It’s interesting because they got so much right but they just couldn’t quite imagine the computer so they have humans pulling levers, remotely operating machinery, being carried by advanced surveillance helicopters…
Perhaps this hints that our vision of the future should have us doing less.
Yeah, I do think the thing that will date most 20th century science fiction is that it usually has humans actively doing most things, like mining, piloting space ships, fighting battles, etc. When it seems more likely that almost all of that will be done by AIs, with humans directing them at best.
Regarding space sci-fi in particular, the image of a human manually piloting a space ship is iconic in both Western and Soviet fiction. Before the advent of real world human spaceflight era, it could be linked both to the lack of understanding of computers and other technical systems, along with the eternal popularity of the heroic explorer/captain/pilot archetype. However, even as public knowledge of space exploration has advanced, this portrayal persists in fiction.
We humans just like good engaging stories, even if they are not always realistic.
It might still make sense to pilot a ship manually for landing or proximity operations.
Even deep space maneuvers can be done manually if you know what you are doing - point ship engines in right direction and thrust for right number of seconds/minutes.
Sure, for stuff like orbital launch, some crazier Oberth effect burns or continuous thrust propulsion (ion, solar sail) you definitely want computer control.
For modern spacecraft such as Dragon capsule, almost all operations are completely automated by default: launch, landing, ISS docking. Manual overrides exist, but they are intended to be used only as a backup in case of a computer failure.
I can see an argument for manual landing on another cosmic body, given the famous story of Neil Armstrong saving Apollo 11 landing by manually landing the capsule. Though the latest generation of lunar landers can perform the procedure fully autonomously, using machine vision to find an optimal landing spot.
I tried looking up, whether manual or automated moon landing is planned for HLS program, but couldn't find anything specific. It's probably going to be some mix of both.
Or they imagined that such devices would be much more powerful but much less general than what we actually have. The card showing books being shredded and fed into students by headphone looks like a computer to me even though it is cranked manually. Quite a lot of my software development career was dedicated to programs that transformed knowledge in one form (specifications and domain expertise) into knowledge in a different form (detailed drawings, bills of materials, and descriptions of the final product.
It's unskilled. People will still be performing feats of dexterity, strength, courage, and genius in the future. They won't be shoving books into a woodchipper.
It's also interesting to see what they could not envision. For example, they obviously could not imagine that women could wear anything other than a dress.
to downvoters: are you suggesting it was illegal for women to wear pants back then?
(and no, the paris decree does not count). There were female marketed "trousers" appearing in the 1850s, so it is clearly completely retarded to suggest that the french artists "couldnt envision women wearing pants".
But carry on with the official party line, but do so knowingly that it is fake.
It's quite possible that the downvotes were expressing confusion/annoyance at the brevity and lack of context of your comment without additional explanation.
There are three different "could"s in the comment to which you're replying.
I think, had your comment included the second paragraph, it would have been much more useful.
that might depend on your definition of unacceptable, if it is something that people do not like, but dont take so much offense to as to make illegal, i would say that it is simply discouraged or looked down upon, but not "unacceptable" or "unimaginable".
I also highly doubt there was a 100% universally shared view on female pants at the time.
Chemical may be also translated something like medicinal - note the butler has tiny pills on his plate; it’s the “meal in a pill” that comes up now and then (famously in Willy Wonka).
It is cool they realized that horses would now be curiosities and something people would see at events rather than an everyday thing. People turn their heads today when they see a horse drawn carriage.
kinda surprising how much of these are about doing leisure activities under water. and also nothing relating to space so they probably didn't think space was in the cards for the next century.
Or space seemed boring and empty because we didn't know much about it, where we knew even then that the ocean was teaming with life and mysteries and myths like Atlantis.
Which science fiction media? Is there any dream that is physically possible while unrealized?
- Going to other galaxies: As opposed to flying, those are physically impossible,
- 2100 utopia would be about ecology and people consuming less, not more,
- When I was a kid, I used to dream about flying blades (drones) or minicomputer in our hands where would could read stuff of program. Today I don’t see a single thing that I would like to dream about.
