h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

In order to attempt to predict the future, it's best to understand the past. We tend to laugh at the outlandish things that were predicted at the end of the 19th century for the future of mankind, but it's worth remembering that they were not said by brandy-soaked old fools but by serious, intelligent people who made statements based on the world around them.

They'd seen science advance immessurably in their lifetime (as we have) and naturally assumed this was the answer to many of lifes problems, as well as a matrix for a future beyond their wildest dreams. Hence the outlandish scientific romances of H G Welles and the likes.

The 20th century was remarkable for many things and one of these was it's sheer, off-the-wall unpredictability. In 1900 only two events of the next 100 years would probably have been predicted. These were World War 1 and the rise of America and the Far East. Of course, it was assumed that the second of these would co-incide with the continued rise of Europe. The fall of the European Empires was one thing no-one could predict. Britain and France were pretty much convinced that their overseas Empires were there to stay for at least a few centuries (at the end of the 19th century, even the Americans, thinking colonial imperialism was the "way forward" started to build an overseas empire of their own). Their collapse following a second world war and the collapse of the Imperialist system itself could not have been predicted. This was partly due to the unexpected politicisation of the "primitive" peoples the Europeans seemed to believe were so ill-advanced they were good for nothing but servitude. The Empires collapsed. Even the neo-colonialism of the superpowers, the USA and USSR, crashed on the rocks of the politicised third-world in Vietnam and Afghanistan respectively. The days of one country annexing and controlling another were pretty much consigned to the dustbin as what once brought wealth and power only brought body-bags and hatred back home to the aggressor. Now there is only a weaker shadow-imperialism of "economic influence", treaties and occasional attempts at subversion - something the great empire-builders of history would have balked at, but then they weren't living in the 20th century.

There have been a lot of predictions for the future made recently with the turn of the millenium. Most of them are outlandish and unlikely. In fact, in the wake of the September 2001 attacks in America, some of the geopolitical ones are already in the dustbin. Some things are likely, such as the continuing (but slow) exploration of space, and the rise of countries like China and India. Most of it, though, will probably be hidden from view until it suddenly comes and smacks us all in the face.

And all the 1950's predictions about space, too. Technologically, it was possible, but they didn't take into account whether it would be economically feasible. Space travel is insanely expensive after all. I wonder what an economist would say about some of the ideas of modern day science fiction...

Somewhere out there is a print drawn, I think, in the late 19th Century, depicting the year 2000. This shows the air filled with round balloons with baskets and strange, insect-like aircraft made of fabric and wood. (Couldn't imagine jet engines and metal airframes.)

Somewhere out there is a story written in 1947 by Arthur C Clarke, about a communications satellite which had a crew of ten men - who's reason for being there was to change the valves (tubes - for our transatlantic cousins)when they failed. (Transistors hadn't been invented)

Somewhere out there is a story, "The Shape of Things to Come" by HG Wells, the hero of which eats in a communal restaurant with background music provided by a small orchestra. (No one imagined audio electronics or piped music)

It all goes to show that, even with the most fertile imagination, people in the future will still have a laugh at our attempts to predict what is to come. Never mind - we enjoy trying.

Well put, Who?, often the reason "future-predictions" are so off is that they work with the technology they have then. I read somewhere that in the late 19th century it was assumed that technology would be what they had then only "bigger and more powerful".

The only thing I can be sure of is that all the futurologists will be wrong. Microwave , VCR, PC, CD were never predicted.

To supplement Zageb's last comment. Quote from the US Patent Office circa 1900. "Everything that can be invented has already been invented" French Government Military adviser circa 1912 words to the effect of "Aeroplanes will never have a Military use".

Predictions of the future are also typically flawed as they narrow in on a single variable and extrapolate without taking account of the ebb and flow of all the other variables. In contrast Scenario Building which plots a large number of key variables can provide some spookily accurate outcomes. By providing a broad based line-of-sight over the horizon several possible scenarios can be continuously monitored and developed as comntempory events unfold.

A stab at some scenarios for 2020

Take for example two much simplified futures for the cereal prairies of East Anglia currently controlled by a few very large farming companies.

Scenario one..... Former 'Eastern Block' States join EU, Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) not reformed, GM cereal production licenced by EU. Eastern European wheat production quickly expands. EU Cereal prices collapse (still further!), Large UK arable farms diminish, small farms disappear, replaced by hard wood 'forest' plantations (incentivised by EU conservation policy), sustaining wildlife, plus providing for Deer, Wild Boar farming on a large scale for European market.

Scenario two.... EU membership enlarged as above, CAP reformed. GM grain production prohibited across EU but permitted for new 'green energy crops, UK Government provide incentives to produce oil from crops. Grain production in East Anglia reduces, UK becomes exporter of high quality grain for European markets and self sufficent in specialist fuel oils.

You can't predict what will happen today and whilst both scenarios are possible the more likely outcome is some combination of both.

If you are still reading this....!

topher

Interestingly, my father bought "The Usborne Book of the Future" in the 1970s, and, as a child in the 1990s, I had hours of fun laughing at it.

Still, looking back, there were some predictions which weren't far off. For instance, the author's envisaged Dick Tracy-like wrist watches called "wristies" that were, in effect, mobile phones. Not too bad, if you ignore the whole 'phone as a watch' idea and just focus on the principles.

Though, on the other hand, there was plenty of silly illustrations of people in brightly coloured jumpsuits, and predictions for fire-robots and all manner of infeasible things. Interestingly as well, I don't know of anyone who had predicted computer games, and the "Book of the Future" was no exception. Instead we had vac-trains and electric cars, not to mention serving robots who looked like R2D2's distant cousins.

Hmmm... Gotta find that book again. I hope it hasn't been thrown away.

Back in the late sixties- early seventies I remember great predictions for the SST (SuperSonic Transport) airliners. The US aerospace industry was set to rule the SST market with bigger and better designs than the pioneer SST - Concorde. There were high capacity ones, swing-wing, sub-space, you name it. Even Russia, sorry the USSR, had their own, very similar design the Tupelov Tu144 Koncordski.

Now, nearly forty years later there is still only one SST - Concorde. Strange, isn't it?

And so pleasing to find only the UK (and France) still operating it.

SST's were predicted to be the future of transport in the 1970s. There were 3 models - the Anglo-French Concorde, the American one (I've forgotten it's name) and the Soviet Tupolov. The Soviet aircraft was very similar to the Concorde and it was widely believed that Soviet agents had obtained the Anglo-French designs by espionage. The Tupolov model basically looked like Concorde with two daft wee mini-wings sticking out the sides of it's "head".

Tupolov crashed on it's demonstration flight at an airshow in (I think) 1974. The project was later abandoned.

Later, it was discovered that SST's, if they were to replace conventional aircraft, would cause great damage to Earth's ozone layer. The Americans abandoned their project and only a few Concorde remain. The effect on the ozone layer of this handful of SST's is negligible.