The car of the future still hasn’t come to pass.

“Roads? Where we’re going, we don’t need roads,” Doc Brown tells Marty McFly as they load into the time-traveling DeLorean in the final minutes of Back to the Future. Sure enough, when they arrive in 2015, the skies of Hill Valley are teeming with cars.

From The Jetsons to Blade Runner, flying cars are a sort of film and television shorthand signifying that what you are seeing takes place in the future. It is assumed that our civilization will, in due course, cut the tethers that tie personal locomotion to an earthbound grid. In cars one can only move in two dimensions. In flying cars one can freely move in three. What course of progress could be more obvious?

Like Marty McFly, we’re all going to 2015—we’re almost there, in fact—and we still need roads. We don’t have flying cars yet. Why?

It’s not for lack of effort.

In the early years of the 20th century, the Wright brothers demonstrated the potential of heavier-than-air flying machines and Henry Ford proved that assembly-line production could make vehicles for the masses—and revolutionized personal mobility—with the Model T. To someone living in the 1910s or 1920s, the idea that a flying machine would eventually supplant the car must have seemed obvious. And though engineers and entrepreneurs embraced the challenge—usually with a determination that carried them through decades of mostly fruitless work—the monstrosities of transportation that they created fell surprisingly short of their promise.

The 1917 Autoplane, designed by the aviation pioneer Glenn Curtiss, is usually cited as the world’s first flying car. It had three wings, a boxy, car-like cabin, and four large wheels. The motor drove a propeller that was located, unlike on most planes, in the rear.

In functional terms, the Autoplane was much more “auto” than “plane.” It could do 45 miles per hour on the road (with wings removed) but it never flew. Some describe it as having “hopped” pretty successfully.

But the idea of the flying car was taking off on its own. In 1926, Popular Science ran an article titled “Latest Planes Herald New Era of Safety: With Inventors’ Producing Foolproof, Nonsmashable Aircraft, Experts Say We’ll All Fly Our Own Machines Soon.”

That same year, Henry Ford himself unveiled a flying machine, the Sky Flivver. The Sky Flivver was, in essence, a tiny plane (its fuselage was only 15 feet long) that could, with the addition of one wheel, be driven on roads. Ford hoped it would be his second revolutionary design of the century. It flew, but when a pilot died in a test flight, the project was abandoned. The vision persisted. “Mark my word,” Ford said in 1940, “a combination airplane and motorcar is coming. You may smile. But it will come.”


On the Moller website, you can watch the Skycar (tethered to a crane to appease the insurers), growl loudly as it hovers about 15 feet above the ground.

It did come, sort of. In the 1940s and 1950s, a number of successful flying machines were built that could shed their wings for surface driving.

Waldo Waterman’s Aerobile, Robert Edison Fulton, Jr.,’s Airphibian, and the famous Taylor Aerocar, built by Moulton B. Taylor, all functioned well mechanically. One Aerocar model was still flying as recently as 2008. But none of them took off commercially.

These early flying cars—now dubbed “roadable aircraft”—worked, but they suffered all the limitations of planes: they had to take off and land from airports, could only be operated by trained pilots, and didn’t serve the average person’s daily transportation needs any better than a car. Given their expense, there wasn’t the market for even very limited production. As The Jetsons took to the air, the idea of a popular flying car was as far away as ever. Progress on roadable aircraft, such as it was, stalled for decades.

But Paul Moller, a Davis, California, engineer, was working on a radical new design. In 1991, he unveiled a mock-up of the Moller M400 Skycar and boldly declared it could be flying within a year. Unlike the roadable aircraft of the past, the Skycar was a powered-lift craft. It would take off and land vertically, propelled by four ducted fans located where the wheels might be; it would hover in place when necessary; and it would reach speeds of over 375 mph in flight. Bright red and sleek, its design was compared to that of the Batmobile in the 1989 Batman movie.

The Skycar has received generous attention in the media, with stories in Popular Science, The New York Times, and countless others. In 2000, Wired reported that “Moller’s M400 Skycar continues to justify the early optimism,” although the author, David Pescovitz, noted, “it has yet to fly and has plenty of competition.” The competition has turned out to be the lesser problem. While every new account suggested that a functioning Skycar could be right around the corner, Moller pushed the dates back time and again.

