Future Pains

[Gnyahaha]

First of all, happy new year from Greece, its 2011 by the time this post is up on the boards.

So, I was wondering. this is the second decade of the fucking 21st century right? So wheres all the sentient robots and the holographic projectors and the Matrices and the solar colonies and the free energy?

Where the fuck's our cloning, our FTL travel, our digital immortality, our psychic cousins, the alien lifeforms (oh wait we found those IN A LAKE IN CALIFORNIA DOIII)?

WHERE THE FUCK IS OUR FUTURE MAN? Do we have to put up with stupid ipod shit and shittier mac and windows pcs and put up with contagious diseases and world hunger?

Do we have to put up with warfare and FUCKING USELESS institutions like the UN and slightly less useless shit like the EU and wonder oh i wonder when the fuck the new XBox gadget is gonna come out, cause fuck knows the world's not gonna get any more interesting.

Anyway, felt like ranting mostly. A happy new year to you all

[tzor]

Real AI that can approach sentience is still decades away, the original engineers were a little bit optimistic.

3D TV is here ... and is far cheeper than holographic technology

We gave up on space decades ago. I'm still pissed off about it. I wanted to retire to the Moon in fifteen years and I can't do that.

You want free energy? It will cost you. Seriously, solar power is here and now. Viable roof top systems exist, if you really want it.

The Matrix is here ... it's called Facebook. (or was that Second Life or IMVU or ...)

We gave up on space, why the hell do we need FTL. Right now I'll settle for a 10 psol transportation system. It's 8 light minutes to the sun, getting there in an hour and a half is OK by me. Saturn is a light hour from the sun. If I could go there in 10 hours I would be very happy.

And don't worry, the world will get a whole lot more interesting soon. It always does. I was looking at the recent super computers designed for Oracle databases. When all the current "new" technologies start wrapping around themselves (computers with 3D displays and wii like interfaces) things are definitely going to get interesting.

[PhoneLobster]

When all the current "new" technologies start wrapping around themselves (computers with 3D displays and wii like interfaces) things are definitely going to get interesting.

Really because "computers with 3D displays and wii like interfaces" sounds , literally, like a Wii plugged into a 3d tv to me.

That's not very exciting. And that IS the direction our limited interactive virtual reality technology is going in.

[Parthenon]

The various stuff going on with superimposed video on reality is pretty cool and scifi. Pretty soon we could be going around day to day with realtime translations of other languages and added personal virtual people.

A kinect like camera in each room, haptic gloves and glasses could let you have realtime virtual discussion where you can see the other people in the room and interact with them (handshakes, passing each other virtual documents, punching each other in the face, etc..) when they're on the other side of the world. How is that not awesome?

Unfortunately thats not really going to happen because the people owning the patents behind haptic feedback are dicks about letting people experiment with it and businessmen aren't going to get dressed up to have a meeting rather than just have videochat, but the idea is pretty cool, right?

[K]

The reason we don't have anything is because of the widespread use of capitalism.

Capitalism allows private industry to do all it's research. Private industry doesn't do pure research, it does applied research. For example, the big pharma industry is not looking for cures to cancer.... but there are spending billions on the next new boner pill like Viagra. They aren't even looking to find a cure for impotence.... they just want a pill that you have to pay them every month for. Big pharma has cured diseases, but they only sell and/or distribute the cures when they have make money on them and they never release them when they can release a pill to mitigate a condition instead.

Now, the small amount of research being done in the colleges and through federal funding is often pure research, but the fact that 99%+ of our research is being done to make the next new boner pill and shinier cars means that innovative stuff is not being done, or being done at a snail's pace.

I expect the Chinese will become the hub of research since they seem to be the only ones to figure out that pure research leads to unexpected windfalls.... I mean, we have teflon and velcro and a host of other things we take for granted because NASA was trying to get a man on the moon and the internet because the US army wanted a way to distribute information in some kind of bizarre Republican apocalyptic war scenario.

Pure research does grant dividends, but capitalists are risk-adverse to the extreme, so they won't ever push research at the rate that it could go.

[tzor]

When all the current "new" technologies start wrapping around themselves (computers with 3D displays and wii like interfaces) things are definitely going to get interesting.

Really because "computers with 3D displays and wii like interfaces" sounds , literally, like a Wii plugged into a 3d tv to me.

That's not very exciting. And that IS the direction our limited interactive virtual reality technology is going in.

Sloppy writing on my part. The current wii interface is a single wand, I was assuming more of a "wii glove" that would allow you full input on all five fingers plus hand orientation. That would get you to the appropriate sci fi level for a good complex interface.

