Why didn't we get the fantastic future we were promised?

>>56138970
People too busy doing other shit. Like drinking Starbucks and getting some trophies in Killzone. This planet sucks man get used to it.

I'm downloading more in a matter of seconds than existed capacity on Earth in 1961.

>>56138970
Economics, changing priorities, anti-nuclear environmentalists, the end of pissing competition between russia and america? You could say alotta things, i guess, mainly poltics

>>56138970
Video games happened.

File: RiHKOt4.jpg (32KB, 480x488px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 480x488px

>>56138970
One could say that theres no money in inovation

>>56138970
Let me condense your wall of text into a coherent question - "Why didn't retrofuturism pan out?".

Because it was based on fiction and not on science.

Question answered.
/thread

>>56138970
>>Instead, when we go on vacation in 2016, we still often board Boeing 747s - a plane designed before the invention of the pocket calculator, and which first flew in 1969 - BEFORE that moon landing. We don't even have supersonic airliners anymore - which we did have in 1976.

The world kind of collectively came to a consensus that being able to go anywhere on the planet in 24 hours was fast enough, and that making it even faster wasn't worth the money, trouble (e.g., sonic booms), environmental damage, yadda yadda.

Same goes for the space program. The Shuttle was and ISS is just an excuse to keep humans in space because it's a source of prestige and funding for the space agencies. All the science could be done cheaper without having to keep the hairless apes alive next to them. Same with Mars, there's no reason for us to go other than "that'd be really, really cool". And something being really, really cool is a very thin rationale for spending trillions of dollars, since the only source of money on that scale is the taxpayers.

Cancer didn't get cured because biology is hard. Who wouldve guessed. It hasn't been for lack of trying on the part of drug companies, there've been dozens of billion-dollar swings and misses at cancers of all sorts.

There aren't more nuclear reactors because of politics. The left loves to bash the right for being anti-science, but they're just as boneheaded - only about different things. Jill Stein thinks nuclear reactors built to produce electricity can also produce mushroom clouds. They can't. And of course the benefit of nukes is that they produce no carbon dioxide for all those gigawatts of electricity, and the right is still in denial about that being a problem. And from an engineering point of view storing waste is solved - put it in a geologically stable area 1,000ft underground and leave it there. But politically it's poison and nobody wants it within a thousand miles of them.

File: 1348500855709.gif (594KB, 239x270px) Image search: [Google]

594KB, 239x270px

>>56138970
Because jews

>>56138970
>being too poor to enjoy the limitless possibilities that the wealthy rich have at their disposal
they just don't want to share because degenerative and weak genes don't deserve the medicine which would allow them to thrive.

File: futuristic_artwork_syd_mead_future_cars_2560x1440_hd-wallpaper-2562011.jpg (421KB, 2560x1440px) Image search: [Google]

421KB, 2560x1440px

>>56138970
We have had massive advancements in every scientific field since then. Our every day technology is perhaps the best example of those advancements.

The lack of flying cars, underwater cities and trips to the moon isn't because we can't do them, they simply aren't environmentally and financially practical, thus not in the best interest for scientists and engineers to develop. For instance, with modern technology we could have a new version of the Concorde, better in every way than the original, but it simply wont happen for the same reasons they got decommissioned in the first place. They are small, loud, expensive to manufacture and maintain, making the old fashioned 747 a more financially desirable option.

Global warming, fear mongering about diminishing global resources and financial instability controls modern industries to develop and manufacture the most economic and practical options possible, making the future not so fantastical the cold war era United States made it out to be.

I apologize for possible grammar errors. English isn't my native language.

>>56139225
they spent trillions of dollars on the middle east
your arguement is invalid.
the government and elites could easily afford to give its citizens an allowance of 2500 a month.

why should the weak and stupid and lazy be allowed to thrive though?
tho admittedly 2500 a month is just enough for basic living standards. yet wouldn't necessarily mean you'd thrive.

>>56138970
The only things that really felt different for the last 20 years are handheld devices and other consumer electronics

easy peasy.

because the average chair-moistener citizen is a self-obsessed insecure slob.

everybody wants governments to spend money on what they are thinking about.

and the easiest way to steer the mob is to make them fearful of something. In the 60s it was beating the russians.

since then it's worrying about jobs and people the look different from them.

the best thing about Russia invading the Ukraine (yes they did, don't give me that shit.) is that the US is pumping money back into the US space industry.

>>56139288
>>the government and elites could easily afford to give its citizens an allowance of 2500 a month.
$2500 times 12 months in a year times (roughly) 300,000,000 people in America is $9,000,000,000,000 a year. Nine trillion dollars. Per year. For comparison the entire federal budget is about $3.2 trillion. Of that 3.2, defense is about $1 trillion. So no, we couldn't afford that, actually.

In any case money spent on wars in no way makes my argument invalid. The fact that much money was wasted in doing A is not an argument for wasting it doing B instead, it's an argument for not wasting the money at all, and either spending it on something useful, or, when talking of governments, not expropriating it from the citizens in the first place.

>>56138970
The internet happened

>>56138970
>>56139203
why

Because nothing is how we think it is. Welcome to the slippery dip of decline and disaster.

File: capitalism1414011942717s.jpg (18KB, 250x114px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 250x114px

Resource and technology wise, it's been well within our capability to feed, house, clean, clothe, medicate, educate, and entertain every single person on the planet at the expense, detriment, or coercion of no one for at least the last hundred years.

How's that goal of immediate monetary profit at all costs working out for ya?

>>56139391
Retards like you don't comprehend the reality of incremental improvement of infrastructure.

The West can house, clothe and educate most of it's people. Yeah. Do you know why? Because that's been our focus for the last 500 years.

Yeah.

Mouth-breathers like you thinking we can drop HDI on Africa like some God given blessing are better suited for a religious forum than /g/.

