Magazine For Museums Publishes Its 2040 Issue -- 23 Years Early (aam-us.org)

A nonprofit founded in 1906 is now offering a glimpse at 2040, according to an anonymous reader: The Alliance of American Museums has just published an ambitious Nov/Dec 2040 issue of Museum, the Alliance's magazine. The columns, reviews, articles, awards, and even the ads describe activities from a 2040 perspective, based on a multi-faceted consensus scenario.
Besides virtual reality centers (and carbon-neutral cities), it envisions de-extinction biologists who resurrect lost species. It also predicts a 2040 with orbiting storehouses to preserve historic artifacts (as well as genetic materials) as part of a collaboration with both NASA and a new American military branch called the US Space Corps. And of course, by 2040 musuems have transformed into hybrid institutions like "museum schools" and "well-being and cognitive health centers" that are both run by museums.

It also predicts for-profit museums that have partnered with corporations.

Comments

This is so stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

This is so stupid

Why is this news? Who cares? How does this idiocy affect anyone?

Obviously, I'll get modded down because nobody can answer this. The moderators will censor me to -1. And make no mistake, moderation is censorship.

Re:This is so stupid

[zammer990]

Because in 23 years, people will look back and say "oh how short sighted of us", and it's a chance for people to re-examine what we think is a good path for humanity; if there's consensus right now that space is going to be millitarised and museums will become for-profit within a few decades, are we as a people ok with that.

The censorship spiel is just nonsense, "who cares" isn't a constructive comment.

Re: This is so stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

No, they'll look back at that time around 2015 that they successfully infiltrated western society, then around 2026 when they became the majority, then that time around 2030 when they instituted Islamic law, and finally (Allah be praised) that time they raped and murdered all the crusaders.

Re:This is so stupid

[Cinnamon Beige]

Because in 23 years, people will look back and say "oh how short sighted of us", and it's a chance for people to re-examine what we think is a good path for humanity; if there's consensus right now that space is going to be millitarised and museums will become for-profit within a few decades, are we as a people ok with that.

For-profit might actually get some museums a bit more interesting. Other parts, though, show a distinct lack of understanding of the base technical requirements--'de-extinction' biologists as a concept is horrible.

Let's start with the basic requirements if you want to bring back a species. You need a good, complete genome with some decent amount of variation, plus a species you can have incubate it to whatever point is necessary--or an artificial female reproductive tract, and we're unlikely to see that one this century. You also need the ability to put a zygote together from scratch which...well, depends among other things on if you care to have the reborn species carry the mitochondrial DNA of its original version or will accept the stuff from whatever ovum you use to start it... If you do, that part might be workable already; otherwise, we're looking at also having to figure out how to get an ovum from pretty much complete scratch.

The current approaches to try to save endangered species focus on maintaining a genetically-healthy and viable population in the wild, plus a decent size of ignoring that evolution means that extinction is a natural process. This probably actually harms the chances of having the necessary genetic databank to attempt a revival...and, really, the question ought to be asked with some if it might not be better to focus on maintaining a healthy, viable population in captivity because later reintroduction will be a markedly more possible feat and certainly less expensive than attempting to make Jurassic Park a reality.

Re:This is so stupid

[Gavagai80]

For-profit might actually get some museums a bit more interesting.

More interesting, and less correct because the facts don't bring in the money like a nice exciting lie does. It's better if we just call them history-themed amusement parks instead of museums.

Re:This is so stupid

[sproketboy]

In 23 years this will be Mad Max world and most of us will be Soylent Green.

Re:This is so stupid

[Cinnamon Beige]

For-profit might actually get some museums a bit more interesting.

More interesting, and less correct because the facts don't bring in the money like a nice exciting lie does. It's better if we just call them history-themed amusement parks instead of museums.

The nonprofit ones still need to get their money from somewhere; they are not in possession of money trees, and must get people to turn up to stay open.

Besides, some of the history ones already are history-themed amusement parks because people wouldn't donate money if they told the less-palatable truth, and the sad fact is that an entertaining history-themed amusement park might actually more closely approximate the truth than some of what we get as a result.

Kurzweil disagrees

[Anonymous Coward]

There won't be museums in 2040 because that's the year of The Singularity.

