There is no future or what stops progress

"Construction is carried out in accordance with the plan, the object will be commissioned on time"
The team of builders of the Tower of Babel

Now I will tell you one very old tale. Many of her talk today. But I'm going to look at it from a slightly different side, so do not rush to break away from reading with an arrogantly contemptuous “button accordion” on your lips.

So, a fairy tale. Outside two thousand and nine. We have to insert connectors into the skulls and ride flying machines. You will shrug your shoulders, borknet: “It didn’t happen” or “Progress did not reach the necessary point”. Then go drink coffee and forget. I would do the same. But recently I wanted to find out - why do futurologists and fiction writers fall so rarely? Moreover, I am talking about intelligent people, often scholars, and not about the authors of entertainment reading. And I decided to delve in search of a more rational explanation and details - it seemed to me that everything was not so simple. This article is my micro research on this topic. And at the same time, the old, old tale, which you have long heard.

A starting point

“I want to know, I want to know, I always wanted to know which fish in the ocean swims the fastest” Aquarium
')
Undoubtedly, progress has gone far in comparison with the nineties of the twentieth century. We are used to hearing the call to turn off the phones before the meeting, not to rush headlong to the telephone on the table, but to rummage in our pockets. We can at any time almost instantly get at our disposal any book, composition, film.

Employees of the IT sphere, we ourselves often try to give the world new opportunities, or at least this happens regularly before our eyes. The future is forged here and now.

But why is it not so ? Not what Azimov, Clark, Dick, Strugatsky and another hundred writers wrote? Why were professional futurologists wrong, so much so that successful prediction is a miracle, a rarity?

Let's not even talk about space - this is a separate topic. Let's take a simple description of a simple and homely technique. How did they miss cell? Why don't we use videophones?

Perhaps they extrapolated the technical features of the equipment of their time, and therefore could not imagine the features of the future technology? Hardly. Many did not bother with technical details, descriptions of "how it works." Those who wrote in the 80s could already imagine a computer and a microchip.

They lacked imagination? No comments. Something, and this has always been in abundance.

Is our technical level too low to make a fantastic 2009? It looks like the truth. But…

Prerequisites for doubt

“The future is here. It's not just even distributed yet. ”William Gibson


This is called the Moller Skycar. She is flying. And still drives. And she can fly completely on autopilot to a given point. Retail cost, if it goes into a series, is estimated at 60 thousand dollars. Not too expensive for that, I think?



And I already wrote about this toy, moreover I periodically play with it, because I am the happy owner. It was produced last year in a small party - about three thousand, if I'm not mistaken. This thing allows you to shift some of the keyboard functions to your own thoughts in the literal sense of the word - putting a hoop on your head, you can bind some keys to certain states of thought. For details, refer to your own review.



And this is an ordinary mobile phone. But we are not interested in himself, but in the small black thing on the left above the screen. That same camera for video conferencing, which can be found on every modern device. Videophone as it is.

But ... There is always a "but."

About the readiness of the flying machine of this brand spoke a few years ago. And her forerunners successfully flew decades ago. Doubters can cope on the wiki.

The device for controlling the comp's thoughts was not very successful - the lack of a distinct community, a small number of stores where it is available, and a serious decline in prices for the device indirectly indicate this.

About videophone, and more specifically - the means of video conferencing, embedded in almost all modern telephones, to speak at all is not necessary. Even in countries with 3g few people use them without a good reason.

We return to the epigraph of the paragraph. The future is here, but it is unevenly distributed. But who distributes it? What is the principle?

Digging history

“I'm sure they have the same thing.” Letov



This aircraft is called "Flea". As conceived by the creator, Henri Minier, who in the 30s developed it and published a brochure with the assembly manual, any one could assemble it from the parts available on the market. In principle, it was true. For a while, hundreds of people were fond of assembling and flying on such devices. However, instead of turning into a “people's” plane, the Flea was forgotten. Hysteria has come to naught.



And this is again a videophone. These were installed by AT & T in the 60s-70s. However, the service did not receive much popularity. Both the high price and the need to place a call worked.

The first videophone was developed back in the 30s.

So, it turns out, in the past, the future, too, has repeatedly been extremely close. What prevented him? In general, the question turns out to be reformulated. He is not about predictions. It should sound like this: why some technologies survive, while others do not.

