What ever happened to the jetpacks and flying cars we were prommised?

[blackrave]

Who doesn't want robot cars? Their safer and pretty much guaranteed to be the way we are going in the next decade (with Google's self-driving car and others getting the green light to drive it on city streets).

I doubt people will so easily give up control over their own car. Having a computer making all the decisions on the road is likely to scare a lot of people. And I would imagine that the sensation of driving is something most would miss. It might be well suited for cargo vehicles or the like, but personalized cars... I doubt it.

I always considered automated cars to be like ones depicted in "I, robot" movie
They drive on their own, but anytime you want you can activate manual control
Everyone wins.
Want to drive? Go manual and enjoy.
Too drunk to drive? Get inside a car, close door, open door, puke on sidewalk, close the door, say "home" and car drives you home.

 

[lacktheknack]

It turns out they weren't actually feasible or worth the operating cost, much like FTL travel, true AI or autonomous bots.

Hell, autonomous cars/delivery/etc. scares the hell out of me. Not only would programming it be a nightmare, but a simple glitch (which WILL occur) could result in deaths.

 

[DeimosMasque]

Well Nike is looking making power laces a reality by 2015, is that good enough? Or does Matel have to make hover boards as well?

Honestly technological speculation and the like has always sort of jumped the gun with technological advancements because it always does it from the lens of what is popular/important to their own era. For example by today most people expect cell phones to become more integrated in our lives while in the 50s the idea of a carry around phone didn't even compute, phones were not that big of a deal.

 

[Kingjackl]

We just sort of went in a different direction. I mean, Back to the Future II assumed we would have flying cars and holographic technology by now because that was how people used to view the future. But it also assumed the zenith of futuristic communications technology would be having a fax machine in every room, while the Internet was something nobody could have predicted.

We weren't promised anything like jetpacks and flying cars, really. It's just what we really wanted and we assumed technology would develop in those directions.

 

[DeimosMasque]

It turns out they weren't actually feasible or worth the operating cost, much like FTL travel, true AI or autonomous bots.

Hell, autonomous cars/delivery/etc. scares the hell out of me. Not only would programming it be a nightmare, but a simple glitch (which WILL occur) could result in deaths.

By Star Trek we've got another half-century before FTL needs to become a reality, I'm 33 at the moment... hoping to make it that long

 

[lacktheknack]

It turns out they weren't actually feasible or worth the operating cost, much like FTL travel, true AI or autonomous bots.

Hell, autonomous cars/delivery/etc. scares the hell out of me. Not only would programming it be a nightmare, but a simple glitch (which WILL occur) could result in deaths.

By Star Trek we've got another half-century before FTL needs to become a reality, I'm 33 at the moment... hoping to make it that long

It's not going to happen... ever.

Even ignoring the energy limit set (you need infinite energy to reach light speed), there's still the issue of "hitting things really really freaking fast".

This highlights the problem. We'd have to find entirely particle-free "tunnels" to anywhere we want to go, and those don't exist. If you go too fast in a metal spaceship and hit a cloud of random particles (ie air, tiny asteroid), then you get metallic chain fusion, which as far as ways to die go, is somewhere in the realm of "being shot with twenty thousand arrows" in terms of overkill.

Sure, there's talk of "bending the space/time continuum", but this has its own issues, such as matter suddenly existing inside other matter, or the aforementioned chain fusion problem if the spacecraft doesn't phase out of existence.

Really, our best hope is to figure out wormholes, but 50 years? Try 50 centuries.

 

[Queen Michael]

Hold on, you guys don't have that stuff?

I guess it's true; Sweden does have a higher standard of living.

 

[Sir Thomas Sean Connery]

It turns out they weren't actually feasible or worth the operating cost, much like FTL travel, true AI

Those are both extremely worth the cost. One is the only means for our species to survive any decent length of time and the other is one of the final steps to the singularity. Feasibility is a small obstacle to overcome in those cases. It's also silly to say "It's not going to happen ever ever ever because I heard that's how it is from a scientist" when our assumptions about what is and isn't possible change every day. We'll figure it out.

