor and chivalry, and this was a prudent thing because more efficient weapons technology would have actually
destabilized their society on the whole. In contrast, the European civilizations were separate enough that they still considered each other an existential threat. The French complained about the English's use of longbows at the battle of Agincourt as non-chivalrous but this was an empty complaint because there was no greater rule of law above the French and English because they were too independent of one another. Whereas in Japan such a complaint could spell disaster for the perpetrator by turning other warlords against them.
Even now the source of most of our hard core scientific research comes through DARPA and the military industrial complex. But since we aren't currently facing an existential threat there isn't as much of a need for such investments, and funding falls off. I'll tell you right now that if we were worried about an enemy such as soviet Russia having genetically altered super soldiers we would be putting
a lot more into genetic engineering ourselves, which would in turn lead to huge medical breakthroughs for civilians. In fact, the most vehement opponents to genetic engineering right now (i.e. conservatives) would be the ones calling for greater funding! It would be the liberals who would be against it. And ultimately the conservatives would win out because the instinct for self-preservation will always trump ethical reservations.
