Whenever I start thinking about technology and geeking out, I become the adult male version of Veruca Salt: "But I want photovoltaic paint primer now!" I yearn to see new technologies implemented on a large scale in ways that radically change life for the better, and yield an entire constellation of new possibilities. But for decades, progress has largely been trivial, incremental, or too abstract to be viscerally satisfying - toys, niche gadgets, marginally more (or less) capable software, sharper 2-dimensional displays (woop-dee-doo), social networking, etc. etc. Indulge me as I pine for some of the achievements we should and probably will have - albeit after forehead-vein-popping delays - and armchair quarterback society's heretofore lack of vision.
Some of the technologies I mention already exist, but are being implemented so slowly - if at all - that they might as well be science fiction for all that anyone knows about them.
I. Transportation.
A. Ground.
- Autodrive
Driving can be a spiritual experience, out on the open road with a great view and little traffic. But trapped in stop-and-go hell on a freeway, or driving long stretches from which nothing is visible due to soundwalls or nonexistent scenery, I would just as soon let someone else do the driving. That's one thing our ancestors had over us: Horses can guide themselves - they don't need you to tell them not to run over a cliff, or to avoid running into a tree. If you fall asleep on a horse, the biggest danger is that you would fall off, not that you would careen off the road and kill a bunch of people. A well-trained horse doesn't even need you to be conscious if it knows where it's going - hence the cliche of the dead man riding into town slumped over in his saddle.
So where is this technology? On the surface, it sounds pretty simple: Put beacons on the side of the road, the lane lines, and on the corners of a car, and have both active and passive sensors with the on-board computer calculating relative positions and velocities. The problem is that traffic is full of feedback loops - if the computer on your car decides to change speed or direction even slightly, that changes the calculations in other cars' computers and may cause them to change as well, which then changes your car's behavior further, and so on, and so on. Thus it's not just about the individual cars - the entire traffic system has to be re-engineered.
In particular, you divide traffic into three autonomous segments: Lane driving, lane changes, and intersections. As long as you're staying in the same lane, the cars to either side are less important than those directly ahead and behind. To stay in the lane, your computer would keep your car's walls an optimum distance from the lane lines, and continuously measure the distance to cars on the side. If a car on your side gets unsafely close, then your car would tell the other car about it, conduct a rapid assessment of its environment, and decide the safest immediate response (move a distance in the opposite direction; speed up; slow down; or prepare for collision).
This would mainly be needed while most cars are still human-driven, as automatic-driven cars could be in communication all the time and maintain essentially constant distance between them. Most directly, this applies to cars behind and in front, allowing a single lane to maintain a constant speed without any sort of discernable "accordion effect." Changes necessitated by accidents or other local conditions would propagate too quickly for humans to notice, and may average out along the entire contiguous road system to miniscule speed reductions. This is the case because information that normally propagates by the cycle of human hand-eye coordination would instead be accelerated to machine-time. Thus it becomes possible to have cars traveling at enormous speed - say, 150 mph - safely maintaining relatively close distances.
For lane changes, your car's computer would communicate with the handful of cars to your immediate side and request entry to their lane. They would then decide how best to make room for your car - which cars would speed up and which would slow down, which information would then propagate outward in both directions - and when an appropriate space had been made, they would give your car the all-clear to change lanes. If your car didn't sense any nearby, it would ask just to make sure, and also check on the next lane over in case anyone might be entering the lane from the other side. If no response is received, it would change lanes immediately; if a car in the next lane over signaled an intention to change, the two would coordinate.
Intersections would be the most interesting, and initially terrifying, part of the technology. As perpendicular lanes approach each other too quickly for negotiating to be practical, intersections would be master-controlled by a computer that communicates with each car and directs its speed so that cross-traffic could be precisely interwoven. This would mean the end of stoplights - you wouldn't even have to slow down unless you were turning or there were pedestrians. When there are pedestrians, they would only block one lane at a time, and once the system was advanced enough the cars could create a "standing hole" in traffic by swarming around the pedestrian as he/she crosses. Eventually you wouldn't even need lanes - the cars would just figure out for themselves based on passive and active sensors what the optimal relative positions would be.
- Automated parking
These already exist in denser areas of Europe and Asia, and there are a few in the US, but they're still expensive and complicated to build (though the savings from smaller land footprint build up fast) and have had some software hangups. Basically, you drive on to a platform and get out, take your ticket or swipe your card or whatever, and the platform takes your car and places it just inches apart from others on a shelf with a little bit of vertical clearance. When you come back, you scan your ticket / swipe your card again or whatever, pay (if necessary) for how long you were there or use your validation, and it brings your car back.
