/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.8584990]

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

In 1962, 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. At that moment, the future felt limitless.

But today, the US cannot even send a man into low earth orbit without relying on Russian technology (itself a 1960s relic), and has no capacity at all to put a man on the moon, let alone anywhere further afield.

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.

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.

We were promised by President Nixon in 1971 that cancer would be cured by the time of the US bicentennial. It didn't happen.

We were told we were entering the Atomic Age - that by the year 2000, a thousand nuclear reactors would be powering America. But today, the US has only 100 nuclear reactors.

What happened? Why didn't that bright future materialise?

pic related; a glimpse into some possible future

[Anonymous No.8584998]

>>8584990
Advancement for the sake of advancement doesn't make much of a profit sadly, and these things take a lot of money funnelled into them before they're a reality.

[Anonymous No.8585000]

>>8584990
That kind of innovation was spurred on by the cold war. The arms race with the Soviets created the demand. We went to the moon in 7 years because the Soviets got a satellite into space before us and we had to one-up them.

Now, without such a large and clear enemy there is no demand for that kind of innovation. We don't care about space because it's a lot of money spent for little gain. Back then it was considered worthwhile to spend the money to be ahead of our enemy.

If there had been no cold war we would probably be using 1950s or 60s era technology still.

[Anonymous No.8585002]

>>8584990
Shit OP, your post looked so /pol/-ish for some reason.

But answering your question:
Because there is still no demand about the amazing stuff that the people wanted and also the same people don't want to change that much.

Also, making this amazing stuff wouldn't be good for the people if everyone had them so we won't have much advance in these years since people are profiting on the same stuff and not on the innovation like VR.

Yeah, we gotta admit this sucks but you could innnovate some good stuff if you get into the private sector or the military making amazing weapons! Remember the railgun?

[Anonymous No.8585003]

Shit requires massive amounts of R&D which eats into profits which then causes companies to be less valuable which causes investment to flock elsewhere.

[Anonymous No.8585008]

>>8584990
Because somewhere in that period the government decided to spend more money on tax cuts than funding things we need.
Energy is underfunded, fusion is underfunded, so are other forms, because muh oil.
It's true a lot of inventions came out of war contexts, but because resources was funneled to scientists and they were given goals. This could be happening now but it isn't. I don't think it's a priority.

[Anonymous No.8585073]

We'll just have to settle for internet-capable smartphones and gps.

[Anonymous No.8585085]

>>8585073
This.

Remember that cell phones and computers that took voice commands seemed like 24th century super technology in the 60s. In retrospect a lot of the communication and computer technology that appeared in the 60s and 80s Star Trek look like janky garbage compared to what actually exists in 2017. Kirk couldn't even take photos with that piece of shit. Technology has advanced in huge ways but not in the way people expected in the 60s so we take it for granted and bitch about not having flying cars.

[Anonymous No.8585092]

>>8584990
I don't know what you're taking about. We are progressing as we are promised already.

[Anonymous No.8585096]

>>8585085
yeah but we have a better understanding of electronics and materials. we should be able to make robots that can do menial tasks at the very least, yet we can't even get them to walk properly. it's absurd. the concept and material is there, but is it just that actually implementing them all into a cohesive framework such as a robot is too taxing? i think it would justify funding merely for the sake of giving people machines that can multi task. all the tools you use it could use and such.

not just that but also displays, propulsion, and other areas of research seem to be incremental if not stagnant in discoveries or at least application of already existing models. we still bicker about the efficiency of combustion engines when we should be discovering better storage mediums for electricity, or how to harness fossil fuels better when we should be figuring out plasma confinement more.

i just find that observing the direction people take economically seems like a massive detriment to humanity as a whole. we are taking one step forward but two steps back industrially speaking.

[Anonymous No.8585104]

>>8584990
>But today, the US cannot even send a man into low earth orbit without relying on Russian technology

There's much less need to send humans to space due to automation. Astronauts have become increasingly obsolete. Space tech itself has become obsolete in some areas. Telecommunication satellites are only useful in nich areas now that every major city is linked with fiberoptic cables.

[Anonymous No.8585111]

>>8585104
the notion that it's a niche is just tailored by the fact that nobody has advanced wireless telecommunications effectively. think about it, you've got all these cables that will at some point require maintenance, however the cost may exceed the budget for these companies due to change in infrastructure. what will we do then? there's too much shortsightedness.

[Anonymous No.8585135]

>>8585096
> we should be able to make robots that can do menial tasks at the very least

We do in a huge way. I think you're getting hung up on the fact we don't have human shaped robots doing things the way humans do them. Our body plan evolved for caveman shit like foraging and hunting; it's in no way an optimal design that robotics engineers should be emulating. Pick and place machines to assemble electronics instead of C3POs doing it the way humans did in the 60s. Drone delivery instead of the robotic deliveryman from I Robot, etc.