Re:Kurzweil disagrees

[Anonymous Coward]

At the very least there won't be magazines in 20 years.

For-profit museums and corporations

[guruevi]

Like the Ark Encounter in Kentucky?

Do the writers realize for-profit museums are already a thing, most major corporations have one. Also, do they realize 2040 is about 20 years away, do they really think things are going to change that much? In the last 20 years we got the Matrix and higher speed Internets but not much changed in the fields of space exploration and health care.

Re:For-profit museums and corporations

[Scarletdown]

How can the Ark Encounter thing be for profit if it is rapidly hemorrhaging money?

Re:For-profit museums and corporations

[guruevi]

It being for-profit doesn't mean it's making a profit. But it's funny how all religious-based organizations are continuously hemorrhaging money yet don't seem to ever die. I'm pretty sure Ken Ham made a tidy profit around it personally even though it's "losing" money.

Re:For-profit museums and corporations

[Scarletdown]

Yeah. I know that for profit and making a profit are not synonymous, but I still could not pass that one up. I could see some secular group buying them out though, and using that as an exhibit for a greater mythology museum.

Re:For-profit museums and corporations

[Anonymous Coward]

Nah, more like the Indianapolis Museum of Art which has gone from Free to $18 ticket per visit, and is changing its name in a rebranding effort to avoid bad press.

Re:For-profit museums and corporations

[Anonymous Coward]

Museums cross the world are partnering with corporations and the for-profit or non-profit aspect is just a simple question of (museum) company organization. Even most state museums should be able to co-operation with corporations as long as they don't discriminate or create benefit in an unfair way while doing so. Additionally, the museum-schools are here already in the sense that they have been incorporated into teaching programs, and more advanced students can do their internships with them.
  Those things really caught my eye as well.

Re:For-profit museums and corporations

[tlhIngan]

Like the Ark Encounter in Kentucky?

Do the writers realize for-profit museums are already a thing, most major corporations have one. Also, do they realize 2040 is about 20 years away, do they really think things are going to change that much? In the last 20 years we got the Matrix and higher speed Internets but not much changed in the fields of space exploration and health care.

Yeah, I don't get the for-profit museum thing. Because there are a LOT of them. Granted, they're not your typical museums - giant grand buildings holding a ton of exhibits, but most of the little ones running down the street (especially in rural America) are generally for-profit. A lot of them are just a room with a bunch of stuff run by the owner who's showing the stuff.

They may not be officially "sanctioned" things, but there are a lot of those. Hell, watch American Pickers some time and you'll see they pick a lot of these museums.

And things have changed a lot in 20 years. For starters, the way we communicate - 20 years ago the Internet was just coming into form, something you used a computer to view and interact with. These days, everything's on the internet and you access it in so many more ways such that it's always at your fingertips. Smartphones, tablets, wireless networking, we're basically able to tap into this resource anytime and anywhere. 20 years ago it was a mere curiosity. Today it's a part of life and living, enough so that it's practically a requirement (try finding a job without it).

Granted, you have downsides like Facebook and the like, but you also have upsides - Facebook has probably reunited plenty of families and far-flung friends who were once scattered to the breeze, now you can talk to them as if they were right next door.

And let's not forget entertainment - 20 years ago if you wanted to watch a movie on DVD, you'd go to the video store, now the movies come to you (Netflix discs), or you stream them online. No late fees, no rushing Friday afternoons hoping to score the latest releases before they run out, etc.

Even medical care has increased significantly - a lot of treatments are simply better these days than 20 years ago. HIV and AIDS is no longer a death sentence they used to be 20 years ago - people can actually live full lives with HIV. Cancer is still around, but care is often better - even in terminal cases.

Manufacturing is better - 3D printers and the like have revolutionized the way people prototype new gadgets and devices.

Yes, it's true some things haven't changed - we still don't have flying cars, traffic is still a nightmare, and a good chunk of us still trudge to work or school every day. Though space exploration is somewhat interesting, since private space companies have really taken off lately. 20 years ago it was a long shot, but today, there are quite a few active private space companies and even more vying for stuff like the X-Prizes including launching rovers on the moon.

