There is no future here or what stops progress

“Construction is being carried out in accordance with the plan, the object will be delivered on time”
The team of builders of the Tower of Babel

Now I will tell you one very old tale. Many tell her to this day. But I'm going to look at it from a slightly different side, so take your time to break away from reading with an arrogantly contemptuous "button accordion" on your lips.

So, a fairy tale. In the yard two thousand and nine. We have to insert connectors into the skulls and ride flying cars. You shrug, grunt: “It didn’t work out” or “Progress has not reached the desired point.” Then go drink coffee and forget. I would do the same. But recently, I wanted to figure out - why are futurologists and science fiction writers so rare? Moreover, I'm talking about smart people, often scientists, and not about the authors of entertaining reading. And I decided to rummage around 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, an old, old tale that 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 compared to even the nineties of the twentieth century. We are used to hearing the call to turn off the phones before the meeting, not rushing headlong to the telephone on the table, but rummaging through our pockets. We can at any time almost instantly get at our disposal any book, composition, film.

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

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

We will not even talk about space - this topic is separate. Let's just take a simple and homely description of the technique. How did they miss cell? Why do not 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? Unlikely. Many did not bother with technical details, descriptions of "how it works." Those who wrote in the 80s could already imagine both a computer and a microcircuit.

Did they lack imagination? No comments. Something, but this was always in abundance.

Is our technical level too low to host a fantastic 2009? Sounds like the truth. But…

Preconditions for doubt

"The future is here. It's just not evenly distributed yet. ”William Gibson


It's called the Moller Skycar. She is flying. He also drives. And she can fly fully on autopilot to a given point. Retail value, if it goes into series, is estimated at 60 thousand dollars. Not too expensive for that, I think?



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



And this is an ordinary mobile phone. But it’s not him who is interesting to us, but a small black little thing on the left above the screen. The 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 a flying machine of this brand was said a few years ago. And her forerunners successfully flew decades ago. Doubters can handle the wiki.

The device for controlling the computer of thoughts turned out to be not very successful - the lack of an intelligible community, the small number of stores where it is available, and a serious decline in the price of the device indirectly testify to this.

About videophones, and more specifically - video conferencing tools built into almost all modern telephones, there’s no need to talk at all. Even in countries with 3g, few people use them for no good reason.

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

Dig a story

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



This airplane is called a “Flea.” According to the creator, Henri Mignet, who developed it in the 30s and published a brochure with assembly instructions, anyone could assemble it from parts available on the market and manage it. In principle, it was true. For a while, hundreds of people were keen on assembling and flying on such devices. However, instead of turning into a "people's" plane, Flea was forgotten. Hysteria came to naught.



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

The first videophone was developed back in the 30s.

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

Trying to figure it out

"The devil's car !!! Witchcraft !!! ”An unknown peasant of an unknown age.

On the occasion, I came across the results of a survey of afisha.ru users about readers. An e-ink reader is, in essence, the most convenient thing. You can read as if a paper book, having all the advantages of a computer - search, bookmarks, all this is convenient and practical. It’s just besides cheap - the cost of the reader “fights off” for a year or two due to lower prices for digital books or thanks to pirated sources. In the second case, the beating will happen even faster. But what did the survey show? I quote:

“We found that about one in three - about 28-30% - is sick of the very idea of ​​becoming the owner of a reader. 14% - this is, in general, bearers of Luddite sentiment. 15% are ready to go to the acquisition of this abomination only in the most extreme case - if the release of paper books ceases (read - they are unlikely to buy it sometime) ”

So, even such a seemingly well-developed modern device has a significant number of opponents. Under certain conditions, this technology may befall the fate of AT&T video phones.

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

This is where, in my opinion, the answer lies.

The player worked almost immediately. It was simple and straightforward - the cassette in your pocket. His appearance was anticipated by pocket radios. Clear and simple concept. The old and familiar interface, thanks to it the ease of use is off scale. I emphasize that there was nothing radically new in him - therefore there was no fear of him.

The computer and the car have long been toys for fanatics of technological progress. But both came into use at the same moment in the development of their technology. As soon as the interface became friendly. Indeed, as soon as the car became a serial toy with understandable instructions, he immediately entered into everyday life. He ceased to require technical knowledge and constant revision with a file. The concept of a car is simple as ... Actually, as a concept of a car. The same cart, but rides by itself and quickly. Auto, of course, was a bit strange and somewhat scary thing - but the benefits outweighed the fear of the new.
The computer was more complex, but its advantages were enormous, especially since many specialists around the world worked on the interface. It was after the moment when the benefits outweighed the fear and the level of difficulty in mastering that the Internet boomed 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 was not created to fly - even those who are not afraid to fly are likely to experience some doubts about the independent rise in the air - even if the latest on-board computer helps them in this. At a speed slightly ahead of the car or train, this fear may be critical.

The concept of thought management is too complex for now. 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.

The videophone is difficult to operate - before you respond with a hangover to your girlfriend, you should try to start looking like a person. If you answer, not including the screen, questions are possible. This is not convenient for anyone.

conclusions

“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 drawn?

To be successful, any technology must possess the following:

1) Ease of use.
2) The simplicity of the 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 technologies of national importance - military or necessary for the life of the community. However, for consumers it is critical no less than the first two.

Many technologies will still remain in flight, based on the above principles. In particular - the principle of ease of use. Public consciousness can change, understanding of the concept too. But the concept of convenience is not. I am very skeptical about the new computer control technologies that are now being promoted. Often articles about them skip on a hub For example, a table with a built-in touchscreen is the most convenient thing until a cat passes on it. And managing 3D objects and structured databases in their form with the help of gloves is the best way to pump up your hands.

In a broader aspect, it makes sense to assume that certain technologies will never become popular precisely because of human consciousness. Moreover, these will be the most “interesting” technologies that turn around the world. And it will be precisely those technologies that science fiction writers love to write about - after all, it’s boring to write about the ordinary, like heated toilets.

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

But, nevertheless, perhaps 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 about (and this is the beauty of dreams) is as old as the world.