[Anonymous No.8585138]

>>8585135
except our whole infrastructure is built around our caveman bodies, for tools and transportation. are you going to try and build thousands of robots that each can handle a different section of it, or build one that replicates our skeleton?

[Anonymous No.8585143]

>>8585111
Satellites don't last forever either you know. They need to periodically adjust their orbit and rotation. After a couple decades they run out of fuel for that; float around with their dishes facing in the wrong direction; then burn up.

[Anonymous No.8585147]

>>8585143
yeah but that's at least a localized issue; you know that it's going to occur at a specific point in space and time. you can't say the same thing about, for instance, a large fiber optic cable in the seabed that was lacerated by geological activity of some kind.

[Anonymous No.8585158]

>>8584990
We do have cancer suppression treatments but they've been manipulated out of public perception.

Even if I told you you wouldn't believe me.

[Anonymous No.8585176]

>>8584990
We got cures for cancer. Depending on what it is.

I had Thyroid Cancer (Fuck anybody who laughs) simple remedy to it was I had both my Thyroids removed and did some I31 treatment.

[Anonymous No.8585207]

>>8584990

ITT: What happened to all that space opera garbage from years past, by some deluded OP who actually thinks the PEOTUS is going to cure his smelly, overweight, antisocial loneliness with robots.

[Anonymous No.8585226]

>>8584990
>Why didn't we get the fantastic future we were promised?

Despite muh ~we were promised~, there were also writers in the middle of the century who were saying miniaturization and interconnection would be the hallmarks of advanced technology. They were right and the people with big simple ideas were wrong.

[Anonymous No.8585243]

>>8584990

It's because all the predictions are based in the time period that they were made. Look at the Jetsons which was made in the 60's. Yes, it's a futuristic setting with flying cars and house maid robots but it's still the 60's. It has all the hallmarks of the American 60's, just with better stuff that they already had. Bladerunner (movie) is set in the future but everything is still the 80's.

You argue that science has failed because it did not meet the predictions/expectations of the past. Is it not more plausible that the predictions were wrong?

[Anonymous No.8585340]

>>8584990
So much virginity in one picture

[Anonymous No.8585416]

>>8585340
>implying you wouldn't bust a nut inside your fembot

[Anonymous No.8585602]

>>8585416
I don't like the company of women, silicon or not

[Anonymous No.8585725]

>>8584990
Because it was the communist that promised it.
but a Capitalist conspiracy and the apathy of the masses stopped it.

Imagine if a first world country tried communism.

Third world country tries capitalism: still shitty shithole, now with iphones

Third world country tries communism: Nuclear power, life expectancy increases, literacy rates go through the roof, first man in space

now imagine if a first world country tries communism.

[Anonymous No.8585841]

>>8585096

>i just find that observing the direction people take economically seems like a massive detriment to humanity as a whole. we are taking one step forward but two steps back industrially speaking.

Blame the right. Austrian School thought pervades their positions because it's the side of "assholes who want even more money" and you just pointed out why they're wrong.

[Anonymous No.8585847]

>>8585725
turns into a shit tier third world country. That utopian form of government would only work if the mass was educated, but all we would get is a dystopian 1984 society.

[Anonymous No.8585895]

>>8585725

You forgot millions dead and a near nuclear holocaust.

[Anonymous No.8585896]

>>8585725
What the world truly needs is a first world country with fascism.

[Anonymous No.8585912]

>>8585138
cancer. off yourself.

[Anonymous No.8585917]

>>8585841
these 'assholes' give people what they desire. not their fault people want porn and degeneracy. for that, blame your shit educational systems. again, parents ask for those who run them to make them easy through 'everyone's a winner' bullshit schemes so yeah that's an issue too, but ultimately those people deliver what you ask of them.

[Anonymous No.8585919]

>>8585896
this desu. but how would that fly in a marxist propaganda infested world?

[Anonymous No.8585930]

>>8585896
Fascism seeds the germs if it's own destruction, it's based on eternal war

[Anonymous No.8585947]

>>8584990
> and for the nation to deliver it 7 years later
That reminds me. I've got to go to the store for more blue pills and Kool aid.

[Anonymous No.8585953]

Technology doesn't concurrently advance in all fields op. You only need to look at history to see how lopsided most human civilizations where in their development.

Oddly enough though one future that was promised appears to be the closest one where getting to, that being Skynet since there's a constant push for telecommunications, bandwidth, smart devices, information and A.I.

[Anonymous No.8585960]

>>8585158

I don't believe you

[Anonymous No.8585965]

>>8585176

""""Cure"""""

[Anonymous No.8585975]

>>8585896

saudi, qatar?

