Slashdot Mirror
Technology Innovation Areas For 2025
Kyle Spector writes "A global futurist research firm convened an expert panel to forecast the major areas and potential advances in technology innovation through the year 2025. This blog entry contains the full list of 12 areas and some details about each, including personalized medicine, distributed energy, pervasive computing, and nanomaterials."
1. Penis enlargement
2. Hair regeneration
http://greenobyl.com/ please.... think of the children!!
The site reads a bit like the site of a hot-air factury.
from their front-page 'Social Technologies is a global research and consulting firm specializing in the integration of foresight, strategy, and innovation.' djeezes.
On energy, they say nothing about renewable energy like solar or wind, while it's clear even to me that solar will take a very big part of the production in the next years.
transportation : 'personal transportation coordinated through wireless computer networks,' I think they're spot-on. In 2025, nobody will be allowed to steer vehicles anymore. (currently there are more deaths per year on the road than you wanna know)
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
Flying cars? I guess, like fusion power, it's 20 years away, not 12.
Advanced transportation--In addition to the consideration of energy sources for transportation, the experts identified potentially significant breakthroughs in the management of private mobility, as well as advances in public transport. These include:
personal transportation coordinated through wireless computer networks, information systems, and the Internet
Sure, you think video is going to be responsible for brownouts. Can I travel from home to work for free but cost per homeward travel? Or will my upload be counted?
.
What a conjob
"# With the initial mapping of the human genome, scientists are moving rapidly toward the following likely breakthroughs for gene-based products and services:
* creation of an individual's genome map for a retail price of less than $1,000
This was announced last week...no waiting. Come on down.
The list is so general that it is bound to be accurate to a certain degree. Also, I seriously doubt that even the brightest and knowledgeable people can predict the really revolutionary stuff that's going to happen. I mean, back in 1989, how many (few?) people could envision the Internet in its current form? Certain societal advances are so revolutionary and disruptive that we cannot even begin to imagine them.
/Modern society is evil!/We must go back to nature!/ thinking.
Not that any of this means that the predicted future isn't amazing and great for mankind, of course. What's really encouraging is the focus on health and the environment. Advances in (bio) medicine, improved water purification, carbon management and engineered agriculture will arguably save and improve the lives of millions of human beings lessen mankind's impact on the environment. And it's all thanks to technology, and not
holodecks! direct-to-brain video upload! come on, the porn industry is always AHEAD of technology! DO SOMETHING CICCIOLINA!
Buanzo Consulting - 15 Years of GNU/Linux experience, for you.
They are not saying anything too futuristic about the Universal water. What they say is almost here (with a good margin for improvement). However, what they don't say is that all those expensive cool ways to get water only matter to the first world, and not third world countries. We'll be lucky if they have a couple of drops of bleach to put on their drinking water to prevent waterborne diseases for 2025. That would save 1.8 million lives a year. Without any cool ways to get the water, just some basic water treatment for everybody.
Tis women makes us love, Tis Love that makes us sad, Tis sadness makes us drink, And drinking makes us mad.
Some of that technology will certainly make people's lives easier - that is, the proportion of people that will have access to it, which will be even smaller in 2025. Think of making that kind of technology available to a larger amount of humans as a technological advance in itself, as it increases the efficiency of technology in a way.
Every single one of the points mentioned in each of the 12 areas is something that's happening now. This is a 5 year outlook, not an 18 year one. I was hoping to read about the 'next big thing'. 18 years ago it was cell phones and the internet. 18 years before that it was space (satellite), computers and materials science. 18 years before that it was the transistor and rock and roll. Each one had radical, far flung implications that had revolutionary effects, not evolutionary ones.
creation of an individual's genome map for a retail price of less than $1,000 - try $985
advanced electric storage devices and batteries at all scales - lithium? Supercaps?
very simple and inexpensive computing devices with integrated wireless telephone and Internet capabilities - www.nokia.com?
the "semantic Web," - Google? Netflix?
multiple variable and inexpensive sensors linked with computers - your door is ajar?
ultra-fine filters (probably from nanotechnology) - semipermeable membranes? Reverse osmosis?
affordable and effective carbon capture and storage technologies and systems for coal-burning power plants - riiiight... why not just re-burn the carbon after you capture it? Oh that's right, perpetual motion and all that.
identification of specific genomes for desired growing and use qualities - you mean ones that Monsanto hasn't already patented?
radio frequency tags for people and valuables - been shopping lately folks?
onboard sensors and computers for smart vehicles - your door is... we know, we know
advanced high-speed rail - presumably the high speed (400 km/h) rail we have now isn't advanced.