I don't think we'll get teleporters, money will still be a thing people fight about, we'd still dread the commute and traffic jams. But you cannot discount that our lives have changed quite significantly as well. There was no big bang, but rapid evolution.

20 years, you could imagine we'd still drive cars, but more will probably be electric which leads to interesting environmental consequences (what, I can't say). Drone delivery might not be a big thing, but in some places mail comes in centralized mailboxes, so maybe we'll see a return to community gathering spots where you get your mail and your Amazon deliveries at the same time.

Re:For-profit museums and corporations

[guruevi]

In the last 20 years we've had incremental improvements, but no earth-shattering things like the steam engine or the Model T Ford was and there seems to be no current paths to actual innovation because schools would have to change today to have an impact within 20 years. Facebook is an incremental change at best, it's an amalgamation of Usenet and IRC/ICQ but it's not the breakthrough that SMTP was.

I'm not saying the next 20 years won't be better than today, but I don't expect any major changes.

This is bound...

[Type44Q]

This is bound to be accurate...

The Smithsonian, brought to you by Exxon

[Anonymous Coward]

Orbiting storehouses for (priceless) historic artifacts? What, at Lagrange points? Otherwise what goes up must come down, unless you want to keep shipping fuel up to keep boosting it into a higher orbit. We still lose launch vehicles. Would you really trust putting the Mona Lisa on a rocket? I don't think I would.

Re:The Smithsonian, brought to you by Exxon

[110010001000]

Exactly. Most people who run museums have no clue about science for technology. Neither do the people who claim we are going to be living in the clouds of Venus.

Re: The Smithsonian, brought to you by Exxon

[Type44Q]

Otherwise what goes up must come down, unless you want to keep shipping fuel up to keep boosting it into a higher orbit.

Only in LEO, due to drag.

Re: The Smithsonian, brought to you by Exxon

[Type44Q]

Neither do the people who claim we are going to be living in the clouds of Venus.

Perhaps those people already do. :)

Re:The Smithsonian, brought to you by Exxon

[Lanthanide]

Lets expose all of our priceless artefacts to radiation from deep space, to ensure that no human can ever stand in close proximity to them ever again.

Really this idea is ludicrous and a complete non-starter. The point of museums is to store those artifacts for future generations to study and learn from. Pretty difficult to study artifacts that are in orbit, and irradiated.

Re:The Smithsonian, brought to you by Exxon

[blindseer]

A common disposal orbit (or graveyard orbit) used for satellites that reached end of life is up high enough to be considered stable for thousands or even millions of years. Use an orbit like that, or one just beyond it to avoid all those dead satellites.

Would you really trust putting the Mona Lisa on a rocket?

That's an interesting question. People trust their one and only life with these rockets all the time. If the goal is to preserve a truly one of a kind item then perhaps putting them in orbit might not be wise, even if people trust them with their lives. For things like important texts, movies, music, and so on, then a copy could be sent.

Assuming space tourism is a thing in the not too distant future I can imagine people going through the time and expense of using private funds to put small historical archives into orbit. These archives might not be intended to be visited by people, at least not at first. They might just be something we can load data to and read back by radio. People might make visiting these archive something of a hobby or perhaps a religious rite. If people visit them then bringing fuel for orbit correction is pretty trivial. What is just as likely is the vehicle that visits will make a habit of giving a boost or correction with every visit, no fuel or engines on board needed.

In fact the use of a visiting vehicle providing the boosts needed might actually be preferable. The engines used for the boost will always be "new" and maintained by what I can assume will always be better equipped ground facilities. There would not be any large stores of fuel that could burn and threaten the artifacts. If there is a problem with the engines where it can threaten the orbiting museum then break the connection and let the vehicle with the busted engine fly or fall away.

Even in a lower orbit this might be nice to have. It might need a boost every month or so to avoid breaking up in the atmosphere but if people visit regularly then boosts could be applied with every visiting spacecraft. It would be free from damage by weather and war, or at least much more protected than perhaps many places on Earth's surface.

We have the technology for this already, all that is really holding this back is the cost of the energy. Once we have reusable space vehicles then a trip would be much like a long plane trip in costs.