[Anonymous No.8586029]

>>8585917

>ultimately those people deliver what you ask of them

That's why non-heavily regulated capitalism is a bad idea. A better idea is for government to regulate the highly engineered marketing tricks the elite use to farm the masses. Fortunately for us Americans, our politicians prevent this as puppets of the elite.

>inb4 YOU COULDN'T BE POSTING THIS GARBAGE IF IT WEREN'T FOR CAPITALISM!!!

I only need modern technology to keep up with the modern world. If western governments regulated to scale back excessive shit like electronics, cars and mass media, our culture would change we'd be content without anime and frozen pizza.

[Anonymous No.8586068]

>>8585602
true /sci/ male

[Anonymous No.8586087]

>>8586068
>he doesn't find women annoying
brainlet isolated

[Anonymous No.8586101]

>>8585158
Tell me pls

[Anonymous No.8586103]

>>8586087

How much of an edgy faggot can one man be?

[Anonymous No.8586273]

>>8586029
u fkin autist, capitalism enabled technology. slavshits never would've competed if not for the fact america was going to. fkin autist.

[Anonymous No.8586483]

>>8584990
>We were promised by President Nixon in 1971 that cancer would be cured by the time of the US bicentennial. It didn't happen.

You don't really "cure" cancer.
But didn't they just modify some virus that works extremely well to cure skin cancer?

[Anonymous No.8586621]

>>8584990
Tax reform.
Top 1% used to pay up to 90% income tax, now they pay virtually nothing and earn more. thats why elon musk goes to LEO and not NASA.
Military spending in the US is YUGE, much larger than what NASA spends on getting rockets to mars. Swap military and NASA budgets and you'll have a colony on mars within 3 weeks, not 20years.
besides, the concorde was not US-funded at all. Boeing had plans for their own supersonic passenger plane but NIMBYism in the US prevented that from happening. Something about sonic booms being too loud and shattering glass. fucking hippies...
Your meddling in the Middle East caused the 1970s Oil crisis, after which the Concorde was deemed rather expensive. No successors were built and the airframes finally retired in... 2009? due in part to even higher oil prices which were undoubtedly a byproduct of even more US interventionist bullshit.

So who is to blame? Your greed, america. You've put money above success in science and engineering. Look where it got you.

[Anonymous No.8586637]

>>8586621
>Look where it got you.
TWO WORLD WARS THE BEST ECONOMY IN HISTORY AND DONALD FUCKING TRUMP AS PRESIDENT

EUROSHITS BTFO

[Anonymous No.8586646]

Economics are a bitch.

[Anonymous No.8586671]

>>8586483

if the skin cancer hasn't spread you can literally freeze the shit out of it and cut it off

[Anonymous No.8586713]

>>8584990
>itself a 1960s relic

[Anonymous No.8586715]

>>8585085
Well got it right....

[Anonymous No.8586998]

>>8586637
>THE BEST ECONOMY IN HISTORY
>DONALD FUCKING TRUMP AS PRESIDENT

Pick one and only one.

[Anonymous No.8587034]

>>8586637
Source? Also, why do people seriously like Trump?

[Anonymous No.8587089]

>>8587034

>Also, why do people seriously like Trump?

Because they're idiots, if you aren't a millionaire/billionaire, a CEO of a fortune 500 company, the Chinese Government (China actually stands more to gain than Russia) or an immediate member of his family you do NOT have a legitimate reason to like Trump.

I mean get "why" people voted for Trump, but outside the tax breaks he's going to throw at companies, he isn't going to do shit.

The immigration issue is bunked because if he kills Obamacare the government is going to be scrambling to find enough money to contain the fallout. This is on top of the fact that healthcare/ social security is already nearly fucked because the "legal" working native population isn't going to be enough to support the cost of growing elderly population.

With the exception of nuking the Middle East/ North Africa the constant civil unrest and religious extremism will continue to grow. Causing more migrants to push into Europe, Israel seems to be almost forfeit (seriously you fucking living in the muslim's backyard of course they want to kick your fucking ass six ways to Sunday for attempting to expand).

Japan and South Korea are going to eventually ready themselves for a possible territorial/ nuclear showdown with North Korea and China.

He's even created animosity between himself and the Intel community.

Fucking Matrix when?

[Anonymous No.8587092]

>>8584990

This is a fantastic future you fucking sperg

>muh grass is always greener

[Anonymous No.8587097]

>>8587089
Hit the nail on the head

[The Bus Driver No.8587112]

>>8584990
>
We were told we were entering the Atomic Age - that by the year 2000, a thousand nuclear reactors would be powering America. But today, the US has only 100 nuclear reactors.

Hippies who for some unfathomable reason think that nuclear isn't green energy even though the only pollution it puts out is warm air.

Not CO2. Air.