- Automated airport cargo handling
They tried this at Denver International Airport, but the software was apparently fucked into a cocked hat and they couldn't afford to make it work. Though I'm sure even when it does work perfectly, it'll take forever to be implemented in the United States. Haven't heard much about it since the Denver story, but it's unlikely that American infrastructure has radically transformed for the better in the last couple of years.
- Automated mail delivery
It could be an extension of the cargo and automated driving systems, and be significantly cheaper than the current system.
- Maglev vacuum trains
There's no other way to say it - the American train system is embarrassing. It's 1950s technology traveling at freeway speeds on tracks originally laid even earlier, and the delays it routinely experiences make even international airport hubs look punctual. Beyond that, and which we completely lack (as far as I know) is High Speed Rail (HSR) - 1980s technology that goes about twice as fast (150-180 mph). These trains exist only in Europe and Asia, thanks in large part to the two Lost Decades corresponding to Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, and the gridlock between them courtesy of a GOP Congress.
Beyond HSR is maglev, which have been tested above 350 mph, but current systems are too limited and too short to know what practical operating speeds would be. Then, beyond ordinary maglev, is vacuum trains - maglev systems with air drag largely removed by putting them in vacuum tunnels. A VT could potentially move at thousands of miles per hour - faster than any commercial aircraft has ever gone, and possibly cheaper. As part of development, trains could be run in progressively lower pressures and higher speeds in the tubes, and the most economically optimal conditions could be discovered.
VTs would have the advantage of benefiting industries involved in pressure safety, environmental control, air recycling, and other technologies of use to both aircraft and manned spacecraft.
B. Air.
- Flying cars
Once you have automated driving, the main safety objection to flying cars disappears - you won't have teenagers and drunken idiots routinely falling out of the sky (unless they fall out of their cars first). The technical barriers have largely been overcome with advances in composite structure and miniature jet engines, but the handful of companies working on serious development for hobby flyers have yet to create a production model and obtain the necessary licenses and certifications. Once that happens, the next set of barriers will be regulatory - reforming an FAA system designed for professionals to reflect a more general group of pilots/drivers. From there it becomes a matter of infrastructure: Reconfiguring small local airports to higher traffic volumes, as well as some of the other changes listed below.
Flying cars really aren't something that will "always be the car of the future" - the technologies exist and are slowly converging, and the economics will follow. The main barriers will be bureaucratic and infrastructural.
- Direct routing
Even now in the era of GPS, aircraft are guided to their destinations by air traffic control hubs, forcing them to zigzag between major centers instead of flying in a straight line. This is not only a gruesomely outdated system, but imposes additional fuel costs, results in more pollution, and significantly extends travel times. Direct routing would require a massive overhaul of the air traffic control (ATC) system, but it's plainly worth it and would make flying cheaper, safer, faster, and more carbon-efficient.
- Automated ATC
This would make direct routing much easier, and the airspace around high-traffic airports more manageable. It's desirable for all the same reasons as automated driving, and even more since it would mitigate the delays that now routinely plague air travelers.
- Boeing 787
Commercial jetliners are at the point where technological progress ceases being revolutionary and becomes an increasingly baroque matter of clever arrangement and component innovation. The Boeing 787 Dreamliner is going to be, IMHO, the last new jumbo jet as we've known it. It squeezes every last drop of usefulness out of the underlying concept of the large subsonic jetliner, and I include it on this list because (a)it's beautiful, (b)it will be the last of its kind, and (c)its completion has been delayed repeatedly over the last four years due to endless emergent problems with various systems - a common story when a technology reaches the "baroque" stage of its lifetime.
- Supersonic jetliners
We had the Concorde, and now that it's retired we have nothing. A commercial air traveler could break the sound barrier in 1985 for a few thousand dollars, but cannot do so today for any amount of money - they would have to specially charter a fighter jet, and wait months for clearance to fly it anywhere. Mankind has actually taken a step backward technologically insofar as high-speed air travel is concerned, and that needs to be addressed.
Part of what doomed the Concorde was its noise, which relegated it to flying over oceans. While strides have been made in making supersonic technology quiet, not a lot of money is being invested in it, so the advances are coming very slowly.
