The Future Is Wow
- Posted by: GOOD
- on May 4, 2009 at 9:00 am
What if the techy transportation of sci-fi movies isn’t as far-fetched as it seems?
We asked Seth Shostak, scientist and film consultant, to rate them on a scale of 1 (“dream on”) to 10 (“totally feasible”). Bring on the levitating cars!
Alien
Technology: Placing people in “stasis”—suspended animation—for long journeys
Release date: 1979
Future depicted: “sometime in the future”
Rating: 7
What’s the holdup? “Call me Pollyanna, but I give this a seven. The holdup is, no one knows how to put someone in a state of suspended animation. Pretty fundamental.”
The Postman
Technology Horses as a dominant transportation mode in a dystopian , antitechnology future
Release date 1997
Future depicted 2013
Rating 2
What’s the holdup? “Fuggedaboutit. Horses are kind of fun, and they taste good on whole wheat, but even if we let the nukes loose, we’re not going back to horseflesh transport.”
Back to the Future
Technology: Time travel
Release date: 1985
Future depicted: 1985 (and 2015)
Rating: 8
What’s the holdup? “That high rating is for traveling into the future. All that’s required is moving ourselves at a fair fraction of the speed of light—something we can’t do now, but maybe in a few centuries. Traveling into the past? I give that a two. It would require both new physics and exotic technology, and it’s not clear we’ll ever have either.”
Blade Runner
Technology: Flying cars and related infrastructure
Release date: 1982
Future depicted: 2019
Rating: 8
What’s the holdup? “You could do this and, indeed, people have made flying cars. Problems arise only when you have humans behind the steering wheel. Look at how many tens of thousands of folks manage to kill themselves on one-dimensional highways, and imagine what they could do given three dimensions in which to make errors. Flying cars, if we get them, will be autopiloted, and that’s how they ought to be piloted, too.”
Minority Report
Technology: Magnetically levitating autonomous car
Release date: 2002
Future depicted: 2054
Rating: 7
What’s the holdup? “We need superconducting material that can work at high enough temperatures that you don’t need liquid helium to make your car work. The big advantage over conventional cars: faster speeds. Disadvantage vis-à-vis conventional cars: faster speeds.”
Star Trek: The Motion Picture
Technology: Transporter
Release date: 1979
Future depicted: 2273
Rating: 2
What’s the holdup? “In the standard Star Trek model, there’s a disassembler that takes you apart at the molecular level, a transmitting device that sends these small parts somewhere else (usually to the surface of a planet that looks a lot like Southern California), and then a re-assembler that puts it all back together. Virtually none of these technologies is likely to be something that we’ll have in the foreseeable future.”
Logan’s Run
Technology: Travel by pneumatic tubes
Release date: 1976
Future depicted: 2274
Rating: 5
What’s the holdup? “Pneumatic tubes at every residence would allow people to shop on the internet and have their products delivered without jamming up the roads with delivery trucks. But putting people into pneumatic tubes runs into problems both technical (you need pumps every few hundred tube diameters) and physiological (do you want to be stuffed into a small cylinder and sent at high speed around a bendy tube roller coaster?).”









DISCUSSION: 10 Comments
In 100 years our mode of transportation will be very different.I would love to be able to see what it is. Our roads are deplorable and there will be a big change. I have always wondered about the car-airplane duo – sounds great. Just look back 100 years and see the changes. Ruth Maurer -Hamilton, Ohio rmaurer@cinci.rr.com
The idea that we could never end up riding a lot of horses around again seems a bit over-confident to me. How the hell would we power all of these crazy technologies with the little fossil fuels we have left to squander on this planet?
How about a link to the article you mentioned?
Funny you guys chose a screencap from Blade Runner that wasn’t in the movie, not the director’s cut, nor the final cut. Funny. Why not use one of a flying car?
We have plenty of fuel…In Back of the Future 2, The Delorean was powered by trash…we have plenty of trash in the present! Lat start with the G.O.P.
personally I think maglev is underated. We are far closer than you think as we have trains already doing this. The room temperature superconductor is far closer than flying cars like in blade runner in my humble opinion.
A working pneumatic tube travel system for humans existed over a century before the release of Logan’s Run. Check out this webpage: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beach_Pneumatic_Transit I, too, am curious about the photo purported to be from Blade Runner.
Somehow the last sentence in the previous comment melded into the URL on the previous line thus keeping the URL from functioning correctly. Here is the correct URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beach_Pneumatic_Transit
It’s a shame that this piece is so sloppily researched. Maybe next time use someone who actually has at least a basic understanding of current science.
detroit can’t handle making affordable ,dependable rides with current technologies,much less wild future sciences and yeah some of this is currently available, but not for the common folk same problem with the auto industry right now they have built auto’s that more cater to what the rich man would have special ordered years back and thats what should have happened with the auto industry make the common folk car and let the elite special order that caravan with the five flip down tv screens and dvd player and the gps system if thats what they wanted but no we now have 4 door trucks being driven by soccer mom’s that can’t drive but think they can handle that big galunk of a truck loaded to the hilt with gadgets way overpriced..lol really how useful is a rig like that to the common working man when the malibu would work better we the people need to get back to the future of reality..lol