Attempt to understand

“Devilish car !!! Sorcery !!! "Unknown farmer of unknown age

On occasion, I came across the results of a survey of users of afisha.ru about readers. Reader on e-ink, in fact - the most convenient thing. You can read like a paper book, having all the advantages of a computer - search, bookmarks, everything is convenient and practical. Just to the same and cheap - the cost of the reader "bounces" for a year or two due to lower prices for digital books or thanks to pirated sources. In the second case, the beating will occur even faster. But what did the survey show? I quote:

“We found that about every third person - about 28-30% - was sick of the very idea of ​​becoming the owner of the reader. 14% is generally considered to be carriers of Luddit moods. 15% are ready to buy this abomination only as a last resort - if the release of paper books stops (read, they are unlikely to buy it ever) ”

So, even this seemingly promoted modern device has a significant number of opponents. Under certain conditions, this technology may suffer the fate of AT & T videophones.

On the other hand, we have examples of “fired” technologies that seemed fantastic. For example, enough car, player and personal computer. How do they differ from the above-mentioned, no less interesting toys?

Here lies the answer, in my opinion.

The player worked almost immediately. It was simple and straightforward - a cassette holder in his pocket. His appearance was anticipated by pocket-sized radios. Clear and simple concept. The old and familiar interface, thanks to him ease of operation rolls over. I emphasize that there was nothing cardinally new in it - therefore there was no fear of it.

The computer and the car have long been toys for fanatics of technical progress. But both came into use at the same moment in the development of their technology. As soon as the interface has become friendly. Indeed, as soon as the car became a serial toy with clear instructions, it immediately entered into use. He ceased to require technical knowledge and continuous improvement files. The concept of the car is simple as ... Actually, as a concept car. The same cart, but goes by itself and quickly. The car, of course, was a bit strange and somewhat scary - but the benefits outweighed the fear of the new.
The computer was more complicated, but its benefits were enormous, especially since many specialists around the world worked on the interface. It was after the moment when the advantages outweighed fear and the level of difficulty in mastering that the Internet boom began, when everyone rushed into the network - from children to housewives.

Now let's look at our “failed predictions.”

"Flea" and flying cars are too scary. A person is not created to fly - even those who are not afraid to fly, will most likely have some doubts about self-lift into the air - even if the newest on-board computer helps them in this. At a speed slightly ahead of a car or train, this fear may be critical.

The concept of thought management is still too complex. to please people. It is difficult to imagine how this is done. Even more difficult - what specific benefits can be obtained from such a device.

Videophone is difficult to operate - before you respond to a beloved girlfriend with a hangover, you should try to start to look like a man. If you answer, not including the screen, questions are possible. It is not convenient to anyone.

findings

"We will wait until the time runs out and meet after the end" Aquarium

So, we got the anatomy of conservatism, albeit far from complete. What conclusions can be made?

Any technology must have the following to be successful:

1) Ease of use.
2) Ease of concept
3) Harmlessness - in the sense that it should break the picture of the world no more than to a certain extent.

The last point is not so important for technology of national importance - military or necessary for the life of the community. However, for consumers it is not less critical than the first two.

Many technologies will still remain in the span, based on the above principles. In particular - the principle of ease of use. Social consciousness may change, understanding of the concept too. But the concept of convenience is not. I have great skepticism about the new computer control technologies that are now being promoted. Often, articles about them skip to Habré. For example, a table with a built-in touchscreen is the most convenient thing until a cat passes through it. Managing 3D objects and structured DB in their form using gloves is the best way to pump up your arms.

In a broader aspect, it makes sense to assume that certain technologies will never become popular precisely because of human consciousness. Moreover, it will be the most “interesting” technologies that turn the picture of the world. And these will be exactly the technologies that science fiction writers like to write about - after all, writing about the everyday, like heated toilet bowls, is boring and vulgar.

Another outcome is also possible - after all, new technologies are slowly changing the mind of a person, preparing him for even more new things. But will not one day end a person's ability to adapt? Will it be a limiting factor in the development of technology?

But still, maybe someday we will still own personal flying machines and communicate with computers telepathically ...

I hope you were interested. Although the tale that a person is not able to accept much of what he dreams of (and this is precisely the beauty of dreams) is as old as the world.