- Parabolic flights on commercial airliners
Zero-G Corp. currently offers simulated weightlessness through parabolic flights, but the flights don't go anywhere - they go up, down, up, down, and so on, and then return to their point of origin. I figure, why the hell couldn't you enjoy such a thrill ride on your way to somewhere? Not necessarily the bouncing-around-the-walls part, as that's where most of the additional cost and safety regulations come in, but I imagine it's fun enough even staying seated and strapped in. And honestly, wouldn't you be a lot less disturbed by that sudden dip due to turbulence if you'd already gone through a bunch of planned parabolas with total weightlessness for 20 seconds at a time?
Yes, I'm sure it would be more expensive and involved than a normal flight, but I doubt enormously so. Think of it: You're going to be on an eight-hour flight, bored out of your mind, and all the in-flight movies are Rob Schneider comedies and Ice Cube family films. BUT...a couple of times every hour or so, with plenty of warning of course, YOU'RE WEIGHTLESS for nearly half a minute. They might even mix it up with Moon gravity or Mars gravity too, and pass out nerf balls and other toys to play around with. I would pay double for a flight like that (if I had the option), and I think a lot of other people would too.
C. Space.
- Commercial space
Everything good happening in space now should have happened 30 years ago, and it's taking its sweet damn time even as it ramps up.
- Commercial launch ranges
SpaceX is making serious headway to lowering the cost of space launches with its major innovations in rocketry, software, and ground procedure, but a big part of the cost remains range fees - the money you have to pay to use the launch site. This is because the vast majority of today's rocket ranges are old military installations whose infrastructure and protocols were developed in the '50s and '60s for use by government agencies and bloated contractors with no sense of economy. A range designed from the ground-up to handle next-generation rockets and high-volume commercial operations would be significantly cheaper.
- Orbital fuel depots
If you can refuel a satellite, you don't have to launch a new one every ten years - you can just keep using the same one until it breaks. That means less junk in orbit to endanger human crews. It's also critical to development and use of reusable vehicles for exploration, as you have a "gas tank" that can be filled over and over rather than a throwaway engine that has to be replaced for every mission.
- Reusable launch vehicles (RLVs)
NASA made a joke of the RLV concept with the Space Shuttle, and nearly nailed the coffin shut with the X-33, but there are several private companies that I believe will succeed. SpaceX is presently the front-runner, although Virgin Galactic and XCOR Aerospace have credible concepts on the drawing board for evolutions of their suborbital vehicles that could become orbit-capable.
You need RLVs because you can only make a system robust through persistent use - you can't make something that complex reasonably safe and routine if you only use it once.
- Manned exploration of space
Note the emphasis on "exploration." Astronauts and cosmonauts haven't been allowed to explore a damn thing since 1972, and that pisses me off because we would already be living in a Golden Age if the promise of Apollo had been met. JUST GO. There's no shortage of people willing to accept the risks.
- VASIMR
This stands for Variable Specific Impulse Magnetoplasma Rocket. The technology exists and is being developed by the company of a former astronaut for use, initially, as a space station thruster. From there, the developer plans to pursue it as a lunar cargo hauler. Ultimately, however, scaled-up, high-power versions have the potential to open up the solar system - Mars in 38 days instead of nine months, Jupiter in a few months instead of years.
It works by using magnetic fields to channel high-temperature gas, and its advance lies in the "Variable Specific Impulse." Chemical rockets can have a variety of specific impulses - a measure of how much "bang for the buck" you get - depending on their type of fuel and various other factors, but they're all much lower than ion propulsion (of which VASIMR is a relative). You can't use it to go from the Earth's surface to space, because it's thrust is much too low (it accelerates too slowly), but you can end up with much faster speeds once in space because you never have to stop accelerating - you can spend the entire trip either speeding up or slowing down.
An interesting consequence of this is that you save a lot more time over chemical rockets the farther out you go: The biggest, meanest chemical rocket one could imagine being practical wouldn't even come close to what VASIMR could theoretically deliver on a Jupiter run. It's less impressive going to the Moon, but still a substantial improvement.
- Centrifuge pseudo-gravity
This was envisioned in a movie from 40 years ago about a "future" eight years in the past, and yet we still haven't even tested an actual system in space. Why is that? You still have all the research benefits of weightlessness at the hub, and can do experiments at progressively lower "gravities" along the spokes.
- Momentum transfer tethers
The concept is a little physics-y, but basically you can arrange a bunch of really long strings in space so that a ship can grab one end of one, spin around, be flung on to the next at a higher speed, and keep gaining momentum with each additional tether that it "borrows" from. The tethers themselves are arranged to continually "borrow" momentum from the Earth - a supply that is literally inexhaustible, and would be replenished anyway by spacecraft using the tethers to re-enter Earth orbit. People smarter than I have worked out the numbers and found that you can attain utterly ridiculous speeds this way. Of course, there remains a lot we don't know about ribbon dynamics, but NASA's research into the concept has been limp-dicked to say the least.
