Arthur C. Clarke Accurately Describes the 21st Century...in 1976

CommanderFrank

CommanderFrank

Cat Can't Scratch It
Joined
May 9, 2000
Messages
75,399
Arthur C. Clarke is not only a great science fiction writer, he’s also good with science fact, especially when predicting the future of science. c|net put together eight of Clark’s predictions that now are taken for granted as part of today’s everyday life.
 
*sigh*... lots of science fiction writers have had correct "predictions" of the future, they've also had quite a few incorrect ones. The big one that usually pokes holes in predictions is computers, and more to the point how they work, how large they are, etc.

I loved Arthur C Clarke, but taking what he says as predictive gospel is along the lines of saying Nostradomus as predicted the future too.
 
I hereby predict that the next Assassin's Creed installment will suck.
 
if you can dream it, someone can build it... eventually.

I'm still waiting for all that Iron Man hologram shit.
 
I'm in awe that somebody can get of so right and then fail at the last hurdle....

The technology is there, but it is idiots using it. Complete gobshites.

Nate
 
Cellphone technology, the ARPANET (including a crude form of e-mail), microcomputers and more already existed in 1976, when he made those 'predictions'. I'd be impressed if he had done those 'predictions' a decade or two earlier.
 
Neal Stephenson seems to have done a pretty good job of predicting a lot of future technology.
 
Raudulfr said:
Cellphone technology, the ARPANET (including a crude form of e-mail), microcomputers and more already existed in 1976, when he made those 'predictions'. I'd be impressed if he had done those 'predictions' a decade or two earlier.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't even have been impressed if he predicted them 10 years earlier. All those things were in the works at that time (1966) on some level or another. Even both Plasma and LCD displays were in progress in the mid 1960's, so predicting high definition TV's for those in the science community wasn't even the slightest stretch.

As a matter of fact basically everything we have now in terms of technology was designed in theory in the 1960's, and it was purely a matter of "We know this can be done, and it is only a matter of when it will be cost-effective to do it." We have made refinements since, but there isn't much mainstream technology today that wasn't conceived 40+ years ago.
 
I always wonder if stuff like this is causal, like if him saying it is what makes it happen.

Basically, how many of todays scientists grew up with Clarkes books and predictions and were like:"That sounds pretty cool, I want to build that".

At the same time, Clarke wasn't just pulling this stuff out of his ass, that was only 40 years ago, Most of the basis of the tech we use today either already existed in an earlier form, or was on a drawing board somewhere.

Like, Arpanet had already existed for a few years before this video, Moore's Law is older than that, digital tech was being adopted more widely in telephone exchanges, the first LCD TN screens had already started creeping out. Most of the stuff we use today is based on tech that started appearing in it's modern form, though less refined, in the mid 60's to mid-70s.

At that point in history, a smart guy with a creative mind and a good grasp of technology (like Clarke) would be doing more than just guessing about what was coming up :p
 
What would have been really impressive is if he predicted that you'd have to click multiple times through a stupid ass gallery to get to the point of an article in the future.
 
sfsuphysics said:
*sigh*... lots of science fiction writers have had correct "predictions" of the future, they've also had quite a few incorrect ones. The big one that usually pokes holes in predictions is computers, and more to the point how they work, how large they are, etc.

I loved Arthur C Clarke, but taking what he says as predictive gospel is along the lines of saying Nostradomus as predicted the future too.
Click to expand...

I think the point is more along the lines of some authors focus more on the "science" and more on the "fiction" ... the ones who leverage the science part tend to have a good "predictive" track record (if you want to call it that) ... Verne, Clarke, Wells, etc

or if you prefer you can look at it this way, most scientists tend to grow up reading science fiction ... if the scifi is more science based it can inspire them to create some of the things they read about ... if it is less science based, although it might still inspire them, it may have less influence on the creation of the story elements they liked ... I suspect that lots of scientists have been inspired by "faster than light travel" but that technology is still beyond our understanding and science ;)
 
sfsuphysics said:
I loved Arthur C Clarke, but taking what he says as predictive gospel is along the lines of saying Nostradomus as predicted the future too.
Click to expand...

There is a big difference there. Arthur C Clark genuinely believed his predictions, and they were based on things that were in development at the time. In fact, most of the things in the predictions here were already being worked on (and he likely knew about). Cell phones, computer communication and the like where all being developed in the 70's.

Nostradamus knew he was a fraud and purposefully make his predictions vague and misleading. He made a lot of money by tricking gullible rich people.
 
I love Clark, one day I'll have to read 2061. I don't think he necessarily had special insight into the future of computing technology more so than insight into what drives it. I think that evolution computing for all of its existence to date is driven primarily by five major factors. Cheaper, smaller, faster, better connected and what can be digital will be digital. I think he clearly understood these factors and made some very accurate and logical conclusions as to how these factors would materialize.
 
arentol said:
I wouldn't even have been impressed if he predicted them 10 years earlier. All those things were in the works at that time (1966) on some level or another. Even both Plasma and LCD displays were in progress in the mid 1960's, so predicting high definition TV's for those in the science community wasn't even the slightest stretch.

As a matter of fact basically everything we have now in terms of technology was designed in theory in the 1960's, and it was purely a matter of "We know this can be done, and it is only a matter of when it will be cost-effective to do it." We have made refinements since, but there isn't much mainstream technology today that wasn't conceived 40+ years ago.
Click to expand...