Placed into context the system would know where the hand was in relation to the 3D virtual world. If it also had feedback it could also transmit tactile sensations, making the illusion appear solid.

At that point it can get very interesting.

[Zinegata]

The alien life form thing in California was... practically a hoax. So scratch that off the list too.

[tzor]

The reason we don't have anything is because of the widespread use of capitalism.

Capitalism allows private industry to do all it's research. Private industry doesn't do pure research, it does applied research.

That's not exactly true, but the exact answer is somewhat convoluted. Pure research in caplitalism is rare but it is found in pure strains of capitalism (research first ... apply it later). The biggest capitalistic organization that was into the pure research was Bell Labs, and it took the power of the Federal Government to destroy that engine of enginuity.

In general pure research comes from universities ... ironically this too has a very capitalistic bent. Discovering stuff can lead not only to an increased demand in student population, but you can convince others to flat out give you money. (Sometimes this is the federal government, but honestly, this isn't as easy as it sounds.)

I am not going to predict the whos who of research in the future. I'm going to basically put Japan out of contention; thinking out of the box is not their style. Applied research is more suited to their approach.

China could easily be a major inventor, but I don't think it will be. The central government will want a more applied science approach and the central government is the only source of research grant monies.

Russia could easily be a source for major new inventions; rich bastards with lots of money are a great source for grant monies.

Crappy European countries could easily be a wild card in the equation.

The biggest problem is converting pure science into applied science. Cryogenic mag levitation technology was technically invented in the US, but no one wanted to do squat with it, so the inventor went to Japan to develop it. We still have the crappiest high speed land transportation system on the planet as a result.

Right now we have a number of major technological problems, all of which could be solved by anyone thinking out of the box with the right idea. The biggest is the ability to blurr the barrier between capacitor and battery and do so in a way that does not require material only found in nations rulled by despots.

[Calibron]

The reason we don't have anything is because of the widespread use of capitalism.

Capitalism allows private industry to do all it's research. Private industry doesn't do pure research, it does applied research. For example, the big pharma industry is not looking for cures to cancer.... but there are spending billions on the next new boner pill like Viagra. They aren't even looking to find a cure for impotence.... they just want a pill that you have to pay them every month for. Big pharma has cured diseases, but they only sell and/or distribute the cures when they have make money on them and they never release them when they can release a pill to mitigate a condition instead.

K, can I quote that elsewhere?

[Calibron]

Aren't Scandinavian countries, Iceland in particular, especially good sources of pure research? Mostly government, but a good bit of private, funded?

Right now we have a number of major technological problems, all of which could be solved by anyone thinking out of the box with the right idea. The biggest is the ability to blur the barrier between capacitor and battery and do so in a way that does not require material only found in nations ruled by despots.

I'm a fan of this statement.

[Calibron]

Sorry for the triple post, but I wanted to address the actual topic now that I'm done with all peanut gallery comments.

The only thing I'm really missing are good, cost effective, 3d printers for things like cloned organs and an improved method of implantation that would naturally be developed after a time since the operations will be done all the time after society has had a little time to adjust to the presence of freely replaceable organs.

[Zinegata]

It actually depends. While many companies are very risk-averse, other companies will always dedicate a certain portion of their budget to R&D. Even if it hurts the bottom line.

Corning Glass for instance, is one of the world's leading producers of fiber optic glass, because they developed it something like 40 years before people even thought of fiber optic technology.

Google likewise has very strong policies which encourage employees to develop and invent new products. That's why we got Google Earth.

Similarly, Procter & Gamble has a massive research division and there's a set percentage of their budget that goes to R&D (which is generally never changed). Their R&D is much more incremental than say Google or Corning, but it's companies like P&G which actually refine the use of technology to something more reliable as opposed to an unreliable prototype.

An organ replicator however, is something that is still very difficult to create. Right now we can reliably replicate single cell-organisms, but any more complex and it starts getting really messy.

[tzor]

First of all, "clone" is probably a bad term, as it concentrates on the process to create the starter cell (which could just as easily be a modified skin cell turned into a stem cell). I think the better term is "grow."

Second, I think the eventual solution would never be full replacement, it would involve inserting new stem cells into the damged organ to replace the damaged part. The only organ that would be "grown" in bulk would be skin because it is an easy matrix. That, actually, is pretty much here and now technology.

From what I have seen so far, the real advances in health won't come about until we totally destroy the legacy of the 1960's.

It won't be easy, as I don't think we can go "cold turkey" so we need replacements. Things that don't mess with us long term.

[Surgo]

And in addition to the companies mentioned, let's not forget Microsoft Research, one of the biggest non-university pure research operations ever.

[K]

The reason we don't have anything is because of the widespread use of capitalism.