>>56139288
you fail.
if everyone has 2500 a month, why work? why work on an apple farm? to make it worth your time you would raise the price (and why not eveyone can now afford it) and so everything else would raise their prices.
then in a few years being 2500 a month richer would mean that you would still only be able to buy the same amount of stuff as now.

change your classes and pick up an economics class.

>>56139199
>/thread-ing yourself

You new here kid?

>>56139373
>nothing is how we think it is
This sums up humanity.

As Frank Herbert wrote,

the universe is always one step beyond logic

Think on it

>>56139225

> there's no reason for us to go to Mars other than it would be really cool

nigga what about existential risk

>>56139544
not immedate, or even foreseen by any reputable scientist for millions of years to come.

File: smugtomato.jpg (55KB, 900x810px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 900x810px

>he still relies on 3D for joy

File: Syd-Mead14.jpg (636KB, 3207x2200px) Image search: [Google]

636KB, 3207x2200px

>>56138970

We might not have flying cars, but we do have pretty cool stuff, that none of those 60s guys even dreamed about.
I mean an idea that a single machine could have many uses, didn't even occur to many of them.
In their fantasies, you just had a different computer for different purposes. One to shop with, one to pay taxes with, one to use in learning.

Some time ago, I was taking a shower after completing a picture on my digital tablet.
I sent this picture half way across the planet and then took a shower.
I was watching a movie in the shower on my phone, then a message popped up
>A sum of ***$ has been sent to your account.
Then the message went away and I continued watching porn.

At that point I took a moment to think about the situation.
I had just performed all of this, without lifting my ass from my chair.
Sold a picture done completely digitally, to some guy on the other side of the planet.
I received a notification of the payment to my handheld supercomputer and I could have spent that money on the spot on anything I wanted, all while taking a shower.
Future is already here, but it's just everywhere so we give zero shits about the awesome stuff we have.
Just wait till we have insanely fast photonic computers and self driving cars.
We're not going to give a fuck about those things either. They're just going to be there and that's it.

On another note, it's actually a real pity that our society doesn't look like something out of Syd Mead's drawings.
This guy is a elder god tier designer.
Maybe if we had the great futuristic aesthetic going on, we'd give more of a fuck about technology around us.

We're just unlucky, goy.

>>56139584

You think that there's essentially a 0% chance of a nuclear war or a major pandemic?

Even a 0.1% chance of human extinction would be too high to do nothing about.

Hofstadter's Law: It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's Law.

>>56140250

But what about things which happen faster than you expect?

For example; on 09 October 1903 a curious editorial appeared in the New York Times; it prophesised that “The flying machine which might really fly might be evolved by the combined and continuous efforts of mathematicians and mechanicians in from one to 10 million years.”

The Wright Brothers achieved powered flight in December of the same year.

>>56138970
>Why didn't we get the fantastic future we were promised?
Because of Nizon.

He dropped the Apollo project and more in favour of a war in Vietnam and a hotel he needed to break into.

>>56140528
*Nixon.

And some consider him one of the greatest presidents ever.

>>56140576

>Some consider Nixon one of the greatest presidents ever

Who? I've genuinely never heard anyone express that opinion

>>56140317
It has little impact because your predictions of the near future didn't include what you that was highly unlikely.

>>56140625
what you thought* was highly unlikely
sorry.

>>56138970
>Why didn't we get the fantastic future we were promised?
Degeneracy
We only went to the moon because of rocket science the nazis invented. Since we killed them we don't have any non degenerate society to make scientific progress for us

>>56138970
>moon landing ever happened

>>56138970
The problem with flying cars and moon vacations is that they just don't make much economic sense. And it turns out shit like fixing cancer is more difficult than we thought.

But consider, we've nearly got self driving cars. And there's nothing stopping you doing a little space tourism, wearing a shiny jumpsuit and living in a futuristic mansion if you're rich enough.

>>56140693

I'm mostly joking about flying cars. I don't think they'd be a terribly good idea. But they're an archetypal example of the 'high tech' future we were told we'd get and that (aside from in communications and information technology, where we've done better than almost anyone expected) hasn't really materialised.

I'm not joking about the fact we've had much less space development and exploration than was expected, though.

>>56139391
That would magnify the problem a thousand fold. Focusing our resources on the retarded subhuman masses such as in Africa would completely stop innovation

>>56140679
https://github.com/chrislgarry/Apollo-11

>>56139391

> Resource and technology wise, it's been well within our capability to feed, house, clean, clothe, medicate, educate, and entertain every single person on the planet at the expense, detriment, or coercion of no one for at least the last hundred years.

> citation needed

>>56139354
Boil it down to $1000 a month (that's roughly rent and food) and only give it to half the people who really need it, and now we're talking.

>>56140980

Just giving people money doesn't achieve anything; we need to produce more stuff.

If just handing out money created prosperity, Zimbabwe would be the richest nation on earth.

It is a lot easier to go back than it is to go forward. It took us thousands of years to get personal electronic devices, but with some natural disasters and crazy politicians we could go back to hunting for food in a few decades, in the worst case. I am talking about a nuclear WW3, or something of that magnitude. Something that sends the population below 1 billion.

>>56139420
was going to post this. ty

Because the people promising things were fiction writers not the actual people who would be doing the research and development.

Facebook happened

File: 1467744263720.jpg (161KB, 750x908px) Image search: [Google]

161KB, 750x908px

>>56138970
Because the world is craving for socialism

We need to stop wasting resources. Stop trying to build cities in the desert. Stop promoting population growth. Stop pointless religious wars.

>>56140528

Nixon ended the war in Vietnam, anon. Johnston's administration is largely the one that 'started' it.

>>56142907
Nixon first escalated it. As for Johnston, the war was in fact inherited from France.

