Monday, February 28, 2005

I made two great purchases yesterday. Barnes & Noble was selling full-color coffee-table quality books devoted to science fiction and fantasy book-jacket art for $10 each. I bought the SF volume and pored over it, then rushed back for the fantasy edition. Both feature tons of wonderfully zonked imagery from the 1930s to the 1990s.





As fun as this stuff is to look at, it's also sort of depressing. Where are the moon cities so convincingly depicted in the 50s? Where are the flying cars? The domestic androids? What about the giant vacuum trains linking the world's major cities or the ubiquitous gun-metal phallic rocket-ships?

Of course, if it's easy to feel cheated about what the real world failed to actualize, it's equally easy to feel a bit smug about all the cool stuff the artists never came close to envisioning. Cellphones. The Internet. Nanotech. (OK, so we're not quite there yet, but we're palpably close.)

9 comments:

Ken said...

Mac,

I think we are currently in a transitional stage of history. Maybe one thing the SF writers of the 50's failed to take into consideration was the economic/monetary factor (it takes money to make androids and flying cars; one also needs a market). Another area which has perhaps slowed down our progress into the space age would be politics (one needs government backing and funding - and things like war, civil and international issues tend to be given the front seat). I mean, just how much do people *need* a domestic android (unless you consider the broomba from i-robot an "android")? People don't need 'em, companies don't make 'em. And the last thing I want is someone in a flying car running out of gas and crashing- landing on my house.

Ken said...

The downside of technological progress - especially where it is married to capitalism and industry - is the creation of people with conveyor-belt mentalities (yes, those "functionally dead" folks). It also inclines toward mass-consumerism and continued destruction of the environment. And of course we can't forget those ethical controversies (which may become pretty heated) over such things as eugenics, cloning, *stem-cell research*, etc. So there are actually social forces and practical considerations that hinder technological progress as well.

Ken said...

Once the market for space tourism blasts off (which won't be long), I think that world governments will begin taking more of an active interest in space exploration. People want to tour the moon or visit Mars? Might as well send scientists there too. I don't foresee any "cities" on the moon, but I do think that soon we will have lunar bases there (not to mention amusement parks: think 'Disney Moon'). I think we should get to Mars too...eventually. Who knows? Maybe someday you'll be sitting in a cafe overlooking Valles Marineris while reading comments on your blog posted by people back on Earth...

Mac said...

I was being somewhat rhetorical with the "where are the flying cars/moon cities?" bit, but your points are extremely valid. I think a lot of people overlook them.

If there is a way I can get off this planet -- even temporarily -- I will do it.

Anonymous said...

Ken --

I think domestic robots are only waiting for so-called "strong AI" to really take off. Then I suspect there would be a HUGE market for them. In fact, in general, the development of strong AI would be as radical as contacting ETI, if not more so. However, I predict that strong AI is of a piece with a practical fusion reactor. Probably ain't gonna happen for a comfortably long while.

Riddle: What's a cross between an Asimovian robot and a popular undersea cartoon character?

Platinum-Iridium Spongebob!

--WMB

Mac said...

Hans Moravec thinks household bots will pave the way toward true AI; see "Mind Children" and "Robot."

Ken said...

WMB,

What is "strong Al"?

Mac said...

Unless I'm mistaken -- and I should really be doing a Wikipedia search right now -- "strong" AI refers to machines that are effectively sentient, whereas "weak" AI encompasses machines that are just good at faking it.

Or did I just make this definition up?

Anonymous said...

That's my understanding. The Deep Blue chess program that beat Gary Kasparov is a good example of "weak AI" -- not truly intelligent but does an excellent simulation of intelligence within a very narrow area. Expert programs are another example. There are, to date, no examples of strong AI. Spooky Hal of 2001 was just a fantasy and, to my way of thinking, is likely to remain so for quite some time, decades at the very least.
--WMB