If anyone thinks anything about the future of humanity will involve us consuming less instead of more, they're forgetting the entire history of most human endeavors and tendencies up to the present day, completely. We may find cleaner, better, less invasive ways of consuming and creating things from what we consume (I would hope), but I would bet any amount of money that across all metrics of practical use, humans will consume more food, energy, needed materials and so forth by far in 2100 than they do today, unless some truly enormous catastrophe sets our civilization back or causes depopulation.
I can see us consuming less of any given resource we heavily use now, but only because we no longer need it due to some new innovation, and for no other reason.
Perhaps what we need are some decades of social advancement, not just technological. Our last significant social experiments and discoveries date from the 1850s or so (nationalism, socialism, slightly later fascism). While that period led to some of the worse massacres in history, it also led to some positive changes in attitude that persist today - mainly respect for the rights of each people, an end to the colonial mindset.
Perhaps just like a mostly peaceful independence of India, Australia, Canada etc would have seemed unthinkable at the height of the British Empire, perhaps a non-consumerist society which seems unthinkable today is still in the cards.
Either way, we will obviously see less consumption in the coming century - either voluntarily, as I hope, in order to stop the worse forms of global warming; or else global warming will continue in its current path to 3, 4, 5 degrees of warming, and the ensuing catastrophes will force it on us.
Maybe the new surge of interest in Dune is a sign in this direction. It's the only major sci-fi that mainly focuses on futuristic advances in social and self-development "technologies" rather than engineering (the Bene Gesserit being the most representative group - both in how they practice social engineering, and in how they train themselves to control their own bodies).
Talking about social relationships - I for long dreamed (fantasied) about device that lets to merge two and more people thoughts, memories, experiences.
Always wondered what would happen from it. And, I guess, maybe it's technically possible if we ever figure out how to read and write human brains/body chemistry?
One of the interesting things about these photos is that, aside from all the under-water ones, many of the contraptions exist. We just call them Roomba, Kubota tractor, Audible, Philips All-In-One Trimmer, etc. One consistent facet is that many of our modern technologies are a lot more complex on the inside, but simpler in appearance. There really is one guy pushing buttons to harvest thousands of acres.
There's a complex kitchen one, and many people do have robot butlers in their kitchen today, they're just corporate chic instead of nearly alchemical, and called a Keurig. Though I would not invite such a creature into my home on account of its aesthetics I do admit its impressive.
Another observation is that we've abstracted away the robot-ish nature of a lot of these machines. There's a special factory that makes k-cups, so that our home environment can have the simpler machine. We decided to pave millions billions(?) of miles of road, and also perfectly flatten the square footage of nearly every store and warehouse, just to make the machines run smoother. I think it would be hard for a person from 1899 to understand just how much flatness we've engineered for our cars and roombas and shopping carts to work universally.
Yes. In 1899, they hadn’t even invented the lift, necessary for skyscrapers. Imagine showing them, not Dubai, but a mundane success story like Bangkok.
Edit: The Eiffel Towers had some, earlier than that. See comments ;) Sorry.
In 1899, the Eiffel Tower was 10 years old. Not only did it have lifts, it famously, notoriously had lifts. French futurist artists could hardly be more aware of the concept.
I remember reading about an early hotel or some such. Passenger elevators weren't a thing but they knew they were coming so they designed in round elevator shafts. Which later they needed to make a custom elevator for. Because round.
tl;dr: Cooper Union's Foundation Building built 1853. Otis demonstrated his invention at the Crystal Palace in 1854, first installed Haughwout Building in 1857
Also freight elevators existed for a long time before but were unsafe for passengers.
The "movement" was of course a continuous effort, hard to say when it started. In England, a major improvement effort was done around 1810-1830 by a rich nobleman, who was irritated by having to use very bad country roads to go to his local nobility political meetings (can't recall his name at the moment), and he was going there by horse. He had a scientific mind and devoted last decades of his life to studying road construction techniques and writing up the results. Since he had money and political clout, his ideas were adopted, and later spread across Great Britain, leading it to having by far the best roads in the world at the time.
