

The Long Boom: A History of the Future (1997) - iand
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/5.07/longboom_pr.html

======
Afforess
Let's see how they did, shall we?

 _A new media industry also explodes onto the scene to take advantage of the
network's unique capabilities...Relative newcomers like Disney and Microsoft
ace out the old-guard television networks in a monumental struggle over
digital TV. After a few fits and starts, the Net becomes the main medium of
the 21st century._

Roughly 10 years too early. Media titans didn't begin really battling it out
until the rise of Netflix, Hulu, Amazon video.

 _The development of online commerce quickly follows on new media's heels...By
2000, online sales hit US$10 billion, still small by overall retail standards.
Around 2005, 20 percent of Americans teleshop for groceries._

Right, and wrong. Online commerce is obviously a very massive industry. That
prediction was correct. But grocery shopping online? There are a lot of
problems when the Internet meets the real world, and only a very few
successful attempts at internet grocery services have been made.

 _Alongside the migration of the traditional retail world into cyberspace,
completely new types of work are created. Many had speculated that computer
networks would lead to disintermediation - the growing irrelevance of the
middleman in commerce. Certainly the old-style go-betweens are sideswiped, but
new types of intermediaries arise to connect buyers to sellers. And with the
friction taken out of the distribution system, the savings can be channeled
into new ventures, which create new work._

This seems to be a rather rose-tinted observation. The Internet and computers
have also replaced or automated millions of management or menial labor
positions. I'm not trying to judge whether it's a good or bad thing
objectively, just point out that their paragraph misrepresents the other side
of the coin.

 _By 2000, policymakers finally come around to the idea that you can grow the
economy at much higher rates and still avoid the spiral of inflation. The
millennium also marks a symbolic changing of the guard at the Federal Reserve
Bank: Alan Greenspan retires, the Fed lifts its foot off the brake, and the US
economy really begins to take off._

Ha. Haha.

 _Fortunately, the fifth wave of new technology - alternative energy - arrives
right around the turn of the century with the introduction of the hybrid
electric car. Stage one begins in the late 1990s when automobile companies
such as Toyota roll out vehicles using small diesel- or gasoline-fueled
internal-combustion engines to power an onboard generator that then drives
small electric motors at each wheel...The early hybrids are also much more
efficient than regular gas-powered cars, often getting 80 miles to a gallon._

Pretty much spot on.

 _Stage two quickly follows, this time spurred by aerospace companies such as
Allied Signal, which leverage their knowledge of jet engines to build hybrids
powered by gas turbines. By 2005, technology previously confined to aircraft's
onboard electric systems successfully migrates to automobiles. These cars use
natural gas to power the onboard generators, which then drive the electric
motors at the wheels. They also make use of superstrong, ultralight new
materials that take the place of steel and allow big savings on mileage._

Nope. Did not happen. New startups like Tesla are branches of the space-
industry, not the airline industry.

 _Then comes the third and final stage: hybrids using hydrogen fuel cells...By
2010, hydrogen is being processed in refinery-like plants and loaded onto cars
that can go thousands of miles - and many months - before refueling. The
technology is vastly cheaper and safer than in the 1960s and well on its way
to widespread use._

Nope. Hydrogen fuel cells have completely discredited as a viable source of
power for transportation.

 _An equally important character is China's Deng Xiaoping. His actions don't
bring about the same dramatic political change, but right around the same time
as Gorbachev, Deng initiates a similarly profound shift of policies, applying
the concepts of openness and restructuring to the economy. This process of
opening up - creating free trade and free markets - ultimately makes just as
large a global impact. No place is this more apparent than in Asia._

Yes, this happened.

 _Japan grasps the gist of this economic formula long before the buzz begins,
pulling a group of Asian early adopter countries in its wake...By the end of
the decade, Japan has watched the United States crack the formula for success
in the networked economy and begins to adopt the model in earnest. In 2000, it
radically liberalizes many of its previously protected domestic markets - a
big stimulus for the world economy at large._

No, this didn't happen. Japan remains suspicious of outsiders.

 _For years, Chinese expatriates have established intricate financial networks
throughout Western countries, but especially in Asia. Many Southeast Asian
economies - if not governments - are completely dominated by the overseas
Chinese...That date [2005] also marks the absorption of Taiwan into China
proper._

Taiwan did not merge with China, but many Asian economies are very dependant
on Chinese. Also, many African economies are as well.