Finally, in 2003, the Skycar performed a taped “hover test.” In video on the Moller website, you can watch the Skycar (tethered to a crane to appease the insurers), growl loudly as it hovers about 15 feet above the ground. Less than a minute later it wobbles back to earth. With over $200 million spent on development at that point, the Skycar almost seemed better in pictures. For a while, Moller was taking $995,000 refundable deposits on the Skycar. It even appeared in the Neiman Marcus online catalogue in 2005. Today, a short note on the “Purchase” section of the Moller website—“Moller International is currently not taking deposits on aircraft”—makes it clear that the schedule has been pushed back again.

Moller readily admits that the Skycar is “in limbo” until he can raise more money. Finding risk-tolerant investors is difficult. “We’ve probably spent $25 million just building the artificial stabilization system,” he explains. “How do you raise $25 million dollars for something that people know is going to be five or ten years away?” Or, indeed, for something people aren’t certain will ever arrive?

Moller isn’t the last person to work on flying cars, but most of the current projects have humbler ambitions. The Transition is a small plane with wings that fold in so it can be driven. Its manufacturer, Terrafugia, expects to deliver the first models in 2010. Even if that target is met (its only flight so far has been in an animated video), the Transition is designed for sport pilots; the company’s website states that it’s “not designed to replace anyone’s automobile.” Another recent entry, the Urban Aeronautics X-Hawk, is a powered-lift vehicle, much like the Skycar, but it is being marketed “mainly for urban rescue and medical evacuation.”

Cost will be a persistent problem for any flying machine in the coming decades. Aircraft are inherently more complicated—and expensive—than their earthbound cousins. And while driving is perilous enough, in flight any minor accident or malfunction, especially in an urban setting, has the potential to be hugely destructive and deadly. Mitigate these risks, as Moller has done with the many redundancies he’s built into the Skycar, and costs balloon accordingly. And even if you raise enough money to make a working prototype of your vehicle, making it affordable to the general public is another problem altogether.

Despite the challenges, Moller still believes flying cars will play a role in our transportation future.

“I think a world of tomorrow,” he told me, “would be made up of vehicles like the Skycar together with either electric cars or maybe plug-in hybrids.”

But with the new awareness of the importance of dense urban spaces and short commutes, a bigger, more extravagant personal vehicle doesn’t seem like it will be accepted as a viable transportation solution. It’s unclear if we will have garages in the future, much less the flying cars we once dreamed they would hold.

Photos courtesy of Moller International, USA

  • Therapist shares why Justin Bieber’s duet with 13-year-old self was so incredibly moving
    Photo credit: Wikimedia Commons & FlickrJustin Bieber performs onstage (left) and at a Nintendo store in 2009 (right).

    Taking the stage at Coachella, singer Justin Bieber gave fans something unique: singing along to a YouTube video of himself at just 13, he harmonized on songs like “Baby,” “Never Say Never,” “With You,” and others.

    Blake Roberts, a licensed therapist and self-proclaimed “dude,” shared his perspective on Bieber’s performance. While reactions to the appearance may be mixed, Roberts found it courageous.

    Therapist finds Bieber’s performance incredibly moving

    “From the perspective of a therapist and dude, I have to talk about this Justin Bieber-Coachella thing,” Roberts said in an Instagram Reel. “If you’ve ever done any amount of inner child work, you can appreciate what that moment was.”

    “That little boy was artistic and creative. Just doing his thing. Probably got made fun of a bunch, and then he gets thrown into this industry. And he loses parts of himself, and people probably take advantage of him,” he added.

    Roberts turned the performance into a learning experience, discussing a form of therapy known as inner child work:

    “Like we watched this man’s trauma, and yet he still shared a moment with us. Like a peek inside what it looks like to do inner child work. What looks like to look back at the younger versions of ourselves who have been rejected, who have been abused, who we ourselves have left behind. And to look at them with compassion and see them from the purity that they were.”

    Mixed reactions to Coachella performance

    Bieber’s performance relied heavily on nostalgia and early-career callbacks. A review in Entertainment Weekly described the set as “lacking some swag.” For much of the performance, Bieber sat at a desk onstage, scrolling through viral videos of himself.

