In the Journal Futures, Seth Baum gives the first academic review of Age of Em. First, some words of praise: The book is by far the most detailed description of the em world available. .. If you are wondering about what some aspect of an em world might look like, odds are good that a description can be found somewhere in the book. .. The breadth of research covered is impressive. ..
"...when they haven't caught on at all in the present?"
To add to what Robin wrote above, the relative ease of divorce over the last 50 years was a huge change in a social technology that was largely accepted.
In 2005 I went one further and told friends by 2030 marriage will be mostly over in the most developed countries as virtual reality becomes extremely realistic and time consuming.
> It is a common habit of futurists to populate their imagined futures with many visions of more efficient physical technologies, but to presume no gains in social technologies. I think we should instead also expect the adoption of more efficient social technologies, especially in a more competitive world such as the em world would be. Which is why I tried to outline some changes of this sort. But it seems Baum prefers the usual habit.
This seems like a fairly rude non-response to criticism, basically saying that Baum is just too set in his ways to understand your argument. Could you explain why you think these social technologies will catch on in the future when they haven't caught on at all in the present?
"...when they haven't caught on at all in the present?"
To add to what Robin wrote above, the relative ease of divorce over the last 50 years was a huge change in a social technology that was largely accepted.
In 2005 I went one further and told friends by 2030 marriage will be mostly over in the most developed countries as virtual reality becomes extremely realistic and time consuming.
I was half -joking - but only half.
For the same reason that any innovation ever happens. People eventually try new things, find some of them better, switch.
> It is a common habit of futurists to populate their imagined futures with many visions of more efficient physical technologies, but to presume no gains in social technologies. I think we should instead also expect the adoption of more efficient social technologies, especially in a more competitive world such as the em world would be. Which is why I tried to outline some changes of this sort. But it seems Baum prefers the usual habit.
This seems like a fairly rude non-response to criticism, basically saying that Baum is just too set in his ways to understand your argument. Could you explain why you think these social technologies will catch on in the future when they haven't caught on at all in the present?