Future Predictions in 1964 by Noble Prize winners that were way way off

Chrisinmd

Blue Belt
Joined
Oct 30, 2018
Messages
277
Reaction score
63
Future Predictions in 1964 by Noble Prize winners that were way way off

You're late for work because you forgot to set the alarm clock embedded in your forearm. Rushing out of bed, you give your family members, located thousands of miles away, a quick virtual hug, and hop into the car -- ordering your ape chauffeur to step on it. It's a stressful day, sure, but at least your vacation to the Moon is just a few days away.

That may not sound like a typical morning, but people thought it could have been.
History is littered with predictions and future projections. Many of these are given with supreme confidence, before they fade conveniently into insignificance as they whiz wide of the mark.

But as we charge into the third decade of the 21st century, it's time to ask: Where did we think we'd be in 2020?

Experts' predictions from 1964
Here's a selection of predictions made in a 1964 report by the RAND Corporation, which put questions to 82 experts and Noble prize winning scientists across various fields, and the earliest year they thought each could be achievable.

1980: Robots as household servants.

1980: Manned landing on Mars.

1995: Human lives artificially extended by 50 years.

1995: Automated voting.

1998: Directly recording information to the brain.

1999: A military force on the moon.

2000: Two-way communication with extra-terrestrials.

2015: Long-duration coma to allow a form of time travel.

2020: Breeding of apes and other animals for menial work.

My favorite claim is the 2020 claim that by 2020 we'd have bred animals, including apes, to carry out daily chores in the home.

The claims were certainly taken seriously. Three years later, the Nobel Prize-winning chemist Glenn T. Seaborg commented on its findings in a speech to the Woman's National Democratic Club in Washington, DC.

"During the 21st century, those houses that don't have a robot in the broom closet could have a live-in ape to do the cleaning and gardening chores," he said. "Also, the use of well-trained apes as family chauffeurs might decrease the number of automobile accidents."

Wish this would have happened. I got some dishes I need done. A live in ape to do them would be so nice! lol

Thoughts?
 

jobo

Grandmaster
Joined
Apr 3, 2017
Messages
9,762
Reaction score
1,514
Location
Manchester UK
1980: Robots as household servants.

done

1980: Manned landing on Mars.

soon

1995: Human lives artificially extended by 50 years.

more or less

1995: Automated voting.

done

1998: Directly recording information to the brain.

sort of

1999: A military force on the moon.

soon

2000: Two-way communication with extra-terrestrials.

one way communication do far

2015: Long-duration coma to allow a form of time travel.

not yet

2020: Breeding of apes and other animals for menial work.

done, my dog stacks my washing for me, just trying to get him to put it in the washing machine now
 
Last edited:
OP
C

Chrisinmd

Blue Belt
Joined
Oct 30, 2018
Messages
277
Reaction score
63
1980: Manned landing on Mars.

soon

1999: A military force on the moon.

soon

2020: Breeding of apes and other animals for menial work.

done, my dog stacks my washing for me, just trying to get him to put it in the washing machine now

What are you considering "soon"? Manned landing on Mars I don't see happening for at least another 20 years at best. And that is best case scenario. They predicted it would happen by 1980.

1999: A military force on the moon. - You must think Trump's space force is going to be conducting military operations on the lunar service by the end of his term?

2020: Breeding of apes and other animals for menial work. - You have an impressive dog. But not excatly an Ape driving you to work or mopping your floor for you.
 

Monkey Turned Wolf

MT Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jan 4, 2012
Messages
12,209
Reaction score
6,306
Location
New York
1995: Human lives artificially extended by 50 years.

more or less
I was curious about this, so looked it up. First couple sites I looked at were for the US, which stated less than a 10 year difference since 1964. Added "world" to my search and found this:

Life expectancy at birth, total (years) | Data

According to this, the life expectancy in 1964 worldwide was 55 years, and in 2017 (latest year for data it has) was 72 years, not even halfway to the goal for 1990. In 1990 it had increased by slightly more than 10 years.
 
OP
C

Chrisinmd

Blue Belt
Joined
Oct 30, 2018
Messages
277
Reaction score
63
I wrote it. The only thing copied was the list of dates of predictions. Commentary is mine
 

Monkey Turned Wolf

MT Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jan 4, 2012
Messages
12,209
Reaction score
6,306
Location
New York
I agree with you-I would have loved the live-in ape idea. They had that in the sims and I loved it!
 

jobo

Grandmaster
Joined
Apr 3, 2017
Messages
9,762
Reaction score
1,514
Location
Manchester UK
I was curious about this, so looked it up. First couple sites I looked at were for the US, which stated less than a 10 year difference since 1964. Added "world" to my search and found this:

Life expectancy at birth, total (years) | Data

According to this, the life expectancy in 1964 worldwide was 55 years, and in 2017 (latest year for data it has) was 72 years, not even halfway to the goal for 1990. In 1990 it had increased by slightly more than 10 years.

