Slashdot Mirror
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.
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.
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.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
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.
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.
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.
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.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.