This reads more like someone's current R&D budget.
We'll look back on how naively optimistic we were. I remember there was an article back in 2000 about what a group of so-called futurists in the '50's predicted the year 2000 to be like. The only one that was right was "Television in Every Classroom."
Sure Warp drive and all the fun stuff we hear about in Sci-Fi is still a pipe dream, but what about expanding our space exploration?
I would like to hope that within 15 or so years, we would have developed ways to send long-term exploration missions to other planets like Mars. Sure, we've sent Rovers there and the like, but I'm sure there is much more research that can be done when there are actual people present.
Another interesting possibility regarding space exploration is the possibility of finding very basic living life on another planet. I thought it would also be interesting if we were to try introducing very simple life (something along the lines of single-cell life found near extreme climates here) to certain planets to see if it can sustain itself.
If you want major breakthroughs for the "other" 90% of the world they'll have to cost less than $10 to the end-user.
When all these pundits (and their audiences) start thinking in those terms, that'll be a real breakthrough
P.S. My suggestion for the list would be a viable neural interface.
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
Well it feels like it anyway, I am pretty sure I saw this list before. Oh yeah, every damn year. It is just a blessing the flying car ain't on it anymore, have you got yours yet? Mine must be stuck in the mail. I knew there would be problems going all email.
But hey, I got time, so lets go through the whole list shall we.
Personalized medicineWith the initial mapping of the human genome, scientists are moving rapidly toward the following likely breakthroughs for gene-based products and services:
Distributed energyThe evolution of distributed energy will reflect that of computing: just as computing has migrated from the 20th centurys centralized model (powerful mainframes delivering applications to remote workstations) to todays decentralized model (PCs and networks), so energy generation and delivery will move from central to distributed sources, increasingly featuring local generators that can be linked when needed for greater output. Specific innovations will include:
Pervasive computingAlmost every device or object in consumers lives will be both smart and networked, giving rise to an Internet of things. Pervasive computing will drive the convergence of computing, the Internet, voice communications, and televisionultimately blurring categories of infotech products and services. Specific breakthroughs will include:
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
It's 2007 now, so this is 18 years in the future. If you look at columns from 18 years ago, i.e. 1989, do you see anything about the iPhone, Linux live CD's, asynchronous XML-HTTP calls, Google, Segway, etc. as research areas of interest?
stuff |
This list looks 18 years into the future, if we look back 18 years, it takes us to 1989. In 1989 practically nobody had predicted the web or its implications. A single development, and yet the implications of it are profound and are still in progress.
The thing about technology is that it develops at a different rate to the social changes it causes. For instance, the social impact of the web is still happening and is likely to continue for a couple of decades, even if web technology doesn't change much. Why? Because people that grow up with a technology behave differently that those that didn't, so the profound social changes sometimes only happen when children grow up and enter active society.
http://www.atsltd.co.uk/media/pictures/ But for the moment we are quite far from letting the car drive itself, as it's really difficult to control all variables and preview all unexpected things that could go wrong. Which is why the other way to do it is to remove the variables. You then get the additional benefit of eliminating traffic congestion as well which actually makes it faster than a traditional car.
Deleted
Reading this has given me a thought - we need a standard unit for measuring the cost of something. Take this, for instance - "creation of an individual's genome map for a retail price of less than $1,000" - with the dollar losing value every day, what does that mean in reality? Will it mean the same thing in a months time? Not really.
There's a ball of atoms in a vault somewhere that weighs exactly one kilogram, and should weigh pretty much exactly the same in 10,000 years time. Why don't we have a universal measure of value like that? Any thoughts how we could create a fixed unit of value that would be as valid today as it will be in 10,000 years?
Back to work...