What contributes to accuracy is what’s not there. To me especially the biology and medical advancements are missing.
While we’re way better at maintaining our bodies than 100 years ago, we’re still mostly focused on improving our environment, just like 100 years ago.
In 2124 I’d like no illnesses, regrowing limbs, perfectly balanced nutrition that is universally available, safe and accessible bio tech, and I could go on.
I can see that, in limited capacities, in less than 10 years for animals, and 20 for humans. Regrowing bones from genetic/growth defects for children at least, maybe minor bone reconstruction too.
Like current this clinical study [1]?
Or this pre-clinical [2].
The technology seems to exist (and there are people running marathons that were in need of a joint replacement before), only that the adoption is still in progress
This is exiting, really. Not everything about the world is great right now, but biology and medecine are fields that could really explode in the near future.
I didn't realize that the underwater thing was so important back then.
We are all thinking about flying cars, and these drawings don't disappoint, but there is as much happening underwater as it is happening in the sky.
Now, we are still fascinated with flying, machines, etc... but going underwater is boring by comparison. We have submarines, mostly for the military, a bit of scientific exploration, etc... but besides a few passionate people, people usually don't think that much about the underseas. It is as if space completely took its place in our imagination.
Most of our planet is underwater and barely explored. And most of the region isn't really claimed. By countries or individuals in those countries.
The long-term benefits of exploration are often in the tools to solve the problems with the exploring. Tang and Velcro and microwave ovens are minor examples - I bet you can think of better things the space program gave us! Overall, it's s greater good for society and it spawns lots of specialized businesses and innovation. It's not the destination; it's the journey.
The ocean may not be "the final frontier" (nods to Roddenberry), but that seems like an appropriate "next frontier."
Living space. Imagine if they built out San Francisco into the sea, you would open up so much more attractive locations a to build homes at and live in.
My example shows that the sea would open up a lot of new space near interesting places. People bunch up at coasts, you could bunch up more people around coasts if some of them lived underwater.
This seems super logical to me though: it's just way cheaper and simpler to build into the sky: few to no issues with air pressure. Fewer issues with sun-light. No issue with the build-surface moving (except for during earthquakes).
Compared to building underwater: massive costly issues to overcome due to water pressure (when going deep), issues with lack of light. When building at the surface: waves, wind, lack of stable build platform.
These are all issues that where known and predictable in 1899 as well...
Space is still an unknown unknown, there just isn't anything interesting there that we know of. Most sci-fi space aliens and planets are based on underwater animals and plants, so I'd argue the dream of underwater exploration is still there but now labeled space exploration.
>> the underwater thing was so important back then.
Because, unlike outer space, the deep ocean was a magical and alien dimension that existed only feet away from everyone's doorstep, and the technology for getting there was under rapid development. Jules Verne's 20,000 LUTS came out only twenty years previous to this article. The artist may well have read it as as child.
Seems like a reasonable inference. Futurology, even before there was a name for it, seems to hinge on two important factors; immediate need vs convergence of technologies. This results in some admittedly anachronistic ideas, but seems like a pretty rational approach, none the less.
That the sea was not only accessible to a degree, but we also had hints of what was down there, would likely put that in the front of thinking minds as a problem solved in the near future, outer space being a bit less attractive of a mystery, since it was not obvious that resources could be gained from trying to go there.
I do often wonder what our current predictions of the future will look like five or six generations down the line. I'd like to think that we have a better grasp on problems that need solving or how technology will naturally combine to accomplish more work, but I bet the folks in the late 1800's thought they had a good grasp on that, too.
> We have submarines, mostly for the military, a bit of scientific exploration, etc... but besides a few passionate people, people usually don't think that much about the underseas.
BIG submarines are for the military but by far the biggest consumer of submarine technology is the oil and gas industry so people do think about it a whole lot. The underwater world is largely inaccessible to the average person because of the capital requirements (even fewer people can afford subs than boats) but we absolutely depend on that technology to power our energy infrastructure.