II. Energy.
A. Generation.
- PV general surfaces
Eventually, most of the surface area of a building will be photovoltaic, including the windows. There are already PV Spanish tiles and transparent PV panels, but their commercialization and adoption is moving relatively slowly (relative to my desire to see them everywhere, that is). Everything will ultimately be PV or some technology derived from it - paint, stucco, sidewalks, road surfaces, etc. etc. There are no fundamental hurdles to any of this, it's just a matter of mapping the subtleties.
- Polywell fusion
If any version of fusion power is going to work, this will be it. If we can make fusion work and scale well, we can skip over centuries of solar power development - we will have our own little stars in our grasp, and we could use them (appropriately) to visit other stars. With a compact fusion power source, VASIMR makes manned interstellar travel achievable. Still not especially practical, mind you, but within the range of sane daring.
- LED lighting
CFL is just a stopgap measure. LED has the potential to be more efficient by far, doesn't involve toxics, and can be easily incorporated directly into walls and ceilings. It can also include a broader spectrum of light, making for healthier-looking interiors rather than the ghoulish tint fluorescents tend to give.
B. Storage.
- Instant recharging
Batteries are all about electrons moving. In a charged battery, they're mostly on one side, but when it runs out of juice they've mostly equalized on both sides (or just enough not to provide enough voltage). The easier it is for the electrons to move, the faster you can charge (and discharge) the battery. Herein lies the challenge - making a battery that charges instantly, but doesn't blow its wad the minute it's connected to something. Current fast-charging technologies mostly involve variants of lithium batteries, and the faster they charge, the more unstable they are. Hence the next item.
- Safe high-density batteries
Batteries with high energy densities tend to explode more often than ones with lower densities. As we will be moving to electric transportation, this may become a slight problem.
C. Transmission.
- Superconducting
We have the technology to build superconducting transmission wires, allowing for much longer distances between power plants and users. It's just hella expensive. The cost would, however, be recouped in relatively short order by all the power saved.
- Wireless
When we get flying cars, we'll want them to become electric. And that will be a lot easier if we can power them wirelessly than if we have to charge super-high-density batteries (the whole BOOM factor, as mentioned above, not to mention weight considerations). Safe, efficient wireless power transmission also enables weird steampunk concepts like dirigible cities.
III. Manufacturing.
A. Chip factories: Smaller, cheaper, and more.
Our civilization is vulnerable right now because it depends on a relative handful of ultra-expensive chip factories for an ever-increasing proportion of our technology. Chips themselves get cheaper and cheaper, but the factories that make them are still $2-5 billion each. The centralization of manufacturing in the hands of two companies (possibly in the future only one) certainly doesn't help, as there's no volume consumer base for companies that could lower the cost of the manufacturing components. We need not just chips, but chip manufacturing, to become a commodity. The Holy Grail, probably centuries away, would be when you can buy a chip printer like you buy an ink printer today.
B. 3D printing, rapid prototyping.
All manufacturing would benefit from decentralization of basic technology. If the average person could design and build high-tech systems using equipment that costs less than the computer they use to run it, the economic potential would be massive. There are already 3D printers and rapid prototyping systems on the market, but they are still largely in the price range of businesses - a typical consumer could not afford them, and using them would be difficult without extensive training.
IV. Biological.
A. Agriculture
- Desalinized seawater
This is eventually going to be the main source of our water, so we might as well get cracking. The overwhelming majority of the work presently being done on this is being funded by the Gulf Arab states, where fresh water acquifers and rainfall are already exceedingly scarce. It's good that someone is looking into this, but I hate seeing undemocratic countries getting ahead of us in anything technological. To wit - it's cool that you get more women than me, but not cool that you get more women than me.
- Universal irrigation
Part of what a desalinized seawater infrastructure makes possible is full-territory irrigation - the creation of arable land wherever the hell we feel like it. This also requires cheap, sustainable energy, but we'll get there.
- GMO
Come on, people. There's no scientific evidence that GMO is inherently dangerous, and no scientific reason to believe it might be. Mindless, puritanical, fear-based reactionism is stunting the growth of an industry with the potential to make humanity's food supply robust.