Necessity is still the mother of invention. All you have to do is look at problems that will not be solved next year, and think a little bit about it, you too can be a futurist. I'm not saying you will be great at it, but you can be a futurist. Being able to predict likely future trends used to be something useful and difficult to do. With the advent of the Internet, you have a veritable research facility in your home. What? you need to know about materials engineering? Google it bro! Oh, need to know about animal husbandry? Google it bro! At no previous time in man's history has so much information been available to so many people. I really am saddened to see that such is left out of the loop on how the future is going to look.
We are currently at some point of compromise between where society was when the original Star Trek was written, and where it predicts we will eventually go. The world has become much more flat, as they say, with regard to commerce, news, politics, and many other things. None of this seems to be affecting technology predictions. Well, I'll make a prediction; the things I've just mentioned will have a far greater impact on future technology than people generally give credence to.
Look at the results of what some of the current technology will bring: Health insurance industry upheaval with bio-tech innovations; big pharma industry upset with open source style medicines; auto insurance upheaval with computer driven vehicles; in general, all of the current trend in innovation is about to upset the big business apple cart. Trouble with this is not that things will change, but that third and second world countries are better poised to take advantage of it as it happens. Big businesses will fight tooth and nail to keep their stranglehold on their markets with the same determination that we have seen the **AA use. There is no good that can come from this.
I also predict that business will change in general. There will be polarization of business practices. Simply opening a company with one cash cow will not be good enough. There will be more vertical integration of business as well as more single mom-n-pop salons. Walmart and their ilk will crumble under their own weight. That seems to contradict what I said of vertical integration, but it does not. There will be more self reliance in business as technology becomes more important, and wise CEO's will see that they need in-house expertise rather than simply paying someone else to do what they can no longer trust another company to do for them. As the world becomes more flat, and regulation of industries becomes more equalized, it will not be possible for some huge multinationals to remain that way. Yes, shrinking profits is what is ahead for the globe.
It will take only one invention to upset the entire global economy, say for instance, free fuel. Hydrogen power for free or very cheap and made open source would destabilize a huge section of the global economy. None of these 'futurists' seem to get any of that in their predictions.... ?
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
Art is the mathematics of emotion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battery_electric_vehicle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliica
and other insteresting link (maybe an "enabling" technology):
http://www.tm4.com/eng/tm4transport/moto_wheelmotor
Or put a comma after "then".
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Don't make me laugh, they've been pushing that for decades now. It's not going to happen as long as humans can control their own metadata.
Maybe I should read some more recent papers on the idea, bt last I knew of it it was a pipedream and would only work in a world where everyone was honest.
I'd like to live there, it's a shame we don't.
I agree with other posts that there is not much new or visionary in the article. It's a summary of current research, basically, as practically all the points have actual research projects which have started. Put researchers from different top universities together and they will come up with such a summary.
(Of course I appreciate that all this current research being done is very difficult and important work. Just that for a "visionary" article it would have been more interesting to predict what is beyond current research.)
Noteable lack of mention of robotics, "intelligent" prosthetic limbs, human and animal cloning (whole or just organs), cognitive engineering and neuroscience.
Interesting to note btw how often sensors get mentioned.
Really, I'm interested.
Because everyone I know and have ever heard from, that doesn't resort to denialist idiocy when confronted with pollution and climate change, thinks we should be using our immense knowledge of science and technology to solve the problems we have.
Never have seen anyone saying "OMG, technology is evil, we must go back to the dark ages". It seems to be the imaginary hippy strawman that people with a financial interest use to stop people thinking about alternative power sources and more efficient tech.
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
Most of these 'predictions' sound like hot air and horseshit to me. They're 'predicting' things that're either already being deployed, or will be deployed in short order. They also completely ignore the changing face of society away from freedom and towards dictatorship. Here are a few of my 'predictions' for 2025:
- there won't be any flying cars. They'll be trivially easy to make, but no government will allow them to be constructed. The excuses will have to do with 'terrorism' and 'hazards to public safety', but in reality government doesn't want its citizens to become more independently mobile.
- private planes will be banned, again to due concerns over 'terrorism'. Unless you're a corporate exec with access to a corporate jet, of course.
- all vehicles will be required to come with government tracking and surveillance devices. You don't have anything to hide, do you? Then why would you object to such a measure? It's for the greater good, after all!
- all citizens will be required to have their genome mapped and on file with their government. Purportedly, this will make it easier to find and prosecute criminals.