> We have submarines, mostly for the military, a bit of scientific exploration, etc...
There's a special mention that deserves to be featured: submarines used for logistics in intercontinental trade routes: the infamous narco subs from south America cartels.
Also, tourism subs exist, including those used in deep sea trips.
> Another observation is that we've abstracted away the robot-ish nature of a lot of these machines.
In some ways, this is also limited by the format. It would have been easy for people back then to illustrate a Roomba or a modern sound setup (instead of the old-school speakers), but it would have been a pretty boring picture and confusing to people at the time, without additional explanation at least. The way these scenes are drawn, it's immediately obvious what has changed.
That's a good point. When I saw the robotic symphony, I thought it was pretty ridiculous, because you don't need separate speakers to play the sounds of different instruments. But a normal person in 1900 wouldn't have understood this from a picture, and if they saw a picture of a normal rock concert today, they wouldn't know what it was or how anyone could hear the instruments (though they'd recognize the drums and guitars as such).
My neighborhood dates from the turn of the century. The houses that date back to the original days of the neighborhood are easy to spot, because they're built up on a berm about 3 to 4 feet higher than the street level. This is because when they were built, the street was just a bunch of mud and horse manure. The standard house design would dig out a half under grade basement, piling the excavated dirt into a berm around the house to keep it above the surrounding muck.
Now I’m curious what would be a today’s vision of life in 2124.
Also, could we use these to train an AI? As in: pair 1899 predictions with the actual outcome, train a model, and later provide today’s predictions of 2124 as input?
One of the most difficult things seems to be forecast fashion but probably the artist didn't even attempt to envision future clothing, except for technical ones. That would distract from the main point. There is even a gown in the underwater game of croquet.
> They envisioned robotic tailors and even today we are far away from that
There was a startup 3 decades ago, where you ordered custom khakis on the web. As a first step towards broader custom clothes. Entering assorted measurements, or modifying the dimensions of a previous purchase, a custom pattern was quickly laser cut, manually stitched in one of the last garment factories in the US, and overnighted. Patented, sold, bungled, abandoned. Stitching automation continues to improve, but full automation isn't quite there yet? Body scanning seems close. So near-term next-day almost-automated tailoring from Mexico?
That is basically the B2C version of Zara. The start-up doesn't exist anymore, the Zara founder is one of the richest people on earth now.
This particular problem is bot about production of clothing, it is about everything else: design, sourcing of rae materials, distribution. The standard start-up approach of applying "tech" to that doesn't work.
Not that we could do it but i feel like the real issue is that manufacturing a couple of univeral sizes of less form-fitting clothes is a significantly easier solution to this problem. I think they tended to expect tech to change instead of culture, while in reality our culture has adapted to what is available technologically.
I read somewhere that people understimate how much things in the long time and overstimate how much things change in the long time.
Seeing this drawings is interesting because it's possible lots of things that happened are old ideas like automation in farms. The ideas are correct in some with the visuals or details different, but overall very interesting. Shows how important it is having a vision.
I’m reading your thoughts through a very usable brain-computer interface. It consists of a high resolution display which optically couples your thoughts into my visual processing system.
This is probably not what you meant, but instead you are looking for a direct brain-computer interface? Why do you think that would be a good thing?
In the midst of rapid technological progress, encompassing breakthroughs in AI, chips/semiconductors, alongside the unsettling surge in global geopolitical tensions and the transformative impact of certain social media, particularly affecting Gen Z & Alpha, I find myself constantly pondering the trajectory of our future. The relentless pace of change prompts me to question what life may entail in the next 10, 40 years, or even beyond 2010.
Personally, I am inclined to think that as time unfolds, the complexities of forecasting the distant future intensify. Just a month ago, the notion of individuals donning AR/VR headsets while walking down the streets seemed far-fetched. However, with the release of the Vision Pro and folks using it in public places as it was a phone, I realized I would not be able to predict much in the coming future and just live the moment and hoping the best for humanity.