The real question is, what is being worked on today that won't be cost effective for another 20-30-40 years?
 
Quix said:
There is a big difference there. Arthur C Clark genuinely believed his predictions, and they were based on things that were in development at the time. In fact, most of the things in the predictions here were already being worked on (and he likely knew about). Cell phones, computer communication and the like where all being developed in the 70's.

Nostradamus knew he was a fraud and purposefully make his predictions vague and misleading. He made a lot of money by tricking gullible rich people.
Click to expand...

True, Clarke was more of what is now called a "futurist" like that Asian guy who always does the Discovery channel shit... Michio Kaku (although he actually has a background in science, I'm not sure where Clarke's background is), I know he used to do a show based upon "weird shit" in the world, and while it was a long time ago I seem to recall they really bent into into a super natural direction on occasion.

I find it funny though that while people are in awe of what he said... basically 1m mark he's describing the internet, which was in development at the time, so hardly a prediction, but he absolutely whiffs it big at 1:25-1:40 where he's describing a search engine (which again existed in some for at the time) but then the final bit "... just what you want, not all the junk that you have to get" . I mean come on, if anything the internet has increased the junk that you get :D
 
viscountalpha said:
The real question is, what is being worked on today that won't be cost effective for another 20-30-40 years?
Click to expand...

Well:

-We've failed at making space travel any more affordable in the last 50 years. AAMOF the lift costs have only gone up and only eccentric billionaires can even leave the atmosphere nevermind reach orbit.
-Anything other than gasoline or diesel car transportation is still cheaper to the consumer in both short and long term than any of the other technologies for moving cars even with $4/gallon gasoline like we had for a while (As cheap or cheaper in the long term to get a 10 year old decent used car than buy a new hybrid or electric).
-Of course people have been dreaming of flying cars and working on them for 50 years and they're no closer to everyday reality.
-How about power generation. We're still dependent on fossil fuels for electricity although we've transitioned a bit from coal to natural gas in the USA. Nuclear of any sort (traditional fission or Thorium etc) is all but out of the question politically, or because fusion isn't anywhere in sight.

Those are the ones I think of offhand.
 
Skripka said:
Well:


-Of course people have been dreaming of flying cars and working on them for 50 years and they're no closer to everyday reality.


.
Click to expand...

i hope it never reaches mainstream in my lifetime.

People can't even drive cars properly on the road. Imagine the chaos in the air.
 
I predict that in 10 years we will voluntarily get computers impanted in our ass in a suppository form. Samsung Galaxy ASS class Series 6! Does everything via bluetooth to your data glasses/contacts or to the micro audio emitters you had impanted in your earlobes.
 
Sci-Fi guys have been "predicting" and/or dictating the future forever basically. Some are better than others, and I have much love for A.C.C. There was a story I read something from Gene Roddenberry of during the filming of the original Star Trek someone from the military showed up wondering why they were using stuff so close to very secret things they were working on in some capacity, I think it was the midbay with the vital readouts on the wall above but it's been awhile.

There have been a bunch of other examples. Having read serious sci-fi since before my teens, even the really cool stuff we have is pretty ho-hum in a lot of ways compared to what my imagination was schooled to accept via Sci-Fi. The whole power generation bit is a massive disappointment. Batteries? Sheesh..

You have to wonder if it's a chicken or the egg thing, did the guys inventing a given awesome new technology get inspiration from some old fantasy book written decades ago? I think to some degree it's quite likely. Mostly made me cynical and disillusioned but I'm just prone to that anyway.
 
viscountalpha said:
The real question is, what is being worked on today that won't be cost effective for another 20-30-40 years?
Click to expand...

I was just discussing with my wife the other day how long it took digital cameras to make it in a really useable form to the consumer realm, and they still manage to suck to some degree if they aren't really expensive or overly large. Who knows what's out there waiting for a viable power source or such. My Father points out stuff like that pretty often, he's in his 60's and has been a tech/geek/programer/pilot all his life since the war. Not much really wows him, more of a "bout time" kinda thing.
 
sfsuphysics said:
*sigh*... lots of science fiction writers have had correct "predictions" of the future, they've also had quite a few incorrect ones. The big one that usually pokes holes in predictions is computers, and more to the point how they work, how large they are, etc.

I loved Arthur C Clarke, but taking what he says as predictive gospel is along the lines of saying Nostradomus as predicted the future too.
Click to expand...

I'm entirely with you on this. Every good science fiction writer manages to nail some detail of the future but it doesn't mean anything. Futurists are given far too much credit for knee jerk predictions.

Many well known Science Fiction writers also swore that flying cars would be a thing about now as well.

Predicting future technology is like a game of darts. Too many factors can drive away your dart from the center.
 
Let's not forget that, at the time, Arpanet was a proof of concept network designed for redundancy to our nuclear arms network in case Russia decided to push the big red button. This video shows that Clarke had enough foresight to not only envision this as being, at the least, a national asset to its citizens but to see it being used for the most mundane of things with mention of price of goods.

It was funny, however, to hear him fail when he mentioned that we will only get what it is that we request, not all the other junk we don't want. He also gives away his idea of the structure of this network and is fundamentally wrong about it. He mentions that we will make requests or receive information from this central place...as we all know the internet definitely isn't arranged that way, thankfully.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top