OT:
I think it's primarily two-fold.

1: Not much point. A flying car doesn't really improve the car in a meaningful way. Until we have forests of skyscrapers and upper-story parking, there's no reason. Same for jetpacks.

2: The general stupidity of the average person. Most people can hardly walk and drive cars on the ground and there's still an absurd number of vehicle deaths ever year. Add flight to walking and driving and it would be a massacre every day.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

The problem is that human beings are stupid, easily-distracted creatures who can barely manage to navigate a two-dimensional environment without problems; adding a third dimension is just asking for trouble. And technology has yet to give us failure-free flight systems or automatic pilots.

It's dangerous enough to pull over on a highway when you have a mechanical failure; what do you do when you're a half-mile up?

 

[lacktheknack]

It turns out they weren't actually feasible or worth the operating cost, much like FTL travel, true AI

Those are both extremely worth the cost. One is the only means for our species to survive any decent length of time and the other is one of the final steps to the singularity. Feasibility is a small obstacle to overcome in those cases. It's also silly to say "It's not going to happen ever ever ever because I heard that's how it is from a scientist" when our assumptions about what is and isn't possible change every day. We'll figure it out.

Untrue on that last part.

At no point have we figure out a way to completely disregard gravity and float at whatever point in space we desire. We've found ways to work around this, yes, but it's always a massive problem that's getting in our way and no one thinks we're going to find a simple way to "turn it off".

Similarly, there's simply no way to travel near light speed without exploding. End of. There are no workarounds. The only way to avoid it is to avoid it. We'll either have to blink out of existence (which we have no concept of how to even begin, or what will happen if we do, etc) or figure out how to use wormholes, which we can't even study properly because they're ephemeral and unpredictable.

Our assumptions of what's possible and not do not change daily on every topic. There's a reason physical laws are called "laws".

I know it feels good to be optimistic and figure "Meh, we'll figure it out", but it's simply not realistic. Yeah, people thought that being able to talk to someone on a device unconnected to another device (cell phone) was impossible at one point, but not thinking that FTL will happen is akin to thinking that leveling a mountain with a normal sneeze is impossible - it just is. You have to break all of the rules of nature to allow it to happen. And laws simply aren't breakable - never have been, never will be.

 

[Sir Thomas Sean Connery]

It turns out they weren't actually feasible or worth the operating cost, much like FTL travel, true AI

Those are both extremely worth the cost. One is the only means for our species to survive any decent length of time and the other is one of the final steps to the singularity. Feasibility is a small obstacle to overcome in those cases. It's also silly to say "It's not going to happen ever ever ever because I heard that's how it is from a scientist" when our assumptions about what is and isn't possible change every day. We'll figure it out.

There are no workarounds. The only way to avoid it is to avoid it. We'll either have to blink out of existence (which we have no concept of how to even begin, or what will happen if we do, etc) or figure out how to use wormholes, which we can't even study properly because they're ephemeral and unpredictable.

See, this is where the whole "realism is doom and gloom, we'll never travel space, etc" argument just falls apart.

You yourself listed workarounds and then said they're bad because we haven't figured them out.

Saying it can't be done by looking at it from a purely current scientific view is meaningless.

Granted, certain things cannot be done in certain ways, but there's always ways around it.

 

[lacktheknack]

It turns out they weren't actually feasible or worth the operating cost, much like FTL travel, true AI

Those are both extremely worth the cost. One is the only means for our species to survive any decent length of time and the other is one of the final steps to the singularity. Feasibility is a small obstacle to overcome in those cases. It's also silly to say "It's not going to happen ever ever ever because I heard that's how it is from a scientist" when our assumptions about what is and isn't possible change every day. We'll figure it out.