I have similarly found a shorter time horizon in my imagining of the future, which I find less need to do because the present is so advanced in comparison to even my predictions in 2010. With an accelerating pace of change, thinking linearly as before makes less and less sense. I find myself trying to stay abreast of current developments of which there are so many.
I think anyone who was paying even a little attention to the tech in modern smartphones could see that really the only reason AR headsets aren't commonly worn outside is that no one has come up with a compelling enough application and associated compelling enough packaging, not a lack of technical ability to make such a device, and I doubt Vision Pro will accomplish that either, just like with Google Glass, its main source of popularity is that it's from a brand that many people consider their identity.
And we still aren’t quite there where it comes to freeing people from hard manual labor. A bit depressing if you ask me. Nobody can even make a decent house cleaning robot which knows how to clean around cables and won’t paint your entire apartment in dog diarrhea if your dog poops where it shouldn’t have.
These pictures, 120 years old, look old and so different from current standards.
I like to think that in 100 years what seems modern will look the same to our descendants (if there is no event that brings us back to the Middle Ages).
Even today's science-fiction movies are limited by an imagination that is born from what we see around, including the ones with magic.
142 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 179 ms ] threadPerhaps this hints that our vision of the future should have us doing less.
We humans just like good engaging stories, even if they are not always realistic.
Even deep space maneuvers can be done manually if you know what you are doing - point ship engines in right direction and thrust for right number of seconds/minutes.
Sure, for stuff like orbital launch, some crazier Oberth effect burns or continuous thrust propulsion (ion, solar sail) you definitely want computer control.
I can see an argument for manual landing on another cosmic body, given the famous story of Neil Armstrong saving Apollo 11 landing by manually landing the capsule. Though the latest generation of lunar landers can perform the procedure fully autonomously, using machine vision to find an optimal landing spot.
I tried looking up, whether manual or automated moon landing is planned for HLS program, but couldn't find anything specific. It's probably going to be some mix of both.
Or they imagined that such devices would be much more powerful but much less general than what we actually have. The card showing books being shredded and fed into students by headphone looks like a computer to me even though it is cranked manually. Quite a lot of my software development career was dedicated to programs that transformed knowledge in one form (specifications and domain expertise) into knowledge in a different form (detailed drawings, bills of materials, and descriptions of the final product.
People in Matrix movies were not doing much.
It's unskilled. People will still be performing feats of dexterity, strength, courage, and genius in the future. They won't be shoving books into a woodchipper.
(and no, the paris decree does not count). There were female marketed "trousers" appearing in the 1850s, so it is clearly completely retarded to suggest that the french artists "couldnt envision women wearing pants".
But carry on with the official party line, but do so knowingly that it is fake.
There are three different "could"s in the comment to which you're replying.
I think, had your comment included the second paragraph, it would have been much more useful.
I also highly doubt there was a 100% universally shared view on female pants at the time.
https://publicdomainreview.org/collection/a-19th-century-vis...
- Going to other galaxies: As opposed to flying, those are physically impossible,
- 2100 utopia would be about ecology and people consuming less, not more,
- When I was a kid, I used to dream about flying blades (drones) or minicomputer in our hands where would could read stuff of program. Today I don’t see a single thing that I would like to dream about.
Maybe social relationships?
and social relationships
Silent Running https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0067756/
The unified computing ecosystem from The Expanse.
The public transport from Westworld
I can see us consuming less of any given resource we heavily use now, but only because we no longer need it due to some new innovation, and for no other reason.
Perhaps just like a mostly peaceful independence of India, Australia, Canada etc would have seemed unthinkable at the height of the British Empire, perhaps a non-consumerist society which seems unthinkable today is still in the cards.
Either way, we will obviously see less consumption in the coming century - either voluntarily, as I hope, in order to stop the worse forms of global warming; or else global warming will continue in its current path to 3, 4, 5 degrees of warming, and the ensuing catastrophes will force it on us.
2100 utopia is the dream that we can all be united under the one system.