Re:The Smithsonian, brought to you by Exxon

[Gavagai80]

For things like important texts, movies, music, and so on, then a copy could be sent.

Countless important texts, movies, music and so on have already been placed in orbit by sending a copy via the ISS internet link.

Re:The Smithsonian, brought to you by Exxon

[blindseer]

The International Space Station is not expected to still be in orbit in 2040. Current and future modules of the ISS might be reused in a Russian station, but the international mission will not remain. Unless the Russians plan on maintaining this archive then this orbital museum will be at the bottom of the ocean in 15 years or so. Maybe it is wise to plan on creating more than one such archive.

If this is a private archive then this could be profitable for someone. They can sell space on the archive and offer trips to the orbiter. They could allow artists to create works of art there, which could be sold on Earth or merely add value to the trips there. Something like the Mona Lisa might be created there, something too valuable to risk sending to land on Earth just like few would risk putting the Mona Lisa on a rocket to space.

MODERATION IS CENSORSHIP

[Anonymous Coward]

Moderation is censorship and needs to be abolished. Undoubtedly, your first reaction is to censor this position to -1. Keep in mind that doing so only supports this position that moderation is a tool for censoring posts that moderators disagree with. It promotes groupthink because moderation is primarily used as a tool to vote on agreement or disagreement with a post. Therefore, it reduces the visibility of posts voicing contrary opinions, discouraging discussion and supporting an echo chamber. Moderation has become very harmful to Slashdot and needs to be removed.

By definition, moderation is the suppression of material that is deemed inappropriate. Moderation more than satisfies this definition, therefore it is a form of censorship.

The most common counterargument is that the posts are still visible under some settings, therefore it is not censorship. However, moderation limits the number of people who are posts when they are voted down, suppressing them though not altogether eliminating the posts. Consider that there are restrictions on adult material, including where and when it can be sold or shown, and who is allowed to be present to access or view it. Although it is still possible to access and view adult material, those efforts constitute censorship. It isn't controversial to say that adult material being restricted is a form of censorship. Effectively the same thing is happening with moderation on Slashdot. Moderation is a form of censorship.

Another common argument is that moderation is not censorship because it's not imposed by the government. However, if businesses or individuals block access to content for others, they are indeed practicing censorship. If your ISP voluntarily blocks access to some content, they are practicing censorship. It is not controversial to call label that as censorship. In the case of moderation, individuals are suppressing content, and that is censorship.

Make no mistake, moderation is a form of censorship. The common counterarguments have been thoroughly refuted. The negative effects can be seen throughout Slashdot, which has become an echo chamber where any opposing views are frequently reduced to a score of -1. This stifles the discussions that once made Slashdot so lively and interesting. Moderation is censorship, and it is ruining Slashdot.

Re:MODERATION IS CENSORSHIP

[Anonymous Coward]

wait a minute...are you trying to say that moderation is censorship?

Space Corps could still be on its way...

[MangoCats]

Orville and Wilbur flew in 1903, both sides of WWI had fighting aircraft, and still in WWII my grandfather was drafted into the Army Air Corps because the Air Force wasn't founded until 1947...

Gagarin flew in 1961, +44 was 2005, and there's been relatively little militarization of space, yet.

Re:Space Corps could still be on its way...

[Anonymous Coward]

... little militarization of space ...

A common theme in science-fiction was bombs in space or military posts on other planets (Avatar, 2009). The Outer space treaty (1967) bans military posts on all natural bodies outside Earth and nuclear weapons in space (Space cowboys, 2000) but not giant bullets (G.I. Joe: Retaliation, 2013). Contrary to the movie, there is a problem with kinetic bombardment, similar to laser bombardment: Limited accuracy and highly localized damage.

Re:Space Corps could still be on its way...

[blindseer]

Dammit! You ruined my Space Cowboys joke!

Militarization of space has already happened. Militarization of space does not mean putting big guns on orbiting platforms. It can mean other military assets like communication, navigation, spying/surveying, weather (just a special kind of surveying really), and perhaps others that I have not thought of.