- every gene discovered will be patented by some corporation, somewhere. Attempts to put genes into the public domain will be banned because such a practice is "bad for business", or "foments terrorism", or some such rot.
- independently-generated energy will be banned. All energy will come from government-approved corporations, or government itself. This will allow government to more easily control its citizenry. Private ownership of long-term energy storage systems (super-batteries) will also be banned.
- evil evil thing government does will be prefaced by the words "for the greater good" or "for the children".
- every citizen under the age of 18 will be required to have a chip implanted in them so they can be tracked (cant' be too careful about pedophiles!). Most citizens over the age of 18 will already have a chip like this, as it'll be required for their job, to use a credit card, to rent equipment, and so forth.
- speaking of pedophiles, thought crime will become a reality. With advances in graphics computer simulations will look as real as actual film, and people will be prosecuted for producing simulations of crimes even though no one, anywhere, will be hurt in the production of the simulation. Make a simulation of a high-ranking politician getting shot? You'll go to jail for 'encouraging violent behavior'.
- all computers will be required to come with hardware allowing for government tracking of everything that computer does. It'll also allow the government to actively change the computer at whim, or to shut it down entirely. Any attempt to circumvent the tracking will be a felony.
- certain manufacturing processes will be limited to government-approved corporate entities only, as in the hands of private individuals they could be used for 'terrorism'.
- no citizen will be allowed to own a weapon of any kind. No guns, no tasers, no pepper spray, nothing. People who actively and successfully defend themselves from attack will be charged with crimes ranging from assault to murder. This is already true in a number of so-called First World countries.
- the Third World will be even more of a shithole than it already is. Some nations will do will (e.g., Brazil), but most others will collapse completely (e.g., just about any place in Sub-Saharan Africa). Just about no one will give two shits, except for the people who live there.
- the United States of American will have been a dictatorship for seventeen years. There will be no revolution, as Americans have become cowards and will actually be relieved to abdicate the responsibility that comes with rights and voting and all those annoying things that are required of a free citizenry.
- Europe will be in the same boat, only they'll still hold sham elections (Soviet Union style) so they can at least pretend they're freer than America is.
These are my predictions, although given the current state of world affairs I'm not exactly going out on a limb here.
"Your android replica is playing up again
it's no joke
When she comes she moans another's name"
And that was from 1977 - Quark Strangeness and Charm is still one of my favourite LPs, even though I no longer have a turntable, the whole album's etched in my mind.
Really, though, TFA was complete tosh. Most of the 'predictions' exist now, and those that don't are easily forseeable or too vague to interpret meaningfully.
One swallow does not a fellatrix make
Where's that amazing Randi? Why is pseudoscience even submitted to slashdot, let alone published on the front page?
If you don't think "futurism" is pseudoscience, then tell me where I can get my docrorate in "Futurism?" Or even take a single course in it (but if there are no PhDs in this pseudofield, who's teaching the courses)?
Once you reach geezerhood it's pretty evident that these futurists are so full of shit it's spilling out of their ears. You've all, of course, heard about the "global cooling" they were talking about in the 1970s. It was the "futurists", not the climatologists, that were predicting this.
There was a futurist book about that time (back when I believed these doofuses) called "The Population Bomb" that predicted mass starvation by the year 2000 because the planet couldn't sustain enough agriculture to feed six billion people. The truth turned out that there is plenty of food, and the only reason anyone is hungry today is politics and the greed of the wealthy.
Another told of how rapid technological change would have all of us in straitjackets, that civilization would collapse because we couln't keep up with change. Turns out the only ones needing straitjackets are the futurists.
Before I was born they were predicting both self-driving and flying cars by the 21st century.
Nobody predicted the internet. Nobody predicted cell phones. Nobody predicted AIDS, microwave ovens, giant flat screen TVs in the home, CDs, DVDs, VCRs, CrystaLens eye implants, or SUVs. In fact, when I bought my new 4 cylinder Vega in 1976 (with its terriffic gas mileage, 19 mpg) I and everyone else bemoaned the fact that the day of big, comfortable cars was over. The futurists were predicting that 21st century cars would be more like Coopers than Escalades.
