One thing that throws everything out of kilter is, as you've
suggested, expediency. The best tech may not win. The most logical
progression may not happen. If, for instance, the best tech which
leads to the most logical progression is owned by a company which is
a complete blockhead, the tech loses out to something perhaps
inferior and more expensive--but aggressively pursued by someone else
who wanted the fastest way to make money from waiting customers. If
it's the first or only option for the customers, the inferior tech
may win and the prediction is out the window.
Politics and cultural factors bollix up predictions as well.
New discoveries, of course. And unforseen dead-ends.
jm
On 14 May 2001, at 3:34, Spudboy100@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 5/14/2001 2:40:38 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> johnmarlow@gmx.net writes:
>
> << "As far as the future is concerned, any political or sociological
> prediction is impossible. The only area where there is any
> possibility of success is the technological future."
>
> --Arthur C. Clarke
>
> jm >>
> I read that many years ago when I read Sir Arthur's book, quite avidly.
> Let's look at Herman Kahn's forecast's when he was involved at the Hudson
> Institute. I would say the 90% of his forecasts, turned up goose eggs. No
> cigar, and no home-based nuclear reactors. So what is holding back
> technological progress?...
John Marlow
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 10:00:05 MDT