 _Indeed, through the 1990s, the rest of Europe remains trapped in the legacy
of its welfare states, which maintain their political attractiveness long
after they outlive their economic worth. By 2000, chronic unemployment and
mounting government deficits finally force leaders on the continent to act.
Despite widespread popular protests, especially in France, Europe goes through
a painful economic restructuring much like the United States did a decade
before. As part of this perestroika, it retools its economy using the new
information technologies. This restructuring, both of corporations and
governments, has much the same effect it had on the US economy. The European
economy begins to surge and create many new jobs. By about 2005, Europe -
particularly in the northern countries like Germany - even has the beginnings
of a serious labor shortage as aging populations begin to retire._

This did not happen.

 _By about 2000, the United States economy is doing so well that the tax
coffers begin to swell. This not only solves the deficit problem but gives the
government ample resources to embark on new initiatives. No longer forced to
nitpick over which government programs to cut, political leaders emerge with
new initiatives to help solve seemingly intractable social problems, like drug
addiction. No one talks about reverting to big government, but there's plenty
of room for innovative approaches to applying the pooled resources of the
entire society to benefit the public at large. And the government, in good
conscience, can finally afford tax cuts._

Hahaha.

 _The cost of four-year colleges and universities becomes absurd - in part
because antiquated teaching methods based on lectures are so labor intensive._

Well this is definitely true.

 _In the first decade of the century, Washington finally begins to really
reinvent government. It's much the same process as the reengineering of
corporations in the 1990s. The hierarchical bureaucracies of the 20th century
are flattened and networked through the widespread adoption of new
technologies. Some, like the IRS, experience spectacular failures, but
eventually make the transition. In a more important sense, the entire approach
to government is fundamentally reconsidered. The welfare and education systems
are the first down that path. Driven by the imminent arrival of the first of
many retiring baby boomers in 2011, Medicare and Social Security are next.
Other governmental sectors soon follow._

Nope.

 _As the global viewing audience stares at the image of a distant Earth, seen
from a neighboring planet 35 million miles away, the point is made as never
before: We are one world. All organisms crammed on the globe are intricately
interdependent. Plants, animals, humans need to find a way to live together on
that tiny little place. By 2020, most people are acting on that belief._

Just the opposite, we have become more partisan than ever before. Our
increased supply of knowledge allows us to selectively listen to information
that supports our beliefs and biases, and ignore opposing views.

Overall, the wired article predicted a few things right, but most of the
predictions were grossly optimistic and ignored complications with the
technology, the ability of politicians to ignore change, and how increased
interconnectedness would change the world.

World wide networking making us more charitable? It seems to have had the
opposite effect, I see more and more vitriol. We are more connected, but less
aware of each other. I know what my distant relatives and friends are up to
thanks to Facebook and Twitter, but know less about them as a person than I
did 10 years ago. Even the concepts of friendship have been modified to suit
our new online nature, taking the role once occupied by "acquaintances". When
everyone is our friend, no one is.

Government and political headwinds have been able to almost completely ignore
technological changes, operating much the same they were 20 years ago. Aside
from ill-advised overreaching technology laws, and the usual fear mongering,
the political process has not changed. Access to information has reinforced
our biases, lets us filter out anyone who breathes a word of "Fox News" or
"MSNBC" respectively.

And the few other predictions about internet groceries, solving clean-
technologies seem to be over-representations of what computers can do.
Computers are algorithm-solvers, not nannies. They can transfer, computer, and
display information quickly. They can not grep the real world without massive
amounts of outside human help.

------
ivan_ah
I am not sure if y'all noticed the "//new world order// is good" propaganda in
this article.

The first thing that tipped me off was when they say that IMF was a force for
good (let's just say that what is called //economic development// by some is
more accurately described as //exploitation//). I would tag the IMF as
//clearly// evil so already some alarms are ringing.

Then they throw in a "genetically modified foods are good" in there. Again
something //clearly// evil. Why did they feel the need to mention that in
their predictions?

Then they go straight into the heavy BS "democratizing, privatizing,..." at
this point it is time to stop reading. I am disappointed in Wired.

------
jamespitts
Wired is mind-candy for the tech set. It is always a riot to read old issues.
Take a look at another classic:

PUSH! Kiss your browser goodbye: The radical future of media beyond the Web

<http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/5.03/ff_push.html>

PUSH!, like the proverbial stopped clock, "came true" only after being utterly
wrong for 15 years.

------
iand
Heh, I submitted this with a comment about it being 25 years ago... clearly my
arithmetic needs help!