    Despite negative feedback on his set, some fans appeared to be very appreciative of Bieber. One fan commented on Roberts’ Instagram post, saying, “I loved it so so much, aaaand now I’m crying again.”

    Regardless of whether people admire what the artist did, Roberts saw an opportunity to highlight recovery and the value of therapy. Bieber’s duet with his younger self could be seen as a meaningful act of openness and vulnerability. Roberts reflected, saying, “I thought it was pretty crazy. I could feel it.”

    Bieber’s challenges scrutinized by the public

    For those unfamiliar with Bieber’s personal life, he has faced some rough patches, as rumors have circulated about a struggling marriage and financial difficulties.

    The obstacles began to appear in 2017, when Bieber pulled out of a world tour due to mental exhaustion. In 2022, he posted on Instagram about the challenges of dealing with Ramsay Hunt syndrome. The illness occurs when the chickenpox virus reactivates later in life, causing facial weakness. Bieber said he was experiencing facial paralysis on his right side, which led him to cancel his tour again.

    There have also been allegations, including claims of drug use and questions about Bieber’s friendship with Sean “Diddy” Combs dating back to his youth. Clips have resurfaced showing Bieber as a teenager spending time with the music mogul. However, Bieber has not made any clear, on-the-record statements about that time.

  • City animals act in the same brazen ways around the world
    Photo credit: Saeed Khan/AFP via Getty Images A monkey swipes a soda in Thailand.
    ,

    City animals act in the same brazen ways around the world

    Why squirrels, monkeys and ibises get bolder in cities.

    The urban monkeys in New Delhi are so bold they’ll steal the lunch right off your plate. If you’ve spent time in New York, you’ve probably seen squirrels try to do the same. Sydney’s white ibises got the nickname “bin chickens” for stealing trash and sandwiches.

    This brazen behavior isn’t normal for most species in the countryside, yet it shows up in urban wildlife, and not just in these cities.

    Studies show that animals living in urban environments around the world exhibit common sets of behaviors. At the same time, these urban animals are losing traits they would need in the wild. This process of urban animals’ behavior becoming more similar is known as “behavioral homogenization,” and it accompanies the loss of species diversity with urbanization.

    A man reads his newspaper in New York's Central Park as a squirrel rifles through his bag on the bench beside him.
    Squirrels in New York’s Central Park have no qualms about rifling through your belongings and stealing your food. Keystone/Getty Images

    We study animals in urban settings to understand how humans can help wildlife thrive in an urbanizing world. In a new study, we explore the causes and the long-term consequences of these behavior changes for urban wildlife.

    What makes animals in cities similar?

    Cities, despite their local differences, share many of the same features worldwide: They are warmer than the surrounding countryside, noisy, polluted by light and, most importantly, dominated by people.

    New York’s squirrelsNew Delhi’s monkeysgulls in coastal cities of the U.K. and other urban wildlife have learned that people are a source of food. And because people typically don’t harm the animals, city-dwelling animals learn not to fear people.

    Cities drive evolution as well. Humans and the changes we’ve brought to cities have led to the survival of bolder animals, and those bolder animals pass on their traits to future generations. In genetics, scientists refer to this as the environment “selecting” for those traits.

    It’s not just sandwich-stealing that is more common among city wildlife; urban birds also sound more alike.

    Why? Cities are loud and filled with traffic noise, so those who can effectively communicate in that environment are more likely to survive and pass on those traits.

    For example, urban birds may sing louder, start singing earlier in the morning or at higher frequencies to avoid getting drowned out by low-frequency traffic noise.

    Cities select for smart individuals and species because that’s what it takes to survive.

    Animals may behave similarly in cities because they learn from each other how to exploit novel human food sources. For instance, the cockatoos in Sydney have learned to open trash bins. In Toronto, the raccoons are in a race to outwit humans as urban wildlife managers try to design animal-proof trash bins.

    The buildings and bridges in cities become home to batsbirds, and other urban dwellers, at the cost of learning to use more natural nesting sites. Roads and culverts modify how and where animals move.