File: yoyo_think_anim_small.gif (3KB, 50x50px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 50x50px

>>56143469
This anon gets it.
Fact: Vietnam used to be called "French Indo China". Once again, blame the French.

File: 60025440.jpg (190KB, 1000x665px) Image search: [Google]

190KB, 1000x665px

>>56139724
>>56142767
The space age was so funny, they had no idea Marxist ideas would soon shit in their five-star restaurant soup with communism and feminism.

why no tstore nuclear waste in tapped out uranium mines? they are already radioactive as fuck

>>56141003
>Just giving people money doesn't achieve anything;
It grows GDP. People have more money on hand, they spend they money increasing demand, the corporations profit and grow the production, government gets more taxes.

Keynesian economy is a ponzi scheme, mate. That's why giving away money it actually beneficial. There are already talks about basic income.

>>56139225
Why can't we just launch nuclear waste into the depths of space?

I don't know how much waste is produced by nuclear facilities every month, or how much it would cost to build a simple rocket filled with waste, but it sounds plausible.

File: index.jpg (5KB, 274x184px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 274x184px

>>56144325
what could possibly go wrong?

>>56139017
Was FPBP until
>Killzone

>>56144340
We run tests and simulations. We test the rockets. We build rockets that have been proven to work. We make sure they're stable.

I'm going to assume that's the Challenger. That was about 40 years ago anon. We've gotten better at space travel since then. When was the last time we had a rocket fail and detonate in our atmosphere?

>>56144378
'Bout three or four years ago, pretty sure one of those Proton-M rockets exploded in Kazakhstan, and the Columbia disaster was just 13 years ago and put the final nail in the coffin of the space shuttle program.

>>56144378
plenty of rockets explode. last one i can think of was in 2015 in kazakhstan

File: Antares_Orb-3_launch_failure_(201410280011HQ).jpg (375KB, 1700x1133px) Image search: [Google]

375KB, 1700x1133px

and before we blame inferior russian tech, heres antares from 2014

>>56144448
>>56144452
Why can't we just build rockets that fucking work?

I understand that the slightest miscalculation can make the whole thing crash and burn, but you'd think we'd have figured shit out at this point in history.

>>56144276
Literally your answer is in the post you replied to. Look up Zimbabwe inflation

>>56140233
I think this. Not nuclear anymore - 0% chance - but a pandemic would easily wipe us out.

>>56139288
>could easily afford to give its citizens an allowance of 2500 a month.

And what would that do to the economy?

>>56144488
A single common programming error can change bearing to 0 degrees during launch, other systems move to accommodate, rocket tips 3 degrees and catches wind at mach 2 and falls apart. Shit happens pretty frequently. Not 100% sure but it seems that they found cheaper more disposable rockets to be more cost effective

Curing cancer is pretty fucking hard m8, it's not that far off from eternal youth.

>>56138970
Because there is no fantastic future ahead of us

>>56144601
That's what I'm saying, just use cheap rockets that have been proven to work to get rid of waste. Only problem is if one of them fails, then we have a problem.

Maybe set up launch sites in remote areas nobody gives a shit about, like New Mexico or any place with no value to be had, so if a rocket goes bad, nothing of value would be lost.

>>56144274
U in mines is chemically bound and somewhat inert. Otherwise it had been washed out over geological timescale.

Nuclear waste, on the other hand, is a cocktail of many chemicals, many of which are more radioactive than natural uranium and also more chemically reactive.

So you have to seal it into containers that will not crack or leak into groundwater and maintain integrity for 10000 years. And that means be protected against neo-primitive tribes that may roam a future Earth.

Alternative 2 is the more kapitalist one: take the problem, turn it into a solution and earn money off it. One possibility is to run alpha- and beta-voltaics off the waste and also use the heat generated.

>>56144605
Cancer is not one disease. There are dozens and dozens of different types of cancer that are all different. So you cannot find that one great solution. You have to solve hundreds of separate issues.

And progress is being made. About 10 years ago breast cancer meant certain masectomy. Today that is often unnecessary. Priorities for RnD being what they are this will take a long time.

it's not commercially viable even in the medium term, plus the us and soviets made space treaty stating no one can lay claim to space like you can to undiscovered islands

Science happen. There was invention after invention in XX centures and then we can only invent JS-frameworks. LHC shows what our models are broken, fusion is never came. We still boil water to extract energy from atom.
There are too many problems and yeah. Money is a big problem too.

Shit's expensive

File: 1471529151467.jpg (40KB, 500x400px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 500x400px

>>56138970
Corporations happened, dear anon.

>>56139544
not helped in the slightest by some crappy missions. It's simply not hospitable, and it's unlikely that it will become in the future

>>56139412
> incremental improvement of infrastructure
its been happening in some important parts of the us
europe on the other hand...

Probably something to do with da joos

There are still hellholes that need JDAMs.

>>56144635
>that have been proven to work
that doesn't exist, we only have rockets that worked 30 times or so. Doesn't mean there can be issues. Besides, the human operators can screw up as well.

>>56138970
Because 60% of taxes go to military

>>56141003
thats because money as a whole is representative of from a common pool of resources. Giving people money by not spending on overseas wars DOES achieve something

>>56144325
>>56144340
>>56144378
>>56144448
>>56144452
>>56144488
>>56144601
>>56144635
>>56144961
Minute physics literally did a video on this
https://youtu.be/LHvR1fRTW8g
Long story short hitting the sun is orders of magnitude harder than escaping the whole solar system. Plus the whole rocket go boom enjoy your nuclear rain thing.

>>56139225
Big pharma doesn't want a cancer cure.

We have Vapes now so it is the future

Niggers and kikes.

>>56139225
>Same with Mars, there's no reason for us to go other than "that'd be really, really cool".
How about the survival of our species, faggot? We're far too much at risk for extinction if we stay on this plant.