Capitalism allows private industry to do all it's research. Private industry doesn't do pure research, it does applied research. For example, the big pharma industry is not looking for cures to cancer.... but they are spending billions on the next new boner pill like Viagra. They aren't even looking to find a cure for impotence.... they just want a pill that you have to pay them every month for. Big pharma has cured diseases, but they only sell and/or distribute the cures when they can make money on them and they never release them when they can release a pill to mitigate a condition instead.

K, can I quote that elsewhere?

Sure, as long as you use the version above where I fixed the grammar. Late at night my grammar goes to hell.

As an example, look up the guy who invented the polio vaccine. That dude gave it away because he figured it was the human thing to do and he had enough money. He could have sold it and made a fortune.

--------------

Iceland and Norway are good examples of countries firmly on the socialism side of the Socialism vs Capitalism scale. They spend on pure research because they also spend on things like medical care and social safety nets.

Basically, their decision to take the vast mineral wealth of their nation and use it to improve the lives of their people is the same reason they support pure research: the profit motive is not as strong so they are willing to make the important long-term investments.

[Zinegata]

Not every government with far-reaching controls and vast mineral wealth is so generous. *coughAfricacough*

[K]

Not every government with far-reaching controls and vast mineral wealth is so generous. *coughAfricacough*

Lots of countries are just criminal organizations with tanks. Most of Africa, South America, Russia, Saudi Arabia.... the list is huge and their wealth is vast, but their mineral wealth gets funneled into the pockets of a few.

That's the desired goal of capitalism: putting all the money into the pockets of a few. We should not be surprised that there are countries who do it better than the US.

[Orca]

It's not all bad. Here's someone pointing out that yes, we are seeing real progress in at least some areas of medicine.

[Zinegata]

That's the desired goal of capitalism: putting all the money into the pockets of a few. We should not be surprised that there are countries who do it better than the US.

Not really. The defining element of capitalism out of its many definitions is that it centers around the idea of private ownership, which in itself isn't a bad thing.

Oligarchy is a more proper term - which is a system wherein the a small number of rich people rule, and use their riches to remain rich at the expense of others.

And you can have an oligarchies in any economic system. Even in "socialist" ones. The public sector can be as much a tool of a selfish ruling elite, just as much as a privately owned corporation can.

So to be a Norway or Sweden, it involves a lot more than "not being capitalist". Particularly when both actually practice capitalism too.

[K]

That's the desired goal of capitalism: putting all the money into the pockets of a few. We should not be surprised that there are countries who do it better than the US.

Not really. The defining element of capitalism out of its many definitions is that it centers around the idea of private ownership, which in itself isn't a bad thing.

Oligarchy is a more proper term - which is a system wherein the a small number of rich people rule, and use their riches to remain rich at the expense of others.

And you can have an oligarchies in any economic system. Even in "socialist" ones. The public sector can be as much a tool of a selfish ruling elite, just as much as a privately owned corporation can.

So to be a Norway or Sweden, it involves a lot more than "not being capitalist". Particularly when both actually practice capitalism too.

One of the most common mistakes is to confuse a style of government with a style of economy.

Socialism is an economic style. Capitalism is an economic style. They exist on a scale where any society has some of both.

So you can get countries like China where you have capitalism and socialism, but their government is Communist. The US is a democracy with lots of capitalism and some socialism. Russia is a cleptocratic oligarchy using capitalism where it used to be a cleptocratic oligarchy using socialism, and they are still killing people in that oligarchy because the different economic systems made different guys rich (except Putin who is a Renaissance man who wins under both systems).

Capitalism has a lot of the same goals of oligarchy. It's easy to confuse the two, especially when the oligarchy uses the defense of "capitalism" whenever they grab political power and try to remove or hold back things like consumer protections, anti-trust laws, etc.

[Zinegata]

While you are correct that the style of government and economy is not necessarily the same, many cases also exist wherein the government exercises such a level of control over the economy that the two are virtually indistinguishable.

And vice versa.

What you're describing is an overly powerful private sector, which uses its money to buy political power in order to obtain further profits. Which undeniably happens, but it also makes it hard to tell where government ends and the private sector begins.

Hence I use the term "oligarchy" - because in this case the ruling class is actually a combination of both corrupt businessmen and public officials working together to rip off the common folk for their own personal gain.

Norway/Sweden is fortunate enough to have a relatively honest government. Elsewhere, including the United States, it's not so rosy.

(Also, Oligarchists using the "defense of capitalism" argument seems to be more of an American phenomenon. Elsewhere in the world, oligarchists just tend to use guns)

tl;dr: The people are fucked if big business and the government are both trying to rip them off.