Your stories about the future get really interesting when they're simultaneously post-apocalyptic and Utopian--when the worst and best outcomes happen at the same time...
How the world changes depends so much on demographics.
Manu Saadia, in his book "Trekonomics" handed it down from a pro that there are zero current economists that could predict the structure of a post-scarcity society, with replicators. Maybe "Star Trek", and competition for societal regard alone; but maybe not.
Replicators may not come, but it's hard to envision a 2074 that has population growth - and economists are just as unable to guess at the economic and social structure that would come from the total economic needs of the planet shrinking every year.
It will quickly sink in that we don't value reproduction today; it's considered a thing you do for yourself, not for society. Telling your boss you have 4 kids does not get you status and promotions at work; probably the contrary. People with 1 kid and 4 bedrooms (2 become an office and hobby room) is considered much richer than people with 4 kids, only 2 bedrooms, and the boys on couches. The 4 kids are not thought of as your "riches", but your reason for poverty. A post-farmer world will shrink until that ethic changes.
Off-topic? I'm just saying that I think the guaranteed future demographics will change societal structure more than not-guaranteed, hypothetical technology changes.
Hell, we thought that the one advance, the Atomic Bomb, would have to end war itself, that they "blew up the world", as in the line from "Oppenheimer". But, wouldn't you know it, we figured out a way to keep wars going, anyway, and today spend trillions per year on war materiel.
So when predicting change, I would look at what forces will resist that kind of change, will drag us right back to where we started: with war and income inequality (now back to 1890 levels), those forces were always obvious. Keep an eye upon them when predicting.
Fair point; on the other hand, you are talking to the guy who wrote _The Million_, a novel in which the future population of the Earth is kept at 1 million, and everybody's really happy with that. (Individuals don't have budgets, investments, or accounts; each has an _economy_ of their own.) Demographics are also something that we can only conceptualize from within our own frame.
I'm not aware of anybody taking up the idea of deodands--yet. SF is a gift economy, though, so I hope it inspires somebody. Meanwhile, writers like Ruthanna Emrys are crafting fascinating new solarpunk visions, we'll worth checking out.
"since EVs are heavier than ICE cars, they have the potential to produce much more." This is not entirely accurate. A base Tesla Model 3 has a 57.5 kWh battery and weighs, along with the car, 1,765 kg. An Aptera has as little as a 25 kWh battery with a curb weight of 816 kg. Gallium Nitride converters are said to be 30% more efficient than silicon and could reduce the need for a 25kWh battery to just 10kWh. https://www.infineon.com/cms/en/product/power/gan-hemt-gallium-nitride-transistor/ A Model 3 is like the SUV of electric vehicles. When city cars can run on 5kW motors in a 30mph speed zone, one doesn't need a hammer for everything.
Fair enough. It's also true that EVs will continue to improve along several metrics. As an ad hoc example of the idea, I still think it works (for now).
the Jetsons may actually meet this criterion; the glitzy chrome sheen hides the fact that they live in a world devoid of vegetation and organic life.
the “express elevator” potential of the setting was recognized and developed in a DC Comics storyline about the events leading to the world of the Jetsons:
How the world changes depends so much on demographics.
Manu Saadia, in his book "Trekonomics" handed it down from a pro that there are zero current economists that could predict the structure of a post-scarcity society, with replicators. Maybe "Star Trek", and competition for societal regard alone; but maybe not.
Replicators may not come, but it's hard to envision a 2074 that has population growth - and economists are just as unable to guess at the economic and social structure that would come from the total economic needs of the planet shrinking every year.
It will quickly sink in that we don't value reproduction today; it's considered a thing you do for yourself, not for society. Telling your boss you have 4 kids does not get you status and promotions at work; probably the contrary. People with 1 kid and 4 bedrooms (2 become an office and hobby room) is considered much richer than people with 4 kids, only 2 bedrooms, and the boys on couches. The 4 kids are not thought of as your "riches", but your reason for poverty. A post-farmer world will shrink until that ethic changes.
Off-topic? I'm just saying that I think the guaranteed future demographics will change societal structure more than not-guaranteed, hypothetical technology changes.
Hell, we thought that the one advance, the Atomic Bomb, would have to end war itself, that they "blew up the world", as in the line from "Oppenheimer". But, wouldn't you know it, we figured out a way to keep wars going, anyway, and today spend trillions per year on war materiel.
So when predicting change, I would look at what forces will resist that kind of change, will drag us right back to where we started: with war and income inequality (now back to 1890 levels), those forces were always obvious. Keep an eye upon them when predicting.
Fair point; on the other hand, you are talking to the guy who wrote _The Million_, a novel in which the future population of the Earth is kept at 1 million, and everybody's really happy with that. (Individuals don't have budgets, investments, or accounts; each has an _economy_ of their own.) Demographics are also something that we can only conceptualize from within our own frame.
Is any other sci fi writer writing well on the intersection of ai and rights of nature, like stealing worlds?
I'm not aware of anybody taking up the idea of deodands--yet. SF is a gift economy, though, so I hope it inspires somebody. Meanwhile, writers like Ruthanna Emrys are crafting fascinating new solarpunk visions, we'll worth checking out.
"since EVs are heavier than ICE cars, they have the potential to produce much more." This is not entirely accurate. A base Tesla Model 3 has a 57.5 kWh battery and weighs, along with the car, 1,765 kg. An Aptera has as little as a 25 kWh battery with a curb weight of 816 kg. Gallium Nitride converters are said to be 30% more efficient than silicon and could reduce the need for a 25kWh battery to just 10kWh. https://www.infineon.com/cms/en/product/power/gan-hemt-gallium-nitride-transistor/ A Model 3 is like the SUV of electric vehicles. When city cars can run on 5kW motors in a 30mph speed zone, one doesn't need a hammer for everything.
Fair enough. It's also true that EVs will continue to improve along several metrics. As an ad hoc example of the idea, I still think it works (for now).
the Jetsons may actually meet this criterion; the glitzy chrome sheen hides the fact that they live in a world devoid of vegetation and organic life.
the “express elevator” potential of the setting was recognized and developed in a DC Comics storyline about the events leading to the world of the Jetsons:
https://www.theverge.com/2017/11/3/16598440/jetsons-dystopia-dc-comics-future-apocalypse
Oh, excellent! I never knew that about the DC thing--of course, as soon as you point it out, it's obvious how dystopian their world is.