Overall, I see a strong techocratic bias — wise bureaucrats making the best decisions for all, and removing choices from people, either directly or by framing the possible options.
Remarkably prescient list. That said, it seems that there may have been a strong optimism filter on the list. With the possible exception of #8: Aerial War-Ships and Forts on Wheels and #28: No wild animals, these all seem to be things that would be welcomed with open arms by the typical WHJ reader of that time. I doubt that >90% of significant changes which did in fact occur would be so welcomed.
That those were heady times could explain a lot of this. Alternatively, this may be more a result of the publication path chosen (and Watkins's interaction with it) than on his prognostication skills and methods.
eliminate mosquitoes and house-flies by ending their breeding grounds,
Um, remember when the CDC did that from 1946-1951, and eradicated malaria in the United States? Obviously, all mosquitoes and and all house-flies was too much to expect, but it's not clear the coordination problem is the issue, rather than the value involved. Once you get rid of malaria, mosquitoes really aren't that bothersome.\
The ones that I noticed as obviously wrong were the technical ones. We still burn coal (drat), and drugs are often given orally (though I suppose I can grant him injections as going through the skin).
Yes, it does make a lot of sense to see the internet as an evolution of the telegraph. Watkins had the direction of the developments right, he just didn't see how far it would go: not just sending pictures but entire movies. Not just sending music, a convenient way to store received transmissions, thousands of them, on a pocket-sized device. And so on.
On the whole, Watkins’ biggest mistake seems to have been underestimating the extent of technological, and to a lesser extent cultural, change. He predicts pictures sent by telegraph, but not video streaming on Netflix.
I'll grant you the distinction between video and still images. But is the Internet anything other than the telegraph as it ought to have evolved? I am always struck by the number of times we have invented the telegram: telexes, emails, social network inboxes. Best of all is the SMS - mobile providers thought it would be a niche service and were surprised to find that people often preferred resonably priced telegrams to voice calls. Imagine if they had figured that out a few decades ago.
I wouldn't use communal dining as an example of always low status activity- boarding schools, yacht crews, traditional universities, gentlemen's clubs, learned societies, the diplomatic corps and the officer's mess all involve institutionalised eating, with rituals and traditions which reinforce high status and foster ingroup loyalty (special rules regarding eating, going to the bathroom, ways of describing the food or courses, toasts songs sung, etc)
Personally, I think Watkins did a pretty good job of predicting our modern eating habits. Sure some people like nice restaurants, and some people still learn to cook to show off their cooking skills, but most of us don't have our own cooks and spend as little time cooking as possible. We eat fast food, or heavily processed food that doesn't need to be cooked at all.
Watkins' big mistakes on the food front seem to be:(1) Thinking we'd use pneumatic tubes, and overestimating the popularity of having food delivered by automobile.(2) Failing to predict the mircowave oven.(3) Failing to predict disposable packaging.
On the whole, Watkins' biggest mistake seems to have been underestimating the extent of technological, and to a lesser extent cultural, change. He predicts pictures sent by telegraph, but not video streaming on Netflix. He predicts listening to music on the telephone, but not iTunes. And he thinks we'll still be listening to opera, rather than genres of music that hadn't even been invented in his time.
Arguably, we have the technology to eliminate misquotes, but we aren't utilizing it.
Many people take nicotine "through the skin".
Oh, dear, #3 (universal gymnastics)!
Overall, I see a strong techocratic bias — wise bureaucrats making the best decisions for all, and removing choices from people, either directly or by framing the possible options.
So, yeah. He was pretty much on target.
Anybody care to try a similar list for 2100?
Remarkably prescient list. That said, it seems that there may have been a strong optimism filter on the list. With the possible exception of #8: Aerial War-Ships and Forts on Wheels and #28: No wild animals, these all seem to be things that would be welcomed with open arms by the typical WHJ reader of that time. I doubt that >90% of significant changes which did in fact occur would be so welcomed.
That those were heady times could explain a lot of this. Alternatively, this may be more a result of the publication path chosen (and Watkins's interaction with it) than on his prognostication skills and methods.
For "institutional communal food", think: restaurant - which is surely not "a sign of low status".
They already had immunization back then, needles don't sound like that's what he was talking about for "through the skin".
Thanks - fixed.
eliminate mosquitoes and house-flies by ending their breeding grounds,
Um, remember when the CDC did that from 1946-1951, and eradicated malaria in the United States? Obviously, all mosquitoes and and all house-flies was too much to expect, but it's not clear the coordination problem is the issue, rather than the value involved. Once you get rid of malaria, mosquitoes really aren't that bothersome.\
The ones that I noticed as obviously wrong were the technical ones. We still burn coal (drat), and drugs are often given orally (though I suppose I can grant him injections as going through the skin).
Yes, it does make a lot of sense to see the internet as an evolution of the telegraph. Watkins had the direction of the developments right, he just didn't see how far it would go: not just sending pictures but entire movies. Not just sending music, a convenient way to store received transmissions, thousands of them, on a pocket-sized device. And so on.
On the whole, Watkins’ biggest mistake seems to have been underestimating the extent of technological, and to a lesser extent cultural, change. He predicts pictures sent by telegraph, but not video streaming on Netflix.
I'll grant you the distinction between video and still images. But is the Internet anything other than the telegraph as it ought to have evolved? I am always struck by the number of times we have invented the telegram: telexes, emails, social network inboxes. Best of all is the SMS - mobile providers thought it would be a niche service and were surprised to find that people often preferred resonably priced telegrams to voice calls. Imagine if they had figured that out a few decades ago.
I wouldn't use communal dining as an example of always low status activity- boarding schools, yacht crews, traditional universities, gentlemen's clubs, learned societies, the diplomatic corps and the officer's mess all involve institutionalised eating, with rituals and traditions which reinforce high status and foster ingroup loyalty (special rules regarding eating, going to the bathroom, ways of describing the food or courses, toasts songs sung, etc)
Personally, I think Watkins did a pretty good job of predicting our modern eating habits. Sure some people like nice restaurants, and some people still learn to cook to show off their cooking skills, but most of us don't have our own cooks and spend as little time cooking as possible. We eat fast food, or heavily processed food that doesn't need to be cooked at all.
Watkins' big mistakes on the food front seem to be:(1) Thinking we'd use pneumatic tubes, and overestimating the popularity of having food delivered by automobile.(2) Failing to predict the mircowave oven.(3) Failing to predict disposable packaging.
On the whole, Watkins' biggest mistake seems to have been underestimating the extent of technological, and to a lesser extent cultural, change. He predicts pictures sent by telegraph, but not video streaming on Netflix. He predicts listening to music on the telephone, but not iTunes. And he thinks we'll still be listening to opera, rather than genres of music that hadn't even been invented in his time.
Clearly they haven't been eliminated either.
Mosquitoes, not misquotes.