B. Medical.
- Organ and tissue regrowth
Another technology whose long delay we can, at least in part, attribute to Republican lunacy. The root of organ and tissue regrowth will likely be embryonic stem-cell research, so it's good that we're at least now going to get serious about it. Still, it's taking far too long even for things that are much less complicated than internal organs - e.g., regrowing teeth. Despite all the progress that's been made, and the huge amount of money dedicated, I think there is still a cultural disconnect between the biosciences and technology communities that's leading to missed opportunities.
- Reproductive human cloning
Drive the fundies nuts. Why not?
- Create viable human embryo from two women or two men
Drive the fundies nuts. Why not?
- Robotic something that works better than its natural counterpart.
We'll know the field of prosthetics has come into its own when people are getting their natural limbs or organs needlessly removed to make use of superior performance. Notwithstanding, the recent controversy about the double-amputee who wanted to run in the Olympics, we're still nowhere close to this - nobody would choose to get their legs cut off for even the most advanced prosthetics currently around. But there will come a time.
VI. Commerce
A. No-checkout shopping.
Grocery stores in my area have begun introducing self-checkout stations, and I'm all for it. The logical end of this evolution is no checkout at all - just take what you want, and as you walk out the door it automatically senses everything and charges your account. At some point you don't even have to enter the store: Just select your items online and collect them at an automated drive-through. From there, with automated driving, you might not even have to go to the drive-through yourself: Just tell your car to go pick up your groceries (and fill itself up, and pick up your kids at school, etc. etc.)
VII. Entertainment.
A. Holovision
Today's 3D systems just plain suck. If you have to wear glasses, FAIL. Dim, ghostly images in a tank that has to be as big as you want the images to appear? FAIL. Monochrome TV screens with differential projection that can only handle a depth of a few inches? FAIL. Giant cage-like contraptions to generate the hologram of a person at enormous cost a la CNN's election coverage? FAIL. Work on it, folks. I want to turn on a wall and see it recede to infinity before displaying crisp, full-color, 3D-HD equally clear from all angles. You know...for porn.
B. A satisfactory screen adaptation of the core Dune tetralogy
David Lynch, I will never forgive you. This isn't really a technological issue, but I'm geeking out and need to vent about Hollywood's treatment of the greatest epic of all time. I found the Scifi Channel miniseries of Dune passable (given the medium), and Children of Dune remarkable, but I want to see the full potential of the series realized: Dune, Dune Messiah, Children of Dune, and God Emperor of Dune, all on the big screen in all their glory. I don't care if each book has to be divided into three parts a la LOTR - make it so. Peter Berg is supposedly directing a Dune remake, but there's no question it will suck.
VIII. Inspirational.
A. Architecture.
We're really falling behind in this, people. A pack of assholes took down our most glorious towers, and we've failed to replace their brilliance with anything similarly great - and what's planned for the site is just plain embarrassing. Meanwhile Dubai and China have sprouted like rainforests. I find it inspiring that someone still aspires to the sky, but as I've said before, I'd rather it was us. In fact, I'd rather it was everyone, competing in good nature to build the most inspiring skyscrapers. Not to cling to a trophy and say "I'm number 1!" but to cause others to look at them and say, "That makes me want to build something even more beautiful," and thereby progressively increase the wonder and awe of the world. I don't expect it immediately, given the state of the economy, but dammit people - we should care enough to try when we're able. Skyscrapers are beautiful, and we should aspire to build them higher and higher, just as we should aspire to go faster and fly further.
IX. Cultural
A. Metric system.
The wingnut hysteria would be reward enough, never mind all the economic and scientific benefits.
B. 24/7 schedules.
What is with this shit of forcing the same schedules on everyone by having "business hours," closing banks on Sundays, and other totally arbitrary time arrangements? Okay, sure - if you run a small family business out in the middle of nowhere, you're going to shut it down when you're asleep instead of hiring people to run it at night. But a global grocery store conglomerate operating in the middle of the densest population center in a thousand miles? Why the hell is a Safeway in Oakland closing at 11 o'clock? Why aren't all pharmacies in giant metroplex cities 24-hour?
Has it occurred to anyone that this kind of stupid shit might be the cause of traffic jams, energy spikes, concentrated smog layers, and various social ills related to crowded conditions? With efficient LED lighting, as mentioned above, you could have Sun-equivalent light at nighttime (except the UV - which you can get your fill of in a few minutes early or late in the day), and not necessarily compromise your health. Sure, the additional use of lighting would increase the absolute amount of energy consumed, but because the peaks and spikes would be smoothed out, alternative energy could be more quickly implemented - less need for storage.