Wrote this almost 20 years ago
Felt like chatting and fantasizing (at one in the morning).
Compact discs as a music medium in developed countries have 15 years left to live on a mass scale, tops. By the end of this period, they'll become a narrow niche - everything will be copied from computers to phones (which by then will all become multifunctional portable computers). In 20-25 years no one will even store music on their phones - everything will be streamed through the infosphere straight to the phone online.
I even underestimated the speed. Streaming won in developed countries years ago, and disc sales nowadays are at rock bottom.
Advanced dudes will listen to everything straight from a micro-earpiece, which will receive music from the infosphere, recognize voice or other commands (tactile, or from an external wireless remote/phone). Another 20-30 years will go into developing and society getting used to implanting a transmitter right into the auditory nerve.
I got a bit carried away with the implants, I admit. But sooner or later they'll show up too.
As for paper books - the countdown should start from high-quality electronic paper. It will become mainstream in its niche by 2012, which means it will completely oust paper books in 15-25 years from then. The only thing that might briefly slow this process down is harsh copyright laws in the US and Europe, but not for long - media company bosses will eventually surrender their conservative positions, they won't have a choice.
Here I missed the mark by a mile. Turned out e-readers are a pretty niche thing, and in real life people read on their phones. Books are still around, and doing quite well, because it turns out there's a hell of a lot of aesthetes out there.
Traditionalists shouldn't forget that the generation being born right now will absolutely not accept their values: the joy of paper books and hard drives.
Almost true here, but some young people still love and buy books. Traditions live long!
The only thing that could make everything more complicated ( but won't stop it) - is a global crisis. And crises, as far as I know, can now be born from the following categories (of course, they can spawn each other, but they might not)
1)Financial - not the worst option, but the most likely. If the crisis remains purely financial, it will slow everything down by only a few years (up to 10), no more. It could arise from the current situation (which is sad, according to economist friends and the internet). 2)Resource - research into new energy sources is conducted more intensely the fewer old sources remain. So if this crisis happens, it will only be indirect. 3)Political - a bad and unpredictable option, connected with terrorism, fundamentalism, shifts of power in the geopolitical arena and regimes within superpowers (of which there are probably two right now - China and the US, well, and Europe in a sense). This crisis could most likely lead to the destruction of life on the planet through nuclear or biological war. On the other hand, it will probably be quite tolerable (well, the US will become even more like the USSR - so what?) 4)An external, poorly predictable threat to humanity - global epidemics, asteroids, the environment in the form of global warming, melting ice, intensifying earthquakes and typhoons, artificial intelligence. This crisis could be terrifying, but it will almost certainly preserve humanity as a species, which is good news.
Here, of course, it's more fantasies than anything useful. Nevertheless, there really were a shitload of crises. Both financial and political. No resource ones yet, but we're getting close. As for unpredictable threats - the pandemic was spot on, just like the warming.
It's amazing that even 20 years ago I already considered AI to be a threat too. Apparently, I was reading articles like that, since I had a grasp of it. Neural nets barely even existed 10 years ago. This is total antiquity, 2007. And such words!
I really want to see the colonization of the solar system. Right now there are doubts that this is even possible - even with the growth of technology this requires a massive exertion from civilization. Which in principle could do it, if it didn't consist 95% of broke idiots like Africans, poor clones like Indians and Chinese or rich fools like Americans and Islamic oil tycoons.
Man, I was highly politically incorrect. I wouldn't write that now. But on the whole everything is correct - colonizing space with humans is almost impossible.
It could be that a technology for the unlimited reproduction of goods will emerge (automated factories and nanorobots). At first this will lead to a severe general crisis on all fronts, sad as it is. But if we survive it, the cosmosphere and the singularity will be very close.
That's exactly where we're heading, with AI's help. The question is whether we'll make it.
The question about genetics - there's no doubt that "bioethical" laws, adopted by most countries, will significantly slow down, but won't stop the creation of GM kids. But here, as I understand it, there are plenty of scientific and technical problems (just like in the paragraph above, though) and this process will be quite long.
That's exactly how it turned out. GM kids exist, but they are very limitedly GM, at least that's what our knowledge from open sources says.
And towards the end - my favorite crap about the singularity. I still doubt that it will happen in the next 50 years. Progress is hindered by the current state of affairs with scientific research and its application. Which is a pity, because it's unlikely I'll live longer than that, even with the impending successes in medicine.
Here things took a pretty weird turn. The singularity might happen, but I still won't get to see it. Not because it's a long wait, but because I don't have much time left to live.
Meaning that whoever is born 50 years from now - will either not be born at all, or will be a barbarian with spears and a bow, or will see the rebirth of our species into the next stage of evolution. Believers can still hope for their own scenarios, but the disappointment might turn out to be painful.
All true.
So I advise everyone to hope for the last option. If for some reason you wish to stay exactly as you are right now - no worries, you can't be dragged into the future by force. A supercivilization will most likely look upon its ancestors with nostalgia and sentimentality, and protect the few remaining representatives. Or it might just forget about them altogether.
I had an optimistic attitude back then. Now I think that AI won't even want to build a zoo with humans, let alone preserve all of humanity in its entirety. There is of course hope that transhumanists, not neural networks, will be making decisions in the singularity, but the chances of that are vanishingly small. The chance is still there though, and if you want some positivity, read https://ai-2040.com/