While I broadly agree that things don't usually change how we expect, I do think the near future could invert that somewhat.
If we look at you examples of failed predictions:
> domed cities, flying cars, orbital space resorts, mile-high towers connected by floating trains, robotic servants, and the such
we notice that the real reason none of these exist is because they are all essentially impossible to achieve with our current technology.
However, robotic servants are partially already here. We can verbally ask a device to play a certain song or order us some loo roll, and it works. We have autonomous cars that can, reasonably safely, drive us wherever we want to go. Elon Musk's new factory is, reportedly, almost entirely automated. And as most of this progress is recent, it seems likely that it will continue to advance for a while.
I will agree that there is significant friction against changes in society, which slow down adoption of new tech, but consider that robots in the context we are discussing are not a consumer good, they are a replacement for employees. So perhaps the most relevant question that will drive or stall adoption is: Is a robot more cost-effective than a human.
I also think watching the extent to which self-driving cars are adopted by delivery/freight/taxi companies, and the fallout from that, will be a fascinating (maybe terrifying) glimpse into that future.
How is what you are saying different from someone saying 50 years ago that they can build both planes and cars, so the flying car is surely achievable in a few years?
The problem is that extrapolation is fundamentally hard.
You don't understand the premise. The Parent is pointing out that taxation of working people is used to fund the care of others. Low (human) employment breaks that system.
Having a large pool of potential workers is meaningless if there is no money to pay them for the work, or to pay for the other necessary elements that go into that kind of care.
The actual fake news problem is purely a product of the internet though. Traditional media often contains biases of some kind, it's inevitable, but good journalists genuinely try to minimise the impact of that.
Previously the only way to get news was through these slow, controlled channels. And the people controlling these channels were responsible for the content being delivered, so if a slanderous lie was published they could be held accountable.
But with Facebook I can make up anything I want, frame it as fact, and get it seen by millions of people. Many of whom will believe it if it is convenient for them to believe it. And many of whom will never realise or accept that is a lie. And nothing bad happens to me for sharing these lies, I just make a bit of money from the ads.
This is a phenomenon that can only happen with the awesome communication enabled by the internet. And it's much worse than minor press bias.
I think this is the key difference. Conventional wars, regardless of the weapons, are awful, but they take time, and resources, and constant decision making. Things can change, one side withdraws or surrenders and the killing stops.
A weaponised virus doesn't have these constraints, and could destroy humanity, but at least it takes some time, and can probably be somewhat mitigated.
In nuclear war, a split second decision could annihilate every living human, erase all evidence of our existence, and maybe cause a big enough climate shift to permanently end life on this planet.
> In nuclear war, a split second decision could annihilate every living human, erase all evidence of our existence, and maybe cause a big enough climate shift to permanently end life on this planet.
Not to take too much from the argument, but that line is way overblown. I think it's hard to believe a nuclear war would kill all humans (it would certainly destroy civilization, but killing everybody is way harder) but nobody can be sure of that. Anyway, the Earth has survived meteor strikes larger than humanity's entire arsenal and life is still here.
You've taken nothing at all from the argument. If human civilization fails, then it's just a matter of time before the species does as well. More importantly, what value would there be in a handful of devastated humans scratching out a "bang the rocks together" life until the next extinction event finished the job?
Having a child when you don't already have the capacity to adequately support both them AND yourselves (financially and emotionally) is one of the most selfish things you can do.
Although I don't entirely disagree with your point, but try telling that to someone who hasn't had proper sex-education. Or is told that now they are married they have to have children right away.
Twitter had plenty of competition. All existing social media was competition for Twitter. Email was competition for Twitter.
Competition isn't about some other founder doing the same thing you're doing. It's about all the ways people can already do the things you're trying to sell them.
That is my point - nobody was doing microblogging before Twitter, they literally invented new mode of communication. Yes, it could have failed but not because email or social media would steel their users.
this wouldn't be your normal case of pirating a tv show. You use one of these logos and end up becoming a large successful company you will be paying when you get sued.
>You know that scene in Animal House where there’s a fellow playing folk music on the guitar, and John Belushi picks up the guitar and destroys it. And the cinema loves it. [Belushi] just smashes it and then waggles his eyebrows at the camera. Everyone thinks, "God, is he great!" Well, the British comedian would want to play the folk singer. We want to play the failure.
If we look at you examples of failed predictions: > domed cities, flying cars, orbital space resorts, mile-high towers connected by floating trains, robotic servants, and the such we notice that the real reason none of these exist is because they are all essentially impossible to achieve with our current technology.
However, robotic servants are partially already here. We can verbally ask a device to play a certain song or order us some loo roll, and it works. We have autonomous cars that can, reasonably safely, drive us wherever we want to go. Elon Musk's new factory is, reportedly, almost entirely automated. And as most of this progress is recent, it seems likely that it will continue to advance for a while.
I will agree that there is significant friction against changes in society, which slow down adoption of new tech, but consider that robots in the context we are discussing are not a consumer good, they are a replacement for employees. So perhaps the most relevant question that will drive or stall adoption is: Is a robot more cost-effective than a human.
I also think watching the extent to which self-driving cars are adopted by delivery/freight/taxi companies, and the fallout from that, will be a fascinating (maybe terrifying) glimpse into that future.