    While rural animals may forage at a variety of places and eat a variety of foods, urban animals may concentrate on garbage bins or rubbish dumps where they know they can find food, but they end up eating a potentially unhealthy diet.

    Consequences of similar behaviors

    The loss of behavioral diversity is happening everywhere that humans increase their footprint on nature. This is worrisome on several levels.

    At the population level, behavioral variation may reflect genetic variation. Genetic variation gives species the ability to respond to future environmental change. For example, for animals that have evolved to breed at a specific time of the year, urban heat islands can select for earlier breeding.

    Reducing genetic variation leaves populations less able to respond to future changes. In that sense, having genetic variation resembles a diversified investment portfolio: Spreading risk across a variety of stocks and bonds lowers the risk that a single shock will wipe out everything.

    A large white bird with a black head and curved black beak picks through a trash bin along a waterfront area.
    An ibis picks through a trash bin in Sydney. Greg Wood/AFP via Getty Images

    Moreover, as animals become tamer, new conflicts between animals and humans may emerge. For instance, there may be more car crashes, animal bites, property damage and zoonotic disease transmission. Such conflicts cost money and may harm both the animals and humans.

    Losing behavioral diversity is also troubling for conservation.

    When a species loses behavioral diversity, it loses resilience against future environmental change in the wild, making reintroducing urban animals to the wild harder.

    Losing behavioral diversity also risks erasing socially learned, population-specific behaviors, such as local migration routes, foraging techniques, tool-use traditions or vocal dialects.

    For example, Australia’s regent honeyeater populations have been shrinking and are critically endangered. The isolation of having fewer of their own species around has disrupted normal song-learning behavior, making it harder for male birds to sing attractive songs that help them find mates and breed successfully.

    Ultimately, behavioral homogenization is making wildlife in cities such as Los Angeles, Lima, Lagos and Lahore behave in similar ways despite living in different environments and having different evolutionary histories.

    Many of these behaviors influence survival and reproduction, so understanding this form of diversity loss is important for successful wildlife conservation, as well as future urban planning.

    This article originally appeared on The Conversation. You can read it here.

  • Health care sticker shock has become the norm, but talking to your doctor about costs can help you rein it in
    Photo credit: National Cancer Institute on Unsplash, CC BYA doctor at the National Cancer Institute talks with a patient.

    As health care costs rise, patients aren’t just shouldering higher bills. They’re bearing more and more responsibility for getting information.

    Americans are facing a health care affordability crunch on multiple fronts. In 2025, the Republican-controlled Congress approved a sweeping tax law that scaled back premium subsidies for Americans accessing care through the Affordable Care Act starting in 2026. As a result, millions on ACA plans now face much higher premiums, with many dropping out or expecting to drop out and risk going uninsured as premiums surge. By March 2026, about 1 in 10 people on ACA plans had dropped out, and that share is expected to rise.

    Meanwhile, high-deductible insurance plans have become more common, requiring patients to pay thousands of dollars before coverage fully kicks in. The rise of those plans, along with surging drug prices and the growing share of Americans who are under- or uninsured, means that medical debt remains a leading source of financial strain.

    Nearly half of U.S. adults now report difficulty affording health care. Together, these shifts are accelerating the “consumerization” of health care. Patients now have the ability to comparison shop, evaluate options and manage costs – but often without clear pricing. In this environment, knowing how to ask the right questions may be one of the most important tools patients have.

    We are professors who study how perceptions of health care costs shape patients’ decisions about their care. Our research examines how factors such as price-transparency regulations influence patient choices. Across our work, we consistently hear from patients about rising costs and how conversations about price with their providers too often never happen.

    Why speaking up about cost matters

    When one of us took our child to the doctor for pink eye, the pediatrician quickly sent a prescription for antibiotic drops to the pharmacy. At the pickup, the pharmacist dropped the news that the drops would cost more than US$300. A follow-up phone call to the doctor’s office, however, yielded important information: A generic version of the same medication offered the same treatment and the same results, but at a fraction of the price.

    That quick phone call saved her a lot of money. It also raised a broader question: Why don’t more people have these conversations about cost? In fact, one study shows that cost conversations occur in only about 30% of medical visits.

