
Isaac Asimov on The David Letterman Show (1980) [video] - ehudla
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=365kJOsFd3w
======
jogjayr
I think the major thing Asimov misses in some of his writing is are the 2nd
and 3rd order effects of technology. Not always - Solaria from _The Naked Sun_
comes to mind as a society heavily distorted by their tech - but often. And
this led him to not anticipate tech such as the Internet.

For example, early on he mentioned having predicted pocket-sized computers in
the early 1950s - which is true (I don't remember whether it was an _Empire_ ,
_Foundation_ or _Robots_ story). But the other stuff, and society around the
pocket-sized computers remained unchanged. Pocket-sized computing didn't
apparently make an impression on people other than scientists and engineers.
The freer availability of information didn't change society's behavior in any
way.

It's something that you often see in sci-fi - the authors don't foresee all
the follow-on effects or possibilities of the things they introduce. I loved
Star Wars as a kid, but now I can't help but wonder why they didn't have a
Galactic Internet to transmit the stolen Death Star plans in Episode 4.

~~~
skookumchuck
Star Wars is full of strange anachronisms like using manually targeted heavy
weapons (so that they cannot hit a moving target).

Even WW2 ack-ack used radar to double their effectiveness. (The US did, the
Japanese and German radar did not, which left them with a disastrous
disadvantage.)

~~~
captain_perl
FYI: Ships have always had accurate azimuth targeting, but not range
(distance.) Stationary radar (ships, submarines, planes) in WW2 greatly helped
the USA and Britain, but there's some twists most people don't know about.

The ship-borne radar range of about 70 miles usually did not give enough time
to scramble fighters to altitude to be effective in the Midway-era, for
example.

US submarines were actually able to sink Japanese ships using radar
exclusively, without ever visually seeing the target.

The USA had "VT code-word" shells with radar proximity fuses that were 5x more
effective than other shells. They were used as a last resort to keep them Top
Secret. So they were used in tough battles like Sicily and Okinawa, and over
ocean (the Marianas turkey shoot and the kamikaze era.)

------
jimnotgym
I was watching that while my wife overheard and commented on how funny he was.

Meanwhile UK TV prime time talk shows only have reality TV people, and film
people (both times I avoided the word 'star' deliberately). Most of them are
dull-as-a-door-mat, and so the show relies on the host saying outrageous
things to them. There must be some people left in the world who are both funny
and smart.

~~~
Cyph0n
David Letterman was just good.

The majority of US talk shows work exactly as you describe.

~~~
tomjakubowski
everyone has to see the Nathan For You episode "The Anecdote", where he
constructs a perfect "talk show anecdote" for his appearance on Jimmy Kimmel,
and then retroactively orchestrates the bizarre events of his anecdote in real
life so that they "actually" happened to him. the supercut of several nearly
identical, and obviously fake, stories told by "real" celebrities on late
night talk shows is amazing.

[https://www.avclub.com/nathan-stages-the-perfect-talk-
show-a...](https://www.avclub.com/nathan-stages-the-perfect-talk-show-
anecdote-on-a-stunn-1819702888)

see also: his later appearance on Seth Myers where he explains the deal and
then re-tells the anecdote.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5L7GsGc5adk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5L7GsGc5adk)

------
slfnflctd
"I imagine that in 30 years, we'll have a situation in which there won't be
any wars... either that, or there won't be any us." [11:38]

Edit: I should not try to incorporate basic math in dumb jokes about Mules
called Osama when I first wake up in the morning, apparently. I am old enough
to know better, I have no idea what happened there.

In all seriousness, there were at least a dozen other notable armed conflicts
happening around 2010, so I think 30 years was simply a little too short of a
timespan for world peace (although the average person's risk of dying
violently did drop quite significantly during that time). He was likely
thinking more about larger events-- particularly of course the use of nuclear
weapons, which he strongly campaigned against. So far, so good there, but it's
still way too early to draw conclusions.

A lot of solid foresight in general, though. The main thing that stands out to
me is just how it's all taking a lot longer to play out than people were
thinking it would in the early 80s.

~~~
dustinmoorenet
The 11 in 9/11 is the day. September, 11 2001. I guess, in retrospect, we
should have included the year in that.

~~~
slfnflctd
Well, I screwed that all up. Thanks for the correction, I have edited my
comment.

------
Apocryphon
I like his proposals for space development. Build up in orbit. Space stations,
factories, power stations. Build bases and mines on the moon. Then go
outwards.

------
nobrains
He talks about his-mind version of YouTube in the end.

~~~
bkcreate
Isn't it more similar to Twitch?

------
Jyaif
My favorite part is Isaac's answer to David's observation that the technology
is getting more and more complex to use:

[https://youtu.be/365kJOsFd3w?t=5m58s](https://youtu.be/365kJOsFd3w?t=5m58s)

------
C7H8N4O2
The piano outro played in the last few seconds was the Close Encounters of the
Third Kind note sequence[0].

[0]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4PYI6TzqYk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4PYI6TzqYk)

------
acqq
Youtube suggested also this interview of Asimov to me, and I really like it:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSxMZBp-2Zs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSxMZBp-2Zs)

------
vxNsr
Fascinating when they start discussing the digital.

------
jondiggsit
How did he miss the internet in 1980, damn Daniel.

~~~
jedberg
Well he talked about using lasers on fiber optic cables to move massive
amounts of messages such that everyone could have their own TV channel.

Sounds like he was describing a worldwide fiber optic network that carries
YouTube. He just dumbed it down for Dave. :)

------
dm8
He got the gene editing part right. The CRISPR/CAS9 are proving that

------
ehudla
I was most surprised by his take on the future of weapons research.

------
apo
Strange as this may sound, this reminds me of Joe Rogan's interview with Elon
Musk:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycPr5-27vSI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycPr5-27vSI)

Some of Asimov's predictions about the future were... off. The middle segment
of Musk's interview with Rogan was about the future of AI and cybernetics. It
will be very interesting to watch that interview in 40 years.

~~~
acqq
> Some of Asimov's predictions about the future were... off.

I'd appreciate if you'd be more specific than that. I consider Asimov's
predictions and insights reasonably good.

I don't have almost any interest in Musk, however, based on what I've read up
to now.

~~~
dotancohen
Musk is considered a visionary because he does. As opposed to most other
visionaries who speculate.

Sure, Musk speculates as well, but when he gives a time frame multiple it by
1.88.