Even science fiction didn't come close. Star Trek's creators thought that flat screen talking computers, and self-opening doors like the ones at the grocery store wouldn't be here until 2300. The closest anybody came to predicting the internet was Asimov's Multivac. In 1969 Arthur C. Clark had us on a permanent moon base by 2001 (a space oddessy).
So please, stop listening to these ignorant asshats! As they often say here, "nothing to see, please move along." Now excuse me, my robot butler just told me he's got my self-driving flying car gassed up and ready for my jaunt to Mars.
-mcgrew
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
That he felt the one big thing he missed was miniaturisation. Multivac is not the internet, it's one enormous computer. Asimov genunely thought we'd have less and less computers that got bigger and bigger. He didn't realise that whilst they do get more powerful, they also get smaller and so they get everywhere.
Makes you wonder what sort of futures he would have imagined had he got that right.
OTOH, at least he wasn't claiming his fiction was anything but fictin and though experiments, grounded somewhere in realirty, and not "This is what will happen! Listen to me, I'm important and clever!"
My job is studying transport projects. This one is crap. Take my word.
Tis women makes us love, Tis Love that makes us sad, Tis sadness makes us drink, And drinking makes us mad.
Cheap Solar energy would make a lot of problems go away. Problems like water desalinization, air pollution, expensive and damaging personal and mass transport, environment control (heating and cooling) for those who are sensitive - think heat waves killing the elderly... even making a lot of science and technology a lot cheaper to develop and maintain.
Remove fuel costs from our economy and replace them with one-time batter expenses and everything would get a lot cheaper real quick. Food production, manufacturing, transportation, anything service oriented that relies on the above..... fuel costs are huge and pervasive in our lives... whether they come from gasoline, (bio)diesel, coal, or nuclear.... we have a giant fusion reactor beaming us energy each and every second of every day for free and we have hundreds of viable ways to capture it - thermal, photovoltaic, active thermal (sterling), even wind is really just thermal gradients in our atmosphere.
I'm no die-hard green freak... just practical and there's nothing more practical than accepting a free gift.
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
While his suggested implementation was off (and he didn't predict Facebook), Vannevar Bush arguably predicted the web, in an article in The Atlantic Monthly ... in 1945.
So then you have a run-on sentence AND a sentence fragment all in one. Is that even possible?
Self Sterering vehicle = trains. The future is mine!
There's a crucial difference between Ultra and a train. Ultra transports individuals, a train transports groups.
That means that Ultra can drive non stop directly to your destination, or as near as damnit. A train, because it transports groups, cannot do that. Ultra is on demand, you go to an Ultra stop and there's one waiting there for you. A train cannot do that because it's transporting groups.
Basically, a network of ultra stops is faster than a car while a train is a corridor solution which can't take you directly where you want to go, necessitating changes. The only common factor is that neither run on the road, and this is another advantage for Ultra. It isn't stopped by congestion, there is no congestion. There are no traffic lights, there are no junctions. It is just a battery-operated-concrete-track-train. SLOW battery-operated-concrete-track-train. Sure, it has a top speed of just 25mph... However, because it doesn't stop for congestion, it doesn't stop for intermediate stations, it doesn't stop for traffic lights, it doesn't stop for junctions it's average speed is also 25mph. The average speed of a train in London is 11mph. The average speed of a car in London is 9mph. This system is nearly 3 times faster than virtually all other forms of transport.
Deleted
your brain in a computer = immortality and any sensation any time
/.s have seen the movie dune, where on the planet geidi prime the evil ruler, baron harkonnen has a heart plug installed in every one - one quick tug of the string and all your blood pours out
/. must have a rough estimate of the computing power of the human brain, and how far from that we are in current hardware/software
Since "you" = "your brain" = electrical and chemical reactions that can be fully modeled in a computer there is no difference between you and your model in the computer (there is a slight difference in that sensory inputs are done electrically, instead of a mix of electric and chemical0
to put it another way, if the hardware fully models your brain, is there any difference to you ? your personality is the same and your sensory inputs can be anythying you want at any time - if your brain is in a computer your eyes are seeing the most gorgeous memeber of the opp sex ever all the time....