There are no workarounds. The only way to avoid it is to avoid it. We'll either have to blink out of existence (which we have no concept of how to even begin, or what will happen if we do, etc) or figure out how to use wormholes, which we can't even study properly because they're ephemeral and unpredictable.

See, this is where the whole "realism is doom and gloom, we'll never travel space, etc" argument just falls apart.

You yourself listed workarounds and then said they're bad because we haven't figured them out.

Saying it can't be done by looking at it from a purely current scientific view is meaningless.

Granted, certain things cannot be done in certain ways, but there's always ways around it.

They're not bad because we haven't figured them out, they're bad because we have no way of figuring them out.

 

[Yopaz]

The flying car... sounds amazing right? Severely reduced friction would be just what we need to make driving better. Or maybe it's the other way around? Increased friction between the tired and the road is what have helped us get cars with better grip on the road and also more speed and acceleration. In winter and on rainy days more accidents tend to happen because the friction gets reduced and break distance increases. An icy road would still have a better possibility of making you stop than what you'd see with a flying car though.

Also flying cars have been tested, but they aren't xonsidered a field they're going to work on for public use.

Jetpacks exist, but they are expensive.

What we do have is amazing on its own and something we were unable to predict. I am able to communicate with people I would never have met over the internet. I can look up scientific articles published in science and nature in order to gather information for work from anywhere in the world. I can translate things with a few clicks of the mouse. The internet is more amazing than a flying car ever was.

 

[DeimosMasque]

It turns out they weren't actually feasible or worth the operating cost, much like FTL travel, true AI or autonomous bots.

Hell, autonomous cars/delivery/etc. scares the hell out of me. Not only would programming it be a nightmare, but a simple glitch (which WILL occur) could result in deaths.

By Star Trek we've got another half-century before FTL needs to become a reality, I'm 33 at the moment... hoping to make it that long

It's not going to happen... ever.

Even ignoring the energy limit set (you need infinite energy to reach light speed), there's still the issue of "hitting things really really freaking fast".

This highlights the problem. We'd have to find entirely particle-free "tunnels" to anywhere we want to go, and those don't exist. If you go too fast in a metal spaceship and hit a cloud of random particles (ie air, tiny asteroid), then you get metallic chain fusion, which as far as ways to die go, is somewhere in the realm of "being shot with twenty thousand arrows" in terms of overkill.

Sure, there's talk of "bending the space/time continuum", but this has its own issues, such as matter suddenly existing inside other matter, or the aforementioned chain fusion problem if the spacecraft doesn't phase out of existence.

Really, our best hope is to figure out wormholes, but 50 years? Try 50 centuries.

In reality, yeah not likely unless we find out that the way we understand physics is wrong in some way. 50 Centuries? I think that's a bit much. Three Centuries is more likely... IF and that is a big assumption, IF the way we understand physics is wrong.

I'm an optimist in the idea that fifty years ago we didn't even have cellular telephones, people couldn't even conceive of them. Yet today, they practically overwhelm our world. Space exploration isn't a priority (trust me I know) but if we really focused on it, humankind could achieve anything that is possible in some way.

 

[Sir Thomas Sean Connery]

It turns out they weren't actually feasible or worth the operating cost, much like FTL travel, true AI

Those are both extremely worth the cost. One is the only means for our species to survive any decent length of time and the other is one of the final steps to the singularity. Feasibility is a small obstacle to overcome in those cases. It's also silly to say "It's not going to happen ever ever ever because I heard that's how it is from a scientist" when our assumptions about what is and isn't possible change every day. We'll figure it out.

There are no workarounds. The only way to avoid it is to avoid it. We'll either have to blink out of existence (which we have no concept of how to even begin, or what will happen if we do, etc) or figure out how to use wormholes, which we can't even study properly because they're ephemeral and unpredictable.

See, this is where the whole "realism is doom and gloom, we'll never travel space, etc" argument just falls apart.

You yourself listed workarounds and then said they're bad because we haven't figured them out.

Saying it can't be done by looking at it from a purely current scientific view is meaningless.

Granted, certain things cannot be done in certain ways, but there's always ways around it.

They're not bad because we haven't figured them out, they're bad because we have no way of figuring them out.

Yet.

I'll even give you the true FTL thing. Certain things are, reasonably speaking, impossible.

But figuring out the workarounds? Only a matter of time.

 

[SomebodyNowhere]

my immediate thought on the subject was

but yeah sometimes I remember some of those old videos that gave visions of the future(colonies on the moon, flying cars, etc) and wonder why everybody had to overestimate the future so badly.

 

[option1soul]

It would be nice but unfortunately we need to spend that money on proper schooling; if we can't spell correctly (despite the available programs) then jetpacks would just be a disaster.

OK... That sarcasm was totally unnecessary. Please forgive me.

Seriously though, I worked as an ESL teacher for a big Korean company a while back and I often 1-on-1 taught executives for large companies like SK. On a few occasions I even talked with people so deep in the Korean government they couldn't tell me their names or what they did for a living, only that they were "government employees".

One time I talked to an engineer working for the Korean military who let it slip they were trying to design "personal aircraft for the private sector". He didn't say much about it other than it was a serious challenge and they wouldn't have working prototypes for several years.

Take that as you will, he could have totally been BS'ing me but I believed him. The Korean military is hella serious about stepping up futuristic technology and successfully tested everything from futuristic small arms to fully automated turrets while I was working.

 

[lacktheknack]

In reality, yeah not likely unless we find out that the way we understand physics is wrong in some way. 50 Centuries? I think that's a bit much. Three Centuries is more likely... IF and that is a big assumption, IF the way we understand physics is wrong.

I'm an optimist in the idea that fifty years ago we didn't even have cellular telephones, people couldn't even conceive of them. Yet today, they practically overwhelm our world. Space exploration isn't a priority (trust me I know) but if we really focused on it, humankind could achieve anything that is possible in some way.

Nope, 50. Again, we can't even track down a wormhole to study, let alone keep it alive long enough to study it, let alone here where we can reach it.

Attempting to harness something when we only vaguely understand what it even does is... Hell? I think Hell is the right word.

Also, I don't get where people get the idea that "people couldn't conceive of cellular telephones 50 years ago". Not only were they piss-easy to dream up (a telephone without a wire), but if you asked a telecoms layman how one would work, they'd have no problem telling you a theory or two ("Well, we simply have to send radio waves through the air, which is easy enough. We already do that with personal radios. I just don't know how we would avoid cross-call interference and call-specific signals... maybe an encoder? Maybe if those new 'computer' things were small enough, they could read encoded signals.").

EDIT: Missed a key word.

They're not bad because we haven't figured them out, they're bad because we have no way of figuring them out.

Yet.

I'll even give you the true FTL thing. Certain things are, reasonably speaking, impossible.

But figuring out the workarounds? Only a matter of time.[/quote]

All I'll say is that I thank God that I'm not the sucker who gets to research those alternatives.

 

[Vegosiux]

It's funny how to most people "technological advancements" have to mean "cool new stuff to show off with" and "new varieties of porn".

I'm quite content with technological advancements first and foremost being applied to stuff like standard of living, really. That, plus all that was covered extensively on the first page.

 

[Casual Shinji]

I don't want to reiterate the points other people made above and on the first page etc...what I want to know is why we don't have Lunar colonies. Ideally civilian colonies/cities but I would settle for any kind of living space on The Moon where people live and work. Haven't we been that we have the technology to form Lunar colonies for the past couple of decades now?

What would be the point of that though? There would need to be some reward for the risk involved. The diminished gravity would screw up people's physiology, and the constant exposure to space radiation would ultimately give everyone cancer.

This is why space exploration is currently just not viable. Apart from the billions of dollars it would cost.