The start to rising positivity is causing people to chase dreams off a cliff. I'd be careful about what ideas you give people.
People follow dreams well past the point where they should logically conclude, even to death.
Always wondered what would happen from it. And, I guess, maybe it's technically possible if we ever figure out how to read and write human brains/body chemistry?
1) ok, but should be staring at iphones
2) not this one perhaps, given our treatment of whales
3) john deere tractors - it's a thing
4) could see many of our overvalued billionaires going for this
5) drone strike
6) robo hoover - available everywhere
Whaling was one of the biggest industries back then, I'd argue by the standards of 1899 that would seem quite humane
Almost infinitely better than back then?
There's a complex kitchen one, and many people do have robot butlers in their kitchen today, they're just corporate chic instead of nearly alchemical, and called a Keurig. Though I would not invite such a creature into my home on account of its aesthetics I do admit its impressive.
Another observation is that we've abstracted away the robot-ish nature of a lot of these machines. There's a special factory that makes k-cups, so that our home environment can have the simpler machine. We decided to pave millions billions(?) of miles of road, and also perfectly flatten the square footage of nearly every store and warehouse, just to make the machines run smoother. I think it would be hard for a person from 1899 to understand just how much flatness we've engineered for our cars and roombas and shopping carts to work universally.
Edit: The Eiffel Towers had some, earlier than that. See comments ;) Sorry.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elisha_Otis
Google comes through for once.
https://www.amusingplanet.com/2020/04/the-elevator-shaft-tha...
tl;dr: Cooper Union's Foundation Building built 1853. Otis demonstrated his invention at the Crystal Palace in 1854, first installed Haughwout Building in 1857
Also freight elevators existed for a long time before but were unsafe for passengers.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Roads_Movement
While we’re way better at maintaining our bodies than 100 years ago, we’re still mostly focused on improving our environment, just like 100 years ago.
In 2124 I’d like no illnesses, regrowing limbs, perfectly balanced nutrition that is universally available, safe and accessible bio tech, and I could go on.
[1] https://gallica.bnf.fr/services/engine/search/sru?operation=...
I can see that, in limited capacities, in less than 10 years for animals, and 20 for humans. Regrowing bones from genetic/growth defects for children at least, maybe minor bone reconstruction too.
>> World’s 1st drug to regrow teeth enters clinical trials
https://globalnews.ca/news/9984605/tooth-regrowth-drug/
[1] https://biomedizin.unibas.ch/en/communication/details/univer... [2] https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2020/08/Researchers-f...
We are all thinking about flying cars, and these drawings don't disappoint, but there is as much happening underwater as it is happening in the sky.
Now, we are still fascinated with flying, machines, etc... but going underwater is boring by comparison. We have submarines, mostly for the military, a bit of scientific exploration, etc... but besides a few passionate people, people usually don't think that much about the underseas. It is as if space completely took its place in our imagination.
I suppose if the surface became uninhabitable, or if we wanted to hide from space-based surveillance.
I can't think of anything better.
The long-term benefits of exploration are often in the tools to solve the problems with the exploring. Tang and Velcro and microwave ovens are minor examples - I bet you can think of better things the space program gave us! Overall, it's s greater good for society and it spawns lots of specialized businesses and innovation. It's not the destination; it's the journey.
The ocean may not be "the final frontier" (nods to Roddenberry), but that seems like an appropriate "next frontier."
Compared to building underwater: massive costly issues to overcome due to water pressure (when going deep), issues with lack of light. When building at the surface: waves, wind, lack of stable build platform.
These are all issues that where known and predictable in 1899 as well...
Space was more of an unknown unkown.
Because, unlike outer space, the deep ocean was a magical and alien dimension that existed only feet away from everyone's doorstep, and the technology for getting there was under rapid development. Jules Verne's 20,000 LUTS came out only twenty years previous to this article. The artist may well have read it as as child.
That the sea was not only accessible to a degree, but we also had hints of what was down there, would likely put that in the front of thinking minds as a problem solved in the near future, outer space being a bit less attractive of a mystery, since it was not obvious that resources could be gained from trying to go there.