I didn't say they had done it by 1990,
they can keep you alive almost indefinitely, and that's what it said, ALIVE , the fact they dont doesn't mean that they couldn't if you had enough money

and then theres all those people who could and probably should have died of heart desmoney or kidney failure etal,in there 40, 50s who are still going in there 80s, there alive as well
 

Monkey Turned Wolf

MT Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jan 4, 2012
Messages
12,209
Reaction score
6,306
Location
New York
I didn't say they had done it by 1990,
they can keep you alive almost indefinitely, and that's what it said, ALIVE , the fact they dont doesn't mean that they couldn't if you had enough money

and then theres all those people who could and probably should have died of heart desmoney or kidney failure etal,in there 40, 50s who are still going in there 80s, there alive as well
Now you're using the word probably to avoid the actual facts. You have no way of knowing if those people would have died without the treatment they were given- as an example with kidney failure: My great-aunt was told over a decade ago that she would die within 6 months if she did not go on dialysis. She passed away a month ago, so clearly that's not always accurate.

So two metrics to see if lives have been extended by 50 years.

First is average life expectancy. That is a no, as stated above, so for the overehelming majority of people their life has not been extended by 50 years.

The second measure would be to take the limits of what people can live to. Someone actually died in 1964 as the oldest person, so we can use her as the limit: 113 years old. The oldest person since then at 113 in 1964, so that's the limit then. Since then, the oldest person died at 122 years old. The oldest current living oldest person is 117, so it's not indicated that people are going to be living excessively longer.

In both measures, we have not reached the goal, or close to it. The only one we have is your unverifiable measure.
 

jobo

Grandmaster
Joined
Apr 3, 2017
Messages
9,762
Reaction score
1,514
Location
Manchester UK
Now you're using the word probably to avoid the actual facts. You have no way of knowing if those people would have died without the treatment they were given- as an example with kidney failure: My great-aunt was told over a decade ago that she would die within 6 months if she did not go on dialysis. She passed away a month ago, so clearly that's not always accurate.

So two metrics to see if lives have been extended by 50 years.

First is average life expectancy. That is a no, as stated above, so for the overehelming majority of people their life has not been extended by 50 years.

The second measure would be to take the limits of what people can live to. Someone actually died in 1964 as the oldest person, so we can use her as the limit: 113 years old. The oldest person since then at 113 in 1964, so that's the limit then. Since then, the oldest person died at 122 years old. The oldest current living oldest person is 117, so it's not indicated that people are going to be living excessively longer.

In both measures, we have not reached the goal, or close to it. The only one we have is your unverifiable measure.
??????????? a probability is a FACT, its a fact of mathematics, if based on data they tell you theres a 90 % chance you'll be dead in a couple of years then that is indeed a fact its also a fact that there's a 10% chance you wont and that 9 out of 10 of people with the same condition will die in that time frame

the problem with average life expectancy is it also includes all the premature deaths from things other than '' old age'' if you reduce infant mortality rates 80 years later there an increase in average life expectancy, if you reduce motorbike accidents with young men, then 60 years later there's an increase in life expectancy, if you ban smoking, reduce narcotics, control pollution etc etc, you increase average life expectancy but always with a lag of many decades,

so all the advances in public health and medicine over the last twenty years wont show up in the figures till circa 2080. the modest increase your seeing now is a reflection of what was achieve in the 1960/70/80s.

there are of course other factors. increases in the theoretic life expectancy over the next few decades, are being driven down by the obesity epidemic and other life style issues, medical advances cant yet do anything about lazy and greedy and of course the actual cost of such treatment, adequate housing/etc the poor always always die first, the higher the % of poor people you have the lower the average life expectancy is, medical science cant fix poverty either

so unless your going to filter the data, to remove all the accidental deaths all the fat lazy alcohol drug users living in rat invested accommodation or freezing to death on the streets, you cant see the average life expectancy of some one of means who takes care of themselves

personal anecdotes of ONE don't really help when your taking about 100s of millions of people, but you've done one so i will, my mother is just about to turn 90, i can say with some certainty hat the improvements in medical science and of course the free medical care in this country have extended her life by at least 20 years, that is 20 years ago i was stood at her bed side waiting for her to die, if it had been 1980 instead of 2000 she would indeed have died. the level of care she receives now means im reasonably confident she will last the best part of another decade. she longer she and all the others last, the longer it is till she and they show up in the average life expectancy figgures
 