File: 1456861469340s.jpg (3KB, 125x70px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 125x70px

>>56145348
Evil companies raping our governments for money is far more important than the survival of our species.

...apparently.

Wow guys, there is no solution for radiation in space even in theory? Except thick wall of some heavy metals. Am i correct?
Are we all stuck in this gravity well forever?

>>56145401
Depends on how you define evil. I don't believe that they think they are hurting anyone.

"They" in this context is probably more akin to an ant colony than an evil villian.

In reality I think you are repeating a mantra whereas "they" are making decisions based on millions of collective hours of formal knowledge and experience.

>>56145416
Millions of years of natural selection under heavy radiation should provide a good solution :^)

File: sydmead4488cb8.jpg (798KB, 1280x1195px) Image search: [Google]

798KB, 1280x1195px

>>56145416
True red pill right here, we (as in fleshy humans) will never leave this rock or at least never venture further than Mars.

>>56145023
You're a moron.

If some pharma company found a cure for, say, breast cancer, that clearly and demonstrably worked, they'd be hailed as heroes and make a hundred billion dollars off of it. You think a bunch of their rivals could get them to keep that under wraps? First, they wouldn't try, they'd want to take it for themselves. Second, even if they did try, the discovering company would say "Your friendship, and our future profits depending on you honoring the conspiracy? Or making money by the trainload off the biggest miracle cure since penicillin? Yeah, fuck you, mate, we're curing cancer"

>>56146204
tfw I won't beable to live on a halo in my lifetime.

>>56146766
they make more money giving people radiation then they would if they could fix it in one go.

>>56146779
That doesn't change the fact that conspiracies are inherently unstable, and the more participants and higher the stakes, the more unstable they are. Also you're busy criticizing capitalist companies for being too short-term and caring about nothing but this quarter's numbers... except when they're not and make elaborate plans to keep scientific advances secret for decades. Which is it? Every big company I know would take the bird in the hand of a cancer cure over any number of birds in the bush to be had by keeping it secret. If nothing else because the stock price would skyrocket on "CANCER CURED" headlines, and everyone in the C-suite would make billions.

>>56145017
Or, drill into the center of the earth and throw it in there

>>56142767
Thats a very misleading image. Its implying that the top part is no longer in existance?

>>56144518
Inflation doesn't matter when you control the world reserve currency. If a potato would cost 1000 dollars, then other currencies will sink as well, otherwise they won't be able to buy resources and export goods.
That's why Euro, that initially was 1.6 USD as inflated to 1.1 USD.
You don't know shit about finance, m8.

>>56145023
Big pharma is run by people in the upper middle class. In this segment natural causes of death is often cancer. If a man avoids unnecessary risks and lives reasonably healthily, chances are he will die of testicular cancer or prostate cancer.

So big pharma leaders have more to gain than to lose on cures for cancer.

Also, if you remove cancer you will end up with a lot of people who will need medicines for other things you can find medicines for.

They win no matter what.

>>56147566
Are you saying that if the US inflation rate rose by 1000% a day we would not see any issues?

>>56149659
>>56147566
Also no, I have only taken one Macroeconomics class so I have a very small amount of knowledge about it

>>56149659
You are trying to pull a strawman. 1000% in 1 day is not a realistic scenario.

On the other hand in the real world USD inflated by ~850% since Nixon abolished the gold standard.
And the economy only profited from that.

>>56142767
>year-round growing season
>temperate climate

It can't be both, Anon.

>>56139225
The moon landing must've only been 'really, really cool' then. Dumbass.

>Why didn't we get the fantastic future we were promised?

Mudslimes, Liberals, Millennials and their degenerate morals, the loss of God, the rotting education system oh, wait, I already said Liberals.

>>56138970
You proyally weren't alive in the 60's. Military funding is sweet, but when that dried up the public voted with its pocketbook. The future could have not existed the very next day, and the lives of almost every person in the world hung in the balance. I'm fine with the future as it is. Also, if you think the 747 hasn't undergone multiple refits and redesigns in the past 47 years, you're insane.

>>56138970

Apathy.

Also, something in the water tastes funny here.

>>56149969
>the loss of God
B8

None of those things inherently prevent technological advancement. We aren't yet on Mars because funding dried up and no other nations besides America and cold war Russia were willing to invest into space industry as much.

Cars already look like that.Tracksuits also look like that.

>>56139225

Good post, especially:
>put it in a geologically stable area 1,000ft underground and leave it there. But politically it's poison

Nuclear waste isn't an issue, never has been. Hippies though, let me tell you about uneducated hippies.

>>56150162
>None of those things inherently prevent technological advancement

Common Core. Liberals. Lack of actual education or meaningful learning. Lacks of morals and God.

>>56150266
forgot link

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWrifedlR24

>>56150266

> God.

I think overcoming nihilism is more important and has a better long-term outlook than trying to instill fear in the public, especially when advancements in technology require ever greater intellect to understand and use correctly (let alone develop in the first place).

>>56150266

I'll agree about common core. Education cannot be standardized, only developed on an individual basis. Students with initiative are easy to spot, and should be placed in university settings where they can further develop specialized skills.

Generally, public schools are too expensive to operate for what they give back to society. They are now (and have been for many years) just day-care centers.

We don't need to work 40 hours a week, parenting one's children is a natural right, etc, etc... I can go on, but I think you get the idea.

File: 1429976177355.jpg (260KB, 475x750px) Image search: [Google]

260KB, 475x750px

>>56138970
This is the future I want, chilling with my cephalopodabro.

File: 1460429708210.png (650KB, 587x515px) Image search: [Google]

650KB, 587x515px

>>56139584
>millions of years to come.
if you think we'll make it to the next 10,000 or just 2000 years then top kek m8

>>56138970
Capitalism makes technology stagnate

Why don't battery manufacturers make longer lasting batteries? Because they want the batteries to die so you buy more. It applies to all areas of tech

>>56150307
>All of America's technological advancement happened within the period of God and the Church being number one
>The country starts to slowly lose its morals
>Suddenly no meaningful advancements in Technology
>No progress
>Only incremental improvements to existing knowledge over time

So....

>>56150570

All due to nihilism and the apathy it breeds.

Morals can exist without any sort of theism.

Theism provided a context in which morals could exist, and made sense to people without significant background in philosophy (or, really, those who didn't have the time to dwell on existential issues).

Unfortunately, reaching the point of accepting the pointlessness of one's existence (a universal flaw) is something I think requires reasonable progress towards self-actualization - not possible for everyone.

It was genuinely easier to just throw religion at the problem instead of trying to get everyone over this hump.

Now, sadly, the current generations running the economy have been exposed to modern philosophies, yet have failed to reach their potential (or have any interest in doing so). So, they feel empty, and have no motivation to change that feeling.

It takes and odd sort of "determined" mindset to set aside the apathy and just "do for the sake of doing, and do it as close to perfectly as possible - why else would I exist?".

Dogmas provided the motivation where many would fail to develop an ability to self-motivate. It seems that ability is more scarce than anyone anticipated, and it might not be possible to teach...

>>56150693
>Now, sadly, the current generations running the economy have been exposed to modern philosophies, yet have failed to reach their potential.

>Dogmas provided the motivation where many would fail to develop an ability to self-motivate.

Did you just strawman your own argument? Also, this doesn't refute the fact that this country grew in multiple sectors while the prevalence of the Church and God and morals throughout country existed.

So to reiterate,
Mudslimes, Liberals, Millennials and their degenerate morals, the loss of God, the rotting education system oh, wait, I already said Liberals.

>>56150769

No, this did not "strawman" the argument.

The point here is that there has been exposure to other modes of thought besides theism, yet they haven't been handled appropriately (everyone's depressed).

I'm making the point that past successes were due largely to the confidence and motivation offered by certain philosophies that were easier to many comprehend at the time. That doesn't make them appropriate for today.

At some point, we would have to grow beyond looking to heavily modified ancient texts for moral guidance, and approach the problems addressed thereby with reason instead.

>>56150846
>past successes were due largely to the confidence and motivation offered by certain philosophies
>That doesn't make them appropriate for today.

uh....


>approach the problems addressed thereby with reason instead

Well, let's take a moment to reflect on how effective this mode of "logic-driven progressive thinking" has been.......nothing of value was thought of that day, he thought to himself, saddened by the degenerate madmen that continue down a path that has been proven to be for naught.

File: neuromancer.jpg (55KB, 392x651px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 392x651px

>>56138970
>Why didn't we get the fantastic future we were promised?

But we did.

>>56150693
>Morals can exist without any sort of theism.
No, they can't.
Morals can't exist if there is no fear and higher authority.

In the officially atheist USSR there was the god Lenin, Jesus Stalin of the state, the hell was KGB and there even was a pantheon of angels - young pioneers, who sacrificed themselves for the state, if I remember correctly there were 52, and a pantheon of saints - heroes of the soviet union who died in a suicide mission (too many to remember).

Funny thing is, they even developed magic and blessings.

You can't get away from religion. And it is better to have one, that has been refined for thousands of years, than some leader worship cult.

>>56151324
>refined for thousands of years
> they even developed magic and blessings.
holy fucking kek. not sure if bait or really stupid

>>56139584
antibiotic resistant bacteria are already a huge fucking risk to humanity

>>56151386
>holy fucking kek. not sure if bait or really stupid

I'm serious. The magic was that some people could kill with a spell. The spell was "Tovaristch, we would like to invite you to a little talk", spoken by a KGB officer over the phone and people were dying left and right from heart attacks and aneurysms.
Killing with words is pretty much a textbook definition of magic.

And the blessings were spoken by commissars, after which people attacked tanks with bare hands and won.

>>56144488
Because human technology is fucking shit.

>In 1961, it was possible for the President of the United States to stand in front of the nation and say 'we choose to go to the moon!' - and for the nation to deliver it 7 years later.
>1961 + 7 = 1968
>Moon launch/landing = 1969
>can't even into math

OP, you are everything that's wrong with America, rolled up into one pathetic bag of mostly water.

>stupid fucking people will be the death of us all

>>56138970
If you think going to the moon was a public service, you're delusional. It was a race of governmental fear on who was going to have tactical advantage in space, though that was in itself a expensive failure.

>>56144892
>It's simply not hospitable, and it's unlikely that it will become in the future

humans are pretty good at adapting to live in new places, especially when we have technology

100 years ago people could barely make it to the south pole without dying. now there are regularly people living there year round

>>56138970
>50 years ago, people were told that by now we would be living in underwater cities, driving flying cars and having vacations on the moon - or even Mars.

>underwater cities
we have hotels, attractions, and research stations located under water

>flying cars
we have various prototypes

>space vacations
space tourism has been a thing for like 15 years now and mars colonization is starting in 1.5 years

File: passenger-drone.jpg (1MB, 3000x2096px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3000x2096px

>>56151986
https://www.skyscanner.net/news/8-worlds-best-underwater-hotels
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquarius_%28laboratory%29

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jun/08/worlds-first-passenger-drone-testing-ehang-nevada

http://www.space.com/11492-space-tourism-pioneer-dennis-tito.html
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2016/04/spacex-debut-red-dragon-2018-mars-mission/

>>56144635
>just use cheap rockets that have been proven to work to get rid of waste

>cheap
>reliable
In all seriousness, pick one

File: american-cockroach-illustration_1376x1147.jpg (915KB, 1376x1147px) Image search: [Google]

915KB, 1376x1147px

>>56145462
>fast forward several million years

>133 replies and 17 images omitted
>for an off topic, not allowed on /g/ /sci/ thread
Are you fucking serious

>>56150363
to be fair, there does need to be some way to ensure what schools teach is standardized. it wouldn't be good if one school offered courses up to a 12th grade level while another offered courses to only a 10th grade level

>>56152183
The off topic threads, like the the recent cast iron pan thread, seems to be the best threads.

>>56152183
>thread about technology
>off topic

I see a lot of stormposting and general nazi promoting in this thread, but honestly if /pol/ got in to power would they really do anything other than sit on their ass and shitpost memes, anime girls, and trump images?

This is probably a good thing since some of them are so god damned stupid they think the world is flat and killing the degenerates will somehow solve everything.

>>56152238

> it wouldn't be good if one school offered courses up to a 12th grade level while another offered courses to only a 10th grade level

Why not? This seems like a fairly minor difference.

>>56152924

only the disenfranchised are agents for change. if nazi ideology was adopted by all the people, those that are already successful could have their abilities and achievements amplified and human technological progress would explode - just like it did between 1942 and 1995, when the USA was run as though it were at war.

>>56154310

Why nazi ideology?

Why not 1950s American patriotism and traditionalism?

>>56155064
You mean american commie phobia

>>56155153

It worked, though. When the hippies took over in 1968, everything started going to hell.

By the mid 1970s, progress came to a shuddering halt in almost everything except for information technology.

>>56152183

> off topic
> 'why has technological progress been so disappointing?'
> technology board

k

>>56144483
That makes a great wallpaper.

File: 1375109914589.png (223KB, 501x585px) Image search: [Google]

223KB, 501x585px

>>56138970
>What happened?

>>56139225

good post

>>56144325


It would take crazy amounts of energy to get it there, it would make nuclear energy less appealing all together

>>56144325

Mostly because of the risk of a launch vehicle failure; it would be an extremely bad thing if tonnes of radioactive waste were dispersed over a populated area.

It would also be quite expensive; though the cost of getting into LEO is lower than ever, and once you're in LEO, you're halfway to anywhere in the solar system.

>>56145348
You can't live on Mars. Literally.

It's cold, it has less gravity than here.

Oh yeah also less oxigen.

Mars is barren and don't even think to say the word "Terraforming" It's out of our reach and it will be for the next centuries.

>>56151324

>Morals can't exist if there is no fear and higher authority

> so theism

How can you see any form of control/authority as a theism? It's the other way around.

File: 1471322263561.gif (3MB, 740x416px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 740x416px

It's too expensive to do nice things before a vague time limit set by the past's vision of a milestone year number.

It's much cheaper to slow down, have tolerable things, and assess the mountains of bullshit we invented for "the now".

>>56154059
Students should be able to receive the same education regardless of which public school they attend

>>56152302
>>56156557
Thank you.

File: home-banner-two-new[1].jpg (253KB, 1400x608px) Image search: [Google]

253KB, 1400x608px

>>56138970
You can't bring all those promises without destroying some earth or peace balance. We would end up in Fallout like landscape and the earth ecosystem would be destroyed beyond fix after nuclear Wars.

Promises made in 1960 were part of an strategy to icrease nationalism and stop Cold War. Surprise surprise, money won.

Things are moving slower, but we are entering into VR and AR worlds, where technology is a part of our lives and our lives are part of technology & information. In my opinion it's miles better than going into some desertic inhospit planet for muh pride and honor. The galaxy is a shithole outside of our fragile bubble planet.

>>56138970
Because there's "real" problems to solve - LGBTQ issues, feminism, islamophobia, racism, white privilege, fat shaming etc.

>>56149889
>what is space race
It really was. Just to prove that capitalism is superior to communism. It kinda worked, USSR ended spending so much on that, and the cold war, that its economy collapsed.

>>56138970
Because risk. Risk is expensive and those promises are not enviornmentally and financially practical in the short and long term.

>>56140912
>aside from in communications and information technology, where we've done better than almost anyone expected
What else do you want? This is the base of tech and science advancemet. We would be still stuck on 1960 forever if we didn't stepped up our game on information and communication flow.

>>56150925
>But we did.
I think most hoped the future would be here as future fact rather than literature.

Even though WmG git the nail on the megacorps and the power of media much of the else, especially the tech, didn't materialise.

>>56151324
>Morals can't exist if there is no fear and higher authority.
In view of Jewish eschatology, how does this fit with your view?

>>56152183
This is one of the better threads, ever. In many ways this is what the occasional /CYB/ threads should have covered, unfortunately those fall off the end too quickly.

>>56155064
Nazi ideology did not arise in a vacuum. It is interesting and also a bit disturbing to read about the background and the thought of the time that were channeled into the ideologies. In fact many seemed entirely harmless and even praiseworthy at the time such as the ideals of fitness and being at one with nature. Also patriotism and traditionalism were part of this.

Who would have thought where that ended up?

>>56156736
>Literally
Strangely this word appears so often when the arguments do not hold up to scrutiny.

Cold: South pole is easily below -80C. Thermal insulation is a well known technology.
Gravity: People live in zero gravity in orbit for long periods at a time. It is inconvenient but we have progressed far to counter the problems. And if not you could use a centrifuge in the base.
Oxygen: Chemistry is not new. Really.
Barren: Apparently the soil is suitable for asparagus. There is also hydroponics.

File: 1469382314645.gif (939KB, 400x416px) Image search: [Google]

939KB, 400x416px

Gee I wonder why.

>>56144325
It still costs roughly 10000 dollars to send a pound of matter in orbit. So not really feasible until orbital elevators are real.

>>56139225
The world collectively decided jet liners were unsafe after so many were lost in flight after sucking in a part from a non jet during take off. This didn't cause immediate failure but once they reached a certain speed or altitude shit went fubar. No air line company has tried to do it since. This is not a rare occurrence where something better failed and was never adopted as the older companies could keep on keeping on. Companies hate to innovate unless they can steal the idea like with the wind shield wiper. Additionally people would rather donate large sums to charity rather than universities which would have an interest in bringing their technology to market even if it disrupts the current market.

>>56139225
>And something being really, really cool is a very thin rationale for spending trillions of dollars
That's ignorant anon, you're being ignorant.
Nasa's current budget is less than 20 billion dollars, total for its ~50 years of history is less than 800 billion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA

>>56158467
I like this gif.

>>56151324
>Morals can't exist if there is no fear and higher authority.
Not really.

>fear
True but only because morals arise from a fear of pain (and consequently death) in the physiological processes in the brain and the nervous system.
>higher authority
Morals are innate to humans and they existed long before Judeo-Christian religions came about. Humans are naturally moral and naturally cooperate because it has been in their evolutionary advantage to do so.

>>56144488
rockets are extremely complex and expensive, a rocket that 'fucking works' would have around 1,5 million parts and would cost around 450 million dollars to build.

also it needs enormous amounts of fuel and would cost even more money

Too many people to accommodate for something like that. It would cost way too much.

It might not actually be possible, in the way that earlier people foresaw it. Flying cars with no wings, teleporters, cybernetic brain implants which let you understand any language off the bat, etc. They might just not be possible.

>>56138970
t. dumbass who has never heard of CRISPR

>>56158807
He was talking about a manned mars mission.
I don't have an insult about how you failed english class and are a waste of flesh, resources, and cosmic energy witty enough to pair with your spectacular retardation.

>>56151565

You do not understand the nature of magic. It isn't using words to cause action or alterations of the physical world.

>>56145023
Hate to break the news to you, but some kinds of cancer can be cured.

>>56138970
The moon landing would never happened if foreign politics wasn't a part of it.

>>56138970
Hart-Celler Act of 1965

That was the moment the future began to dim.

>>56159128
>Humans are naturally moral
Nope.
> naturally cooperate
Nope.

Humans only cooperate if it suits them. Any human will leave the cooperation if it will benefit him. Unless he's dumb or religious.
I know I would dismember my every friend if the price was right.

>>56162729
Wow, a true and in the flesh subhuman! How's it like?

>>56158440
>Gravity: People live in zero gravity in orbit for long periods at a time. It is inconvenient but we have progressed far to counter the problems. And if not you could use a centrifuge in the base.
Isn't stuff like childbirth and having a skeleton when you grow up kind of a big problem with that one? If we're really intending to colonise Mars, only replenishing human resources through explicitly sending people there would result in a dead end.

>>56162786
The human nature is to care about own well-being first and about the well-being of own blood second.
Everyone else is just a mean to an end.

File: 79300621.jpg (193KB, 1112x1093px) Image search: [Google]

193KB, 1112x1093px

>>56162729
>I know I would dismember my every friend if the price was right.
Then what's stopping them from doing the same thing to you? You both profit from not dismembering each other.

See comic.

>>56162835
>Then what's stopping them from doing the same thing to you?
The fear, which outweighs motivation. Some fear god, some fear the prison. But it's only the fear that stops anyone from doing anything, not morals.
If you tip the scales enough for the motivation to outweigh fear, anyone would kill anyone.

First you have to understand that it only the fear and the will to overcome it that drives people, second you have to understand that people aren't equal, and some are meant to be abused.

US started a war in the middle East, which caused a shift of government money going into Military, along with this, the cold war ended, resulting in a much slower drive for innovation, as the US was years ahead of everyone but the Soviet Union.

>>56138970

>But today, the US cannot even send a man into low earth orbit without relying on Russian technology and has no capacity at all to put a man on the moon
I hate to break this to you, but putting people on the moon isn't actually very useful.

>living in underwater cities,
This is just dumb, I can't describe all the ways this is a stupid idea. Whoever said this was an idiot.

>driving flying cars
Again, a really bad idea. Aside from being technologically difficult, equipping every Tom, Dick and Harry with a death trap that could easily demolish a house in a crash and then trusting them not to crash these is an awful idea. And for what? The improvements aren't really that significant.

>We don't even have supersonic airliners anymore
They're costly and expensive to operate and can only fly certain routes where people won't mind the irritating noise.

>We were promised by President Nixon in 1971 that cancer would be cured by the time of the US bicentennial.
What a stupid thing to say. Also cancer is taking a beating, we recorded the lowest number of cancer fatalities ever last year (despite a massive number of cases) if I recall correctly.

>We were told we were entering the Atomic Age - that by the year 2000, a thousand nuclear reactors would be powering America.
This is the fault of people being *really* bad at threat assessment.

Most of the features of this "bright future" haven't happened not because we can't do them, but because they're awful awful ideas (or were absurd things to promise given the time frame).

>>56162729
that's because you're an edgy wannabe sociopath, anon.

>>56164074
That's actually how I was raised. And that's the right way to live.

>>56138970
>driving flying cars
I fucking hate this meme.

File: MarsBase.png (44KB, 2000x2000px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 2000x2000px

>>56162819
Skeleton problems can be kept under control with (a lot of) exercises. Childbirth seems to require normal gravity but I cannot see how they have tested this on humans.

Anyways, this is not too much of a problem. You just make the main living quarters a torus that you spin to create an artificial gravity, pic. related.

File: 1467652545539.png (136KB, 332x405px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 332x405px

>>56138970
capitalism killed it

Publicly funded science was put behind huge private paywalls.

>>56164968
Was that really much of a problem? Yes, I know the principle of paying for publishing and subscriptions through the nose is outrageous but this has been the case for a long, long time.

I believe other factors are more problematic like
- getting tenure is sheer murder, you need 3 - 5 periods as a post.doc. at 2 - 5 years each before having a realistic chance of tenure
- salaries in science is so low that you have to live a rather monastic life
- a lot of dangers that can kill you - discussed in many /sci/ threads earlier
- ever increasing rate of retractions suggest a moral decay and a dog-eat-dog culture creeping in

t.Former Researcher.

>>56138970
>promised
No one promised you anything.

>>56138970
Most of those ideas are dumb and impractical. The moon landing was actually unpopular with the majority of Americans at the time as they thought it was a waste of money. The only reason it happened along with science education was because of the Cold War. The current battle over evolution and other science topics that fundamentalist don't like was reignited when the new textbooks with the latest in science were published and distributed during the Cold War as it was feared that the Soviets were getting too far ahead of the Americans. I don't want to go all fedora here but most Americans never cared for this stuff and didn't care about competing with the godless Soviets. Science education and space exploration were viewed as a necessary evil.

>>56165146
This is one of the dumbest things I have ever read.

>>56165108
>a lot of dangers that can kill you - discussed in many /sci/ threads earlier
I don't go to /sci/ much. Could you elaborate? What exactly is so dangerous about being a researcher? Handling dangerous equipment, or something?

>>56165196
It sounds like you're unfamiliar with the NDEA signed by Eisenhower and the BSCS controversy it generated. You're also similarly unaware of the great opposition to the Apollo Program. Somehow you think that flying cars, extraterrestrial vacations, and undersea cities are a good idea. The dumb one is you.

>>56165232
The following are some of my experiences - and I will not be surprised if anyone doubts this:
- radiation accidents: no less than 3 mishaps with a metallurgy grade X-ray machine. you do NOT feel comfortable while the radiation protection officer is calculating if you will survive this (again!)
- hazardous substances: asbestos contamination (we were evacuated out of the lab), metal poisoning (2 sent to hospital, the rest to the doctors)
- unknown substances - basically we did not have the LD50 on any of the things we were mainly working on
- electrocution - nearly fried on 220V due to faulty interlock, nearly fried on 20 kV power supply (a colleague was shocked and the jolt made him leap like a frog across the lab
- nearly shredded when a turbo pump got close to self destruct, was sitting next to it when it happened - interestingly the brain went on full auto so safe the equipment when I heard the early warning sounds of stator touching the rotor.
- explosions: bad gas mixture in hot oven. Another lab had a waste chemical container spontaneously explode

I survived it all with only minor permanent damages.

Probably an unpopular opinion here, but capitalism happened.

A bunch of enormous corporations with their minds set on making money happened. That is all. There are no collective goals. There is no society.

You unironically believe that everyone for himself will lead to the greater good.

>>56165196
Well, he is partially right.

The young generation at the time remember the Moon race and the Jetsons, felt a promise of a fantastic future. The adults of the time were actually less interested. Then that generation died out and in place the next gen. grew up with a disappointment of the future that never appeared.

When Challenger exploded there was just one single camera crew to catch it on film. The rest thought it was just uninteresting. After the disaster lost of TV crews are on hand - but only in the hope of catching another gruesome spectacle.

It is a bit sad all together really.

>>56138970
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African-American_Civil_Rights_Movement_(1954%E2%80%9368)

>This is the best thread on /g/ right now
This topic was stuck in my head the entire day.

>Juan Bagnell live on youtube Q&A
>I'm in Chile, english isn't my native language
>Watching his stream in my living room, using my smartphone, asking some questions
>Instantly the language, time, and space barriers disappear and he can interact with me

The use of technology, the future, what the 60s generation planned, what is now. This is so interesting.

A lot of the stuff that seems to have not appeared is down to both the law of physics and pure economics. A couple of things would be major breakthroughs if it's discovered to be possible. Anti-gravity is one. Matter transportation is the other. I've also not seen much happening in the way of holography. It still appears to be just a bunch of low resolution flickering crap. Eureka moments rarely happen now as we hit the wall of physics more than anything else.

>>56165402
None of that is relevant. The fact that you think Americans were opposed to 'Godless science' or some shit is just some European fantasy.

>>56166075
>godless Soviets
>godless science
Reading comprehension, brah

File: sjH5r.jpg (144KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 1600x1200px

Most of the things OP wants aren't there because of economic reasons. The rest aren't realized because the problem's difficulty wasn't well known.

That said, nuclear fusion funding would have been nice to have more of. It didn't happen because of the same economic pressures, but what can you do. People gotta eat.

File: big-amish-family[1].jpg (136KB, 800x400px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 800x400px

>Christians ITT thinking that we would be more technological advanced with strong moral and religion

>>56166203
>3-4 billion to achieve a fusion reactor
What a bargain. ITER already sucked up more than $14 billion in funds and it's only expected to function in 2019.

>>56166359
The NIF is a bust, too. Maybe Skunkworks has something.

>>56139155
of course there is. theres limitless potential for money in innovation.

File: Detroitfnl1.jpg (3MB, 6073x1800px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 6073x1800px

>>56138970
niggers, jews and the female right to vote.

Search your feelings. You know it to be true.

t. /pol/

>>56144448
>Columbia disaster
Was that the one where the evidence after showed that they were alive during the majority of the explosion/crash?

Because these days we like to over complicate tech in an effort to make things "better".
We are simply adding more and more useless shit onto already working platforms hoping it all just werks.

>>56138970
Are you kidding?

We're having some fun times with material science

Those just might be viable in the next ten years. We already have personal flying drones scheduled for next year, there's your flying car, and no emissions

Eat your heart out, Isaac Isamov

>>56166276
>degenerates ITT thinking we would be more technologically advanced with gender studies and more legal recreational drugs

File: 1462811913292.gif (1MB, 280x210px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 280x210px

>>56139017
>le gaystation trophies
>Killzone
>>>/v/

>>56139199
>self /thread
Go back to leaddit and kys.

>>56165768
What in the world were you doing?
Were you working with super villains?

Are time machines ever going to be a thing?

>>56139255
underrated.