    These discussions aren’t just for medications. They can be crucial when a recommended procedure has multiple alternatives; when out-of-pocket costs might affect whether you follow through on care; or when a sudden medical bill could create financial strain. Speaking up about price can help patients stay healthier and avoid the all-too-common trade-off between medical care and household expenses.

    The study mentioned above also found that doctors and patients identified ways to reduce out-of-pocket costs – such as switching to a generic drug or adjusting the timing of care – in nearly half of those cases. Importantly, these conversations were typically brief and did not compromise the quality of care, the researchers found.

    Patients actually prefer doctors who bring up costs, other research has found. Still, most patients remain hesitant. While a majority say they want to discuss cost, only a minority actually do, often waiting until a bill arrives – often when it’s too late to consider alternatives. That’s why it’s important that consumers feel empowered to ask the right questions. Here are three that can help make care more affordable.

    A close-up of a person's hands, with pen in one, going over a complicated medical billing form.
    A patient works on a medical billing form. Mael Balland on Unsplash.CC BY

    Is there a generic or lower-cost alternative?

    One of the simplest ways to reduce drug costs is to ask whether a less expensive option is available. Brand-name medications can cost significantly more than generics, even when they are equally effective. One industry survey estimated that 90% of all prescriptions filled in 2024 were generic or biosimilar, but these accounted for only 12% of drug spending.

    In many cases, physicians can substitute a generic drug or recommend a similar treatment that achieves the same outcome at a lower price. And when no direct generic exists, there may be therapeutic alternatives worth considering. For example, if a brand-name eye drop or inhaler isn’t available in generic form, doctors can often prescribe a different medication in the same class that works just as well but costs far less. Research on physician–patient cost conversations shows that switching to lower-cost, clinically similar alternatives within the same drug class is a common strategy for reducing out-of-pocket spending without compromising care.

    Is there any financial assistance available?

    Some hospitals and large health systems have specific programs aimed at making care more affordable for lower-income patients. In many states, government programs address this same goal. These programs often offer discounts on care, but they can be complex to navigate and require significant paperwork. Many health care offices have staff who are knowledgeable about these programs and can help patients determine eligibility and sometimes even assist with applications, although the Trump administration has cut funding.

    Patients can often find these programs through hospital or health system websites, which typically include financial assistance or “charity care” pages outlining eligibility and how to apply. State Medicaid offices and insurance marketplaces are also key entry points for coverage and subsidy programs. Nonprofit organizations and patient advocacy groups may also offer or list assistance tailored to specific conditions or medications.

    It’s also important to remember that for prescription medications, what you’re quoted isn’t always the final price. Many medications come with options to reduce costs, including manufacturer coupons, copay assistance programs and patient assistance programs. Doctors’ offices and pharmacists may also know practical ways to save money, such as using a different pharmacy, switching to mail order or adjusting how a prescription is written. Asking about these options can uncover savings that aren’t immediately obvious.

    What will this cost me, and are there other options?

    Health care pricing is often opaque, and costs can vary widely depending on where and how care is delivered. Asking up front about your expected out-of-pocket cost can help you avoid surprises later.

    This question also opens the door to alternatives. For example, patients may be able to choose a lower-cost imaging center, opt for outpatient rather than hospital-based care, or delay nonurgent services until insurance coverage improves.

    Speaking up is part of taking care of your health

    Health care decisions shouldn’t feel like a choice between your well-being and your wallet. A brief, honest conversation about cost can lead to more affordable and more sustainable care.

    Physicians can’t address financial concerns they don’t hear about, and most want to help their patients access care they can realistically follow through on. As costs continue to shift toward the patient’s burden, asking these questions isn’t just helpful – it’s essential.

    The next time you’re handed a prescription or a referral, remember: One simple question about price could make all the difference.

    This article originally appeared on The Conversation. You can read it here.

Explore More Stories

Ethics

A connection to nature fuels well‑being worldwide, according to a study of 38,000 people

Health

A shocking scientific study says water isn’t actually the best way to get hydrated

News

Hero son’s split-second warning saves sunbathing mom’s life

Science

20 enormously funny photos of animals in the wild