This sort of removes the need for medicine
A total totalitatrian state
i assume many
If you extrapolate from current technology, you could implant every person with 24/7 gps rfid and sound and maybe even sight so you could know where every single person is, what they hear and what they see 24/7 - you could also implant shockers, so you could shock anyone who utters the words "bush" and "moron" within 5 seconds of each other
Computers smarter then us - an old one, we become their servants - surely someone on
Deleted
[Hog here] Yes, I meant a full-stop. DOH! Not that I'm an expert on writing about shit - unlike some, it seems.
P.S. Mods, get a fucking sense of humour or move to Utah with the rest.
Deleted
Cars,vans, and buses transport groups as well - not to nitpick.
Oh, you mean those heavy, inefficient copper wires that waste an enormous amount of energy as heat?
Think of energy as data, and cables as bandwidth. Why do you think bittorrent is so popular? Because they save resources by distributing the data flow. What makes you think distributed energy won't be different?
I think you fail to understand that if every house had a tiny eolic or solar generator, massive power plants wouldn't be necessary. Or what about the single-home-sized nuclear plants that China is already working on?
I guess you have completely dismissed the possibility of storing energy in hydrogen fuel cells (remember, this article is about the future), haven't you?
Personalized Health
Genetic Testing
Interleukin Genetics
Personally, I'm excited to check out my $1,000 genome map. Imagine how convenient it will be when Google crawls my genome map and places relevant text ads that can cure any problems I may have.
I find the following more like than their pie-in-sky predictions: 1) Most lighting is LED 2) Cheap solar panels 3) Homes built to separate "blackwater" and "greywater" sewage, just like RVs do now 4) The return of the rainbarrel. What probably won't happen, but I can still dream, is 5) Projected disposal costs are tacked on up front when buying products, therefore waste disposal is free.
It may not be ideal but something like the average hourly wage might work.
Let me explain a bit more.
That only makes this project even worse. The common parts of Ultra and a train are that you have to invest in new infrastructure for both of them. that means a lot of money. The difference is that Ultra moves only individuals, and not groups. So it's then more like a driverles-taxi-train.
My job, just so you know, is performing cost-benefit analysis of transport projects. Transport projects, or any other project, should have a >5% Economic Internal Rate of Return (EIRR) to be worth of investment (that's an average number for Europe). This means that the benefits must outweight the costs, by a good margin, with the benefits being discounted along time, so we get a break even if the discount rate is 5%. After this cost benefit analysis 101, let's take a look at Ultra.
The good thing with roads is that we already have a good network. With trains we have a not-too-bad network, because train tracks are expensive to build. Let's say that you can build Ultra tracks for 1/10th of the cost of a 2x2 motorway (to say a number). That's about 600.000 Euros/km. Let's say you build a small network, for a city area, of about 100 km (that's a pretty small network). thats then 30 million Euro. Let's say the vehicles are free, and oepration is super cheap.
The main benefit of transport projects is time savings. Supposing a value of 10 Euros/hour for a person, and saying the lifespan of the project is about 30 years (standard in transport projects). You have to save AT LEAST 1 million Euro a year. Thats 100.000 passenger-hours a year. The capacity of the Ultra system is quite low, as you said, it transports induviduals, not groups. So saying that in this small 100 km network you have 20 vehicles, and they have an individual inside most of the daytime, let's say 12 hours a day. Supposing this people are reducing their travel time in half, that's 12x20 = 240 hours a day, 240x365 = 87.600 passenger-hours a year.
So even being supersuper generous in all my hypothesis, with this, your EIRR is BELOW 0%. It's just not economically viable. Very cool, I agree, but not justifiable. No sane government would invest in this seriously, maybe as a research initiative, but not for real transport.
So yes, this system is crap (economically). Now you don't have to take my word.
I won't charge you for my cost-benefit analysis.
PS: Before you ask about the reduction in CO2 emissions, let me tell you the value of those. 50 Euros/tonne, at most. They are rarely more than a 2 or 3% of the costs of any transport project.
Tis women makes us love, Tis Love that makes us sad, Tis sadness makes us drink, And drinking makes us mad.
that in the year 2025 futurists will be the second largest segment of America's economy, right after the service sector. As much as 30% of Americans will be hard at work figuring out what technologies smart people will come up with next.
Futurism: If you're not smart enough to make the future happen, why not predict it?