@uc9
Which is why I find the predictions of the future from our 1930s - 1980s folks quite amusing. It’s a
hilarious at hindsight type of feeling. They thought, by 2005 and 2015 etc, we’d have robot servants, laser guns, teleportation chambers, flying cars, living in the sky or in space, and that we would be eating tablets instead of food.
The funny thing is that actual scientists’ predictions on the future are pretty on target.
What I mean by this is that it was predicted fifty years ago that we would have Ai capable of partially passing the turing test and well we do have Ai capable of passing the turing test at around 30%, the internet was widespread adopted and we do have portable communication devices, we’re pretty close to self driving cars(around 2-3 years, they’re working on crash avoidance right now) and so forth.
The main things we don’t have is a moon base and that’s mainly cause NASA keeps getting the axe hard. We could have a moon base of say five or so people, but right now since NASA’s been getting shat on so hard by congress they can barely function with what little money they have. The reason why this part pisses me off is that part of NASA’s purpose is to map killer asteroids so if we all die cause of a asteroid or a city gets wiped off the face of the earth it’s totally 100% congress’ fault.
The other thing we don’t have is fusion energy; the reason why we don’t have that is a bunch of higher explanations into physics but essentially the fusion reactors we’ve had were massively inefficient. The new reactors are taking a fuck ton of money to build cause the tokamak is how they’ve built them for decades. Boeing is getting close though; they’re getting all hush hush lately. The new ones are way more complex; tokamak type reactors essentially used brute force to achieve fusion; the new ones are taking everything we learned from the tokamaks and making a optimal reactor based off that.