I do often wonder what our current predictions of the future will look like five or six generations down the line. I'd like to think that we have a better grasp on problems that need solving or how technology will naturally combine to accomplish more work, but I bet the folks in the late 1800's thought they had a good grasp on that, too.
BIG submarines are for the military but by far the biggest consumer of submarine technology is the oil and gas industry so people do think about it a whole lot. The underwater world is largely inaccessible to the average person because of the capital requirements (even fewer people can afford subs than boats) but we absolutely depend on that technology to power our energy infrastructure.
Which was also invented by a Frenchman: Jacques-Yves Cousteau.
You'll go to at most 10 meters with their gear and a bunch of professional minders. Great fun.
There's a special mention that deserves to be featured: submarines used for logistics in intercontinental trade routes: the infamous narco subs from south America cartels.
Also, tourism subs exist, including those used in deep sea trips.
In some ways, this is also limited by the format. It would have been easy for people back then to illustrate a Roomba or a modern sound setup (instead of the old-school speakers), but it would have been a pretty boring picture and confusing to people at the time, without additional explanation at least. The way these scenes are drawn, it's immediately obvious what has changed.
My neighborhood dates from the turn of the century. The houses that date back to the original days of the neighborhood are easy to spot, because they're built up on a berm about 3 to 4 feet higher than the street level. This is because when they were built, the street was just a bunch of mud and horse manure. The standard house design would dig out a half under grade basement, piling the excavated dirt into a berm around the house to keep it above the surrounding muck.
Note that this phrase now means “24 years ago.” Seems every day I have to correct myself to “turn of the 20th century.”
Also, could we use these to train an AI? As in: pair 1899 predictions with the actual outcome, train a model, and later provide today’s predictions of 2124 as input?
it's last one this slide https://publicdomainreview.org/collection/a-19th-century-vis...
There was a startup 3 decades ago, where you ordered custom khakis on the web. As a first step towards broader custom clothes. Entering assorted measurements, or modifying the dimensions of a previous purchase, a custom pattern was quickly laser cut, manually stitched in one of the last garment factories in the US, and overnighted. Patented, sold, bungled, abandoned. Stitching automation continues to improve, but full automation isn't quite there yet? Body scanning seems close. So near-term next-day almost-automated tailoring from Mexico?
This particular problem is bot about production of clothing, it is about everything else: design, sourcing of rae materials, distribution. The standard start-up approach of applying "tech" to that doesn't work.
Seeing this drawings is interesting because it's possible lots of things that happened are old ideas like automation in farms. The ideas are correct in some with the visuals or details different, but overall very interesting. Shows how important it is having a vision.
This is probably not what you meant, but instead you are looking for a direct brain-computer interface? Why do you think that would be a good thing?
Personally, I am inclined to think that as time unfolds, the complexities of forecasting the distant future intensify. Just a month ago, the notion of individuals donning AR/VR headsets while walking down the streets seemed far-fetched. However, with the release of the Vision Pro and folks using it in public places as it was a phone, I realized I would not be able to predict much in the coming future and just live the moment and hoping the best for humanity.
Maybe you missed the Google Glass phase a decade ago.
What changed? It’s still far-fetched and not due to technical reasons
afaik it's mostly social media clout chasers shenanigans, you can't use the vision pro like that because the windows are fixed
[1]: https://youtu.be/ZKfOcR7Qbu4
But yes those people all focused on their tv walking in the street /really/ look like current day smartphone users.
https://sundry.jerryorr.com/2023/10/28/la-vie-electrique
"La curiosité" is a good one too, most city kids are seeing a horse like they would see a lion
Automobiles de guerre: tank were already right around the corner, 15 years away.
Audition du journal: commercial broadcasting was 20 years away, with early efforts starting as soon the early 1900s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrofuturism
I like to think that in 100 years what seems modern will look the same to our descendants (if there is no event that brings us back to the Middle Ages).
Even today's science-fiction movies are limited by an imagination that is born from what we see around, including the ones with magic.