The US Navy has shown it has the weapons to destroy a satellite in orbit, some orbits anyway. They shot rockets from ships at sea and have at least tested the feasibility of shooting down orbiting assets from a carrier launched jet. That would be a ship, carrying a plane, with a rocket, where the rocket is tipped with the actual weapon.

I recall the US Marines looking into vehicles (airplanes? spacecraft?) that can fly high enough where it's not legally considered "airspace" above a nation. (If it's above "airspace" then is it "spacespace"?) This would allow bringing warriors and weapons to a place on Earth that would otherwise involve taking a much longer path around, or possibly be off limits as the nations surrounding the area deny permission of any military craft passing through. Is that weaponizing space? Well, it is weapons in space. Even if only briefly and "space" as defined by international law.

If we have the ability to launch from Earth, into space, and back to any place on Earth we want, then having nuclear warheads or kinetic weapons that can drop from orbit seems superfluous.

Tumbleweed

[Anonymous Coward]

That is gonna be the landscape. All dead and gone.

Cap: defeat

already downloaded.

[Anonymous Coward]

thanks.

Science Fiction is NASA

[Anonymous Coward]

They faked the moon landing because Space is fake. The Earth is flat.

For everything they couldn't plausibly fake, Hollywood turns it into 'entertainment.' Star Wars, Star Trek, 2001, Gravity, Interstellar.

The eclipses prove it. Watch them.
https://vimeo.com/230976895
https://vimeo.com/92378881

carbon-neutral cities

[manu0601]

Given the current situation, if we want a nice future, 2040 cities should do better than carbon-neutral, they should be carbon-negative cities.

Upside

[Anonymous Coward]

It would seem the upside is consistency, not necessarily speed.

The 80's were so much fun

[Anonymous Coward]

I think I'll stick to those. Actually, the more I think about this, the further back you go, the more fun it seems to have been. Probably greener grass or rose glasses or something.

Nevertheless, I'll stick with the 80's.

You mean like a church?

[blindseer]

And of course, by 2040 museums have transformed into hybrid institutions like "museum schools" and "well-being and cognitive health centers" that are both run by museums.

I don't know why I thought this but at some point I found it odd that we have words that separate places that store items of historical and cultural significance. I'm thinking of libraries, museums, schools, churches, monuments, and perhaps even hospitals. Libraries, especially those that are larger and older, have for a long been as much a museum as a place for books. They'll let people view and borrow not just books but also artwork, maps, videos, and music. Often a library will display artwork, either among the books or in a separated area that is really just a small museum attached to the library.

Schools are, in effect, just an extension of a library or museum. Education is more formalized, of course, but it's really mostly about a "curator" lecturing and discussing a topic of history, culture, science, or religion that they have specialized in. A church is a museum for many intents and purposes. Some churches ARE a museum, where people may visit freely to view the artwork and such when services are not being held. There's churches (or chapels rather) in schools, schools in churches, libraries in churches, and museums in them all.

Even when it comes to things like health people will go to a church for distress or depression, a mental health issue, to talk to a religious figure (animate or inanimate). Historically physical and mental health have been big things within every religion. Many religious rituals are based on eating healthy, like keeping kosher. The word "university" comes from a religious custom or construct. What they called a "university" long ago we'd call a "seminary" today. If you wanted to be a physician then you'd be expected to go to university and study medicine along with "universal" knowledge contained in religious texts.

We've seen this convergence and blurring of what defines a library and museum for a long time. I expect further convergence and blurring in the future. I don't expect a complete convergence by 2040. I don't know if such a complete convergence is possible, we cannot expect one building, or campus of buildings, to be all things to all people. If we don't create new words for this convergence then the meaning of the words we use today will evolve a new meaning, like how universities are most often secular institutions but were highly religious long ago.

I can just imagine someone foreign to modern society being baffled at this arbitrary separation of structures like I have become baffled. I imagine an alien from another planet landing on Earth and seeing "churches" everywhere and wondering why we keep the books from the statues, the lecture halls from the worship halls, schools separated from hospitals, and the university separate from the seminary.

That seems off.

[Anonymous Coward]

That seems really off with my own personal predictions of 2040. I think it's more along the lines of the movie Idiocracy. We'll be out of "burrito coverings."

20 years?

[Anonymous Coward]

Try 20 months...