Last edited:
OP
C

Chrisinmd

Blue Belt
Joined
Oct 30, 2018
Messages
277
Reaction score
63
the problem with average life expectancy is it also includes all the premature deaths from things other than '' old age'' if you reduce infant mortality rates 80 years later there an increase in average life expectancy, if you reduce motorbike accidents with young men, then 60 years later there's an increase in life expectancy, if you ban smoking, reduce narcotics, control pollution etc etc, you increase average life expectancy but always with a lag of many decades,

so all the advances in public health and medicine over the last twenty years wont show up in the figures till circa 2080. the modest increase your seeing now is a reflection of what was achieve in the 1960/70/80s.

The vast increase in life expectancy has been achieved by greatly reducing infant mortality. You take most of the people dying under 1 year old out of the equation it raises the average quite a bit. But we haven't seen that big of an increase once you reach old age
 

jobo

Grandmaster
Joined
Apr 3, 2017
Messages
9,762
Reaction score
1,514
Location
Manchester UK
The vast increase in life expectancy has been achieved by greatly reducing infant mortality. You take most of the people dying under 1 year old out of the equation it raises the average quite a bit. But we haven't seen that big of an increase once you reach old age
that's what i said above, that's why just blindly quoting average life expectancy is misleading, in this country at least infant mortality was very much reduced in the first half of the century with the ( near )eradication of killer diseases and considerable improvements in housing and public health, particular sanitation

and we are seeing that improvement now in figures, the improvements from the last half century will take time to work through

i read a report on a study saying life expectancy is on a steep upward trajectory and will soon be 90, (will be circa 140 for those born in 21st century). and up to 120 by 2040 or so, hence the impending care and pension crisis we face.

the issues isn't so much keeping people alive, that's comparatively simple with modern medicine. its keeping them independent and healthy enough to enjoy there extended life, joints etal wear out, they are just going to spend an addition 20 years using a walking frame and soiling themselves

NB those figures are from memory and may be a little inexact but that's the gist of it
 
Last edited:
OP
C

Chrisinmd

Blue Belt
Joined
Oct 30, 2018
Messages
277
Reaction score
63
i read a report on a study saying life expectancy is on a steep upward trajectory and will soon be 90, (will be circa 140 for those born in 21st century). and up to 120 by 2040 or so, hence the impending care and pension crisis we face.

I thought life expectancy was actually dropped slightly due to obesity and oppoid / drug addiction. Life expectancy probley would rise to the levels you stated if we could solve these dangerous lifestyle factors
 

Martial D

Senior Master
Joined
May 18, 2017
Messages
3,407
Reaction score
1,156
??????????? a probability is a FACT, its a fact of mathematics, if based on data they tell you theres a 90 % chance you'll be dead in a couple of years then that is indeed a fact its also a fact that there's a 10% chance you wont and that 9 out of 10 of people with the same condition will die in that time frame

the problem with average life expectancy is it also includes all the premature deaths from things other than '' old age'' if you reduce infant mortality rates 80 years later there an increase in average life expectancy, if you reduce motorbike accidents with young men, then 60 years later there's an increase in life expectancy, if you ban smoking, reduce narcotics, control pollution etc etc, you increase average life expectancy but always with a lag of many decades,

so all the advances in public health and medicine over the last twenty years wont show up in the figures till circa 2080. the modest increase your seeing now is a reflection of what was achieve in the 1960/70/80s.

there are of course other factors. increases in the theoretic life expectancy over the next few decades, are being driven down by the obesity epidemic and other life style issues, medical advances cant yet do anything about lazy and greedy and of course the actual cost of such treatment, adequate housing/etc the poor always always die first, the higher the % of poor people you have the lower the average life expectancy is, medical science cant fix poverty either

so unless your going to filter the data, to remove all the accidental deaths all the fat lazy alcohol drug users living in rat invested accommodation or freezing to death on the streets, you cant see the average life expectancy of some one of means who takes care of themselves

personal anecdotes of ONE don't really help when your taking about 100s of millions of people, but you've done one so i will, my mother is just about to turn 90, i can say with some certainty hat the improvements in medical science and of course the free medical care in this country have extended her life by at least 20 years, that is 20 years ago i was stood at her bed side waiting for her to die, if it had been 1980 instead of 2000 she would indeed have died. the level of care she receives now means im reasonably confident she will last the best part of another decade. she longer she and all the others last, the longer it is till she and they show up in the average life expectancy figgures

No.
 

Latest Discussions

Top