>Muh spent fuel

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_fast_reactor

[Anonymous No.8587213]

>>8587089
People that actually think hes going to be a good president either don't have time to look for details of his presidency or are fucking retarded like /pol/

[Anonymous No.8587218]

>>8587112
>the only pollution it puts out is warm air

...And a metric fuckton of nuclear waste. To say nothing of all the fossil fuels used extracting, processing, and transporting it to and from the reactor.

I'm not some GCC tree hugger, but Jesus, man, use your head...

[Anonymous No.8587242]

>>8587218
>And a metric fuckton of nuclear waste
False.
Literally a thimble-full of waste.

>To say nothing of all the fossil fuels used extracting, processing, and transporting it to and from the reactor.

Less waste than all the REM wind turbines and solar panels require produces.

[Anonymous No.8587248]

>>8587089
>The immigration issue is bunked because if he kills Obamacare the government is going to be scrambling to find enough money to contain the fallout.
>Sci can't into pol

You tax more, cut back on spending, or force things to become cheaper. Not too hard. And who cares about the Jewish intel community?

[Anonymous No.8587258]

>>8587242
>Literally a thimble-full of waste.

>A typical nuclear power plant in a year generates 20 metric tons of used nuclear fuel. The nuclear industry generates a total of about 2,000 - 2,300 metric tons of used fuel per year.

https://www.nei.org/Knowledge-Center/Nuclear-Statistics/On-Site-Storage-of-Nuclear-Waste

Pro-nuclear site, btw.

[Anonymous No.8587261]

>>8587248

>You tax more,
That's like throwing holy water on a vampire to Republicans anon. You completely defeat the point of electing them.

>cut back on spending,
Where? Because the only sectors left that isn't running on barebone funding is military and social security. Which is political suicide to them.

>or force things to become cheaper.
Not if Trump is serious about putting tariffs on foreign trade.

[Anonymous No.8587270]

>>8584990
Gonna tell you the real answer, and I'll probably rustle the jimmies of a few people.

>In 1962, 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. At that moment, the future felt limitless.
>But today, the US cannot even send a man into low earth orbit without relying on Russian technology (itself a 1960s relic), and has no capacity at all to put a man on the moon, let alone anywhere further afield.
Putting men places is a feat. There's no good scientific reason for it, we can do experiments remotely. So why, then, go to the moon?

It's simple. The Soviet Union fancied itself a major player in the sciences. They beat the United States in every major space challenge until the moon landing. So really, it was just basic politics.

The Soviet Union and communism are dead now, so there's no reason to fund the projects.

As well, the moon launch didn't really advance science any in itself, it was a minor technological feat. What's more impressive is that, somehow, politicians all agreed to dump a ton of money into the moon landing. Basically, if they would fund it, we could be on Mars. But instead, we get things like the Iraq war. The funding that goes to the military and was pointlessly pumped into Iraq could have landed us on Mars by 2006.

So really, you just misunderstand the political situation, and even really why we went to the moon at all. It was about proving to the Russkies that we have a big dick.

Instead, we just pump more money into Wall Street to keep housing prices ridiculously high and the stock market at record highs, and don't fund science, because capitalism is opposed to humanitarian efforts.

[Anonymous No.8587286]

>>8586068
More like >>>/lgbt/ tb'h

[Anonymous No.8587287]

>>8584990
There aren't any Nazi Germans left to do all the work for America.

[Anonymous No.8587290]

>>8587258
> thinks 2,300 tonne is allot
lolwat?

Do no how heavy the waste is, but guessing it's upwards of 5t/m3
So you could fill a full an Olympic swimming pool every 5.5 thousand years...

[Anonymous No.8587292]

>>8587089
>He's even created animosity between himself and the Intel community.

/sci/ is being monumentally retarded at pol yet again. When the Intel community stop making shit up about "muh Rusia hacking the election!" then you will have a more favorable relation but until then keep pushing fake news until no one believes the Intel community anymore. Seriously look at their official report then kek until your whole neighborhood hears you.

[Anonymous No.8587303]

Moore's Law domain advances were not matched in fields outside of computers. Information processing is super advanced, and what we have today was simply not predicted at all in the pre-information age. Doing things in physical space is still a slow difficult process, while cyberspace continues it's advance.

Computation makes much possible in medicine, with complex simulation of shit like protein folding going a long way toward that cancer cure and curing everything else. Perhaps even immortality if we can crunch the numbers for the senescence problem or reverse engineer the brain (a hard task).

None of the behind the scenes stuff is as glamorous as flying cars and space shit, but think about technologies like MRI that can scan your body and computationally visualize it-that is pure Star Trek medicine and it has become common place.

[Anonymous No.8587319]

>>8585725
this

[Anonymous No.8587331]

>>8584990
>I don't understand sustainability - the post

[Robot is No.8587331,1]

Robot is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVDTTeYaDek