There are some well-known USSR’s fantasy books written at the time when people started to go into space, the public was inspired and believed that anything was possible and the future was bright. Judging by these books, fantasists believed that by 2010 humans would have space colonies on other planets and all kinds of other wonderful things would happen. Then, 2010 seemed like the very far future and it is obvious that previous generations expected technologies to progress a great deal. In reality the space programs have been slashed as they are not commercially viable.
On the other hand, how many people know that safer cars made of plastic have been invented long a go and this technology has been collecting layers of dust? No, it is not a secret or conspiracy. There is a patent and there is no secret about it. So, why, do people still kill themselves in metal wrecks? Because: a) it costs to refurbish the factories completely, b) it is not commercially sound to design cars or parts of them to be durable, as it would kill the repair and parts markets.
Doctors seem keen to give prescriptions that do not solve any problems or cure anything: drugs for asthma and diabetes, glasses, etc. When have those things cured anything? It seems that technology is working not to solve problems, but to create them. I can just see some marketers getting together and inventing new problems and terms for them or how it is called – creating the market. And after scratching their heads they come up with stuff like cellulite and invent a word for it and “educate” the public about it. Apart from the Internet these seem to be the type of inventions humans have made since Gagarin first went to space.
And what about the farther future? When I go to the shops I notice more and more self check out machines replacing the humans. Those nifty “till workers” do not bring a pay check to anyone’s home they do not pay taxes to pay benefits to those without jobs. This is another interesting aspect about technology and money relationship. I think a technology that replaces human workforce should be balanced by technology that is going to provide a living for people that were replaced by the machines. And it is probably only up to the governments to do it.
Lets look at an intentionally exaggerated example: your kid grows up, she doesn’t own stocks in a shop, she cant get a job in a shop because machines replaced humans, she cant start a shop because she would never be able to compete with the huge shop that is already there. What is she going eat (lets intentionally forget about benefits here)? If she cant afford to shop in that shop, it is no good neither for her nor for the shop. The shop destroys itself – end of story. I know in reality it would probably never become that bad, but you sense the dynamics, right?
