Perhaps one of the problems with predicting futures is summed up in one philosopher's version: Prediction is a tricky business, especially about the future.
Just one observation: who could have predicted in the early 1950s that the transistor would be one of the more significant culture-changing inventions? The transistor led to the transistor radio, which led to people able to listen to that radio almost anywhere (particularly at the beach, a favorite gathering spot for young people). It led to smaller and more portable electronic devices, which propelled more and more societal mobility.
The automobile is another great culture-changer, but that was perhaps more obvious to someone who really thought about it. Maybe Henry Ford was one of those.
A few people got it frightfully wrong: The IBM executive who held that the global market for big computers would be five or so. And Bill Gates, who held that 640k of RAM is plenty for anybody. Add Steve Jobs, who hed that black and white CRTs were just fine, thank you. Add the British executive, replying to one of Alexander G. Bell's telephone salesmen: "Why would we need these tele-phones? We have an ample supply of messenger boys".
There seems to be a common thread to all of those: what's working now is perfectly fine - why change? Implied is: after all, the world isn't going to change.
My wife maintains that "The Magnificent Ambersons" qualifies as a science-fiction novel, because it talks about the effects of technology (specifically, industrialization) on society (with the Ambersons a metaphor for the rest of us).
Perhaps one of the problems with predicting futures is summed up in one philosopher's version: Prediction is a tricky business, especially about the future.
Just one observation: who could have predicted in the early 1950s that the transistor would be one of the more significant culture-changing inventions? The transistor led to the transistor radio, which led to people able to listen to that radio almost anywhere (particularly at the beach, a favorite gathering spot for young people). It led to smaller and more portable electronic devices, which propelled more and more societal mobility.
The automobile is another great culture-changer, but that was perhaps more obvious to someone who really thought about it. Maybe Henry Ford was one of those.
A few people got it frightfully wrong: The IBM executive who held that the global market for big computers would be five or so. And Bill Gates, who held that 640k of RAM is plenty for anybody. Add Steve Jobs, who hed that black and white CRTs were just fine, thank you. Add the British executive, replying to one of Alexander G. Bell's telephone salesmen: "Why would we need these tele-phones? We have an ample supply of messenger boys".
There seems to be a common thread to all of those: what's working now is perfectly fine - why change? Implied is: after all, the world isn't going to change.
My wife maintains that "The Magnificent Ambersons" qualifies as a science-fiction novel, because it talks about the effects of technology (specifically, industrialization) on society (with the Ambersons a metaphor for the rest of us).