I dont quite understand the purpose of the organiszation... strange. What do they want?

Just a thought: they say "and analyses of these results show that the variation among forecasts averages +/- 3 years, with standard deviations averaging 4.3 years."

Does this include a) only technologies that have become real - for example: if they have guessed that a technology should arrive,
but it havent yet, how do they take that into account for the "success rate"?
b) is the statistics based on the first (earliest) prognosis they made OR on the most recent iterated updated prognosis, just before the technology became real?

I suppose one can fiddle quite a bit with the dates and rather broad descriptions they use...:)

Cheers

Hi Carl;
I didn't recognize any of that Tech-cast in terms of your question.. it just brings to mind a thought on their project (and TOD's, consequently) ..

Computer power has increased exponentially since 1980, when machines less sophisticated than your cellphone filled entire rooms. And we can expect similar mindboggling advances in the coming decades.
For a sense of what’s in store, take a look at the breakthroughs on this page. Some of them may seem like the stuff of science fiction, but they’re closer to reality than you may think.

(my emphasis)rf

They describe the great, globewide communications in the internet that have made the collections of like minds (or any other collection you'd choose) possible and fairly easy. This can and has resulted in some great focused efforts, but has also created some massive Echo Chambers, which assemble with a common ideological bent, and don't have to include some kind of Check and Balance. Maybe they do, maybe not, but this is one of the challenges of a certain part of the scientific method, which separates the area of study from all else and holds it isolated from the interferences and impurities of the big world. Reintegrating the learning into the messy mix of life can challenge the clarity of results that grew so easily in a vaccuum.

Specialization and the Culture Dish have made possible some wonderful advancements, but have also celebrated a form of segregation that can also carry its own blinders and toxicity.

"The Specialist learns more and more about less and less until he finally knows Everything about Nothing. (and the Generalist scans Less and Less about more and more, finally knowing nothing about Everything.)"

For what it's worth, I feel that the spectrum of views at TOD swings across techological and sociological spectra enough to allow a reader to get some sense of a reasonable middleground, amidst the muddle.

Bob

After a quick run thru of the list of experts, I notice there's a heavy concentration of aerospace and computer folks. As a one time satellite systems engineer who has used computers for more than 40 years, I'm sure that there is much optimism in this crowd which is not based on a real, hands on understanding of the limits of technology. I once had such optimism, thinking that the world was as easy to change as the code of a computer program (Ha!).

As you mention, there are almost no people in the list who claim to be experts in biology or ecology, which is not unusual in the technology world. My engineering education had no requirement for biology course work and at the time ecology was a nearly unknown field. Many people who have spent their entire lives in cities really don't have a clue about the connections between the natural environment and their own lives, thus their perspective is limited to extrapolating past trends to an ever brighter future of cornucopian growth. One such example is the notion of space tourism, which will always require massive amounts of energy even for short hops above 50 miles. From an energy perspective, today's reality is that there simply isn't going to be enough energy available for more than a few people to experience space flight. The billions of us left behind on the surface will find it increasingly difficult just to stay warm in winter and finding enough work to pay for it.

It's a good thing that Fred Singer is no longer on the list, having had some direct experience with Dr. Singer and his fellow travelers. However, Singer is just one of many who appear to think that mankind can ignore climate change and the environment in general. They have been proven wrong so many times that it's hard to keep up with the count, yet, they still find a voice with funding from large corporations which do not want to give up their destructive ways. Once Peak Oil is obvious to all, things are going to change radically because there's no easy solution to the energy problem.

For comparison with those on the list, consider what Amory Lovins has been able to do for more than 30 years. His Hyper Car concept was to be a great technological leap, but they are not aircraft or spacecraft and they still do not exist...

E. Swanson

Thanks for your input

I dont quite understand the purpose of the organiszation... strange. What do they want?

Segeltamp, they are providing corporate clients (in particular) with an overview of upcoming trends in different areas. I'm not sure what their business model is; probably they sell reports with more detail than what's on their web site or in Halal's book, Technology's Promise.

I suppose one can fiddle quite a bit with the dates and rather broad descriptions they use...:)

Yes, they're trying to reduce uncertainty from 100% to 10-20%, they say. The book contains less broad descriptions.

They describe the great, globewide communications in the internet that
have made the collections of like minds (or any other collection you'd
choose) possible and fairly easy. This can and has resulted in some
great focused efforts, but has also created some massive Echo Chambers...

Well put, Bob; I'll try crafting a question around that.

His Hyper Car concept was to be a great technological leap, but they
are not aircraft or spacecraft and they still do not exist...

E.Swanson, this is probably where technological possibility collides with market economics. I think Lovins believes that the technology for the Hypercar exists. With the expert panel's apparent blinders to energy constraints (they're aware of climate change), I'm not sure they would have predicted a breakthrough for the Hypercar. But now I'm putting words in my interviewee's mouth.. This would be another fruitful line of questioning.