What is a reasonable Sci Fi technology we should have now?

[Doctor Amadeus]

What is a reasonable Sci Fi technology we should have now that we don’t

I would say a sonic shower from TNG. With how valuable water is and cleaning. I think the Sonic Shower would be very useful.

[PC2]

What is a reasonable Sci Fi technology we should have now that we don’t

If something was truly reasonable in 2020 then we would already have it...

What you might mean is what technology should we have if the last 10k years of human history was only about constructive activities instead of destruction/war/violence. In that case I would guess that we should have many things such as;

-Driverless automobiles (easiest example)
-Realistic VR
-General purpose quantum computers
-Fusion powerplants
-Cheap desalination and indoors agriculture that produces food 20x faster and cheaper.

[Puupi]

Three seashells.

[Soulwind]

Three seashells.

We ran out of TP because of Corona and...

[monkfailz]

I want Tony Stark's Hologram Technology.

[Thekri]

If something was truly reasonable in 2020 then we would already have it...

What you might mean is what technology should we have if the last 10k years of human history was only about constructive activities instead of destruction/war/violence. In that case I would guess that we should have many things such as;

-Driverless automobiles (easiest example)
-Realistic VR
-General purpose quantum computers
-Fusion powerplants
-Cheap desalination and indoors agriculture that produces food 20x faster and cheaper.

If the last 10k year of human history was only about constructive activities instead of destruction/war/violence, then we might have such wonderful technologies as clay irrigation pipes, and we might have managed to domesticate chickens by now. Not much else though.

-Metallurgy was driven by warfare, tool use for new metals usually followed widespread adoption of it for weapons
-The spread of large animal domestication, such as horses, was entirely for military purposes. Without warfare, they would have remained in the few environments suitable for them (And they would be pony sized still).
-Ship technology would be about the same as 2000 BC still. All shipbuilding advances have been naval advances. All of them. Without the technology derived from naval conflict, we wouldn't have the shipping capacity we have now. Without that shipping capacity, international trade of bulk materials would be impossible, restricting every culture to the resources that were immediately available.

Instead of having realistic VR, a fully peaceful history would result in stone age stagnation. Without conflict, there is little incentive to develop, and the default status of the human race is technological stagnation, not exponential growth. In ~300,000 years of Homo Sapiens, the exponential technology growth has really only occurred in the last 500 years. The 10k years before that saw nearly as many technological regressions as advances, and both were driven by conflict. Without conflict, each human settlement would be forced to survive from their own local area, without clashing with their neighbors for resources. That means stone age tech is all we would ever need (Which was still pretty damn OP, we would have slaughtered all the megafauna with it anyway)

[Auxora]

Maybe not really sci-fi, but I'd say fusion power and solar power are the big things that 30-40 years ago were often said to be just about to breakthrough and revolutionize society. A lot of people thought the fission power plants would be long gone replaced with clean fusion plants by now. There are experiments here and there, but fusion power is still a long ways off from being practical.

Solar power is a bit different in that the tech has actually improved significantly. Solar cells back in the 70's were lucky to be 10% efficient, and today's solar panels are closer to 25%. So that's why they are more feasible with large solar farms especially in the SouthWest US. But like fusion power, the dream of clean solar energy replacing fission fuels hasn't happened. The efficiency is still far too low to run cars/trucks, ships, or planes. Even small things that use a fair amount of energy like cell phones aren't even solar powered yet. For household items solar is still barely used for more than calculators.

[Mayhem]

If the last 10k year of human history was only about constructive activities instead of destruction/war/violence, then we might have such wonderful technologies as clay irrigation pipes, and we might have managed to domesticate chickens by now. Not much else though.

-Metallurgy was driven by warfare, tool use for new metals usually followed widespread adoption of it for weapons
-The spread of large animal domestication, such as horses, was entirely for military purposes. Without warfare, they would have remained in the few environments suitable for them (And they would be pony sized still).
-Ship technology would be about the same as 2000 BC still. All shipbuilding advances have been naval advances. All of them. Without the technology derived from naval conflict, we wouldn't have the shipping capacity we have now. Without that shipping capacity, international trade of bulk materials would be impossible, restricting every culture to the resources that were immediately available.

Instead of having realistic VR, a fully peaceful history would result in stone age stagnation. Without conflict, there is little incentive to develop, and the default status of the human race is technological stagnation, not exponential growth. In ~300,000 years of Homo Sapiens, the exponential technology growth has really only occurred in the last 500 years. The 10k years before that saw nearly as many technological regressions as advances, and both were driven by conflict. Without conflict, each human settlement would be forced to survive from their own local area, without clashing with their neighbors for resources. That means stone age tech is all we would ever need (Which was still pretty damn OP, we would have slaughtered all the megafauna with it anyway)

It's impossible to imagine what we would have if we focused on constructive activities instead of destructive ones. But one thing is certain, you are wrong about the bolded part we would still be hunter-gatherers if you were right.

[Thekri]

It's impossible to imagine what we would have if we focused on constructive activities instead of destructive ones. But one thing is certain, you are wrong about the bolded part we would still be hunter-gatherers if you were right.

Well, if you are speculating on the existence of driver of technology that is equally effective, then sure. But we don't actually know of one.

The bolded is not wrong, you are confusing a default state with a universal constant. Obviously we are not all hunter gatherers because various drivers (Mostly conflict, but also natural disasters, etc) forced into changing our default state. In parts of the world where those drivers were not significantly at play, humans are still Hunter-Gatherers to this day. There was no incentive for many indigenous people to develop out of the stone age, so they didn't. Those people are every bit as intelligent and sophisticated as anyone else, and when the outside world introduced those drivers to their culture, they adapted just like everyone else.

"Default" does not mean "Permeant". It means "In absence of external factors".

[Mayhem]

Well, if you are speculating on the existence of driver of technology that is equally effective, then sure. But we don't actually know of one.

The bolded is not wrong, you are confusing a default state with a universal constant. Obviously we are not all hunter gatherers because various drivers (Mostly conflict, but also natural disasters, etc) forced into changing our default state. In parts of the world where those drivers were not significantly at play, humans are still Hunter-Gatherers to this day. There was no incentive for many indigenous people to develop out of the stone age, so they didn't. Those people are every bit as intelligent and sophisticated as anyone else, and when the outside world introduced those drivers to their culture, they adapted just like everyone else.

"Default" does not mean "Permeant". It means "In absence of external factors".

If you'd replace the incentive that by your explanation was the biggest or most influential drive for human development with something different it still would lead to human development, it just wouldn't be used for war. The problems that were solved with inventions would still need to be solved at some point.

Indigenous people mostly don't have the means to develop out of the stone age, be it because they are secluded or because they lack the resources. It's pretty hard to develop metallurgy when living on an island without any ore, that however didn't keep them from fighting each other. Somehow their destructive activities did not help them develop past the stone age. I am not aware of any indigenous people that did not develop some form of agriculture.

[BlackDruid96]

What is a reasonable Sci Fi technology we should have now that we don’t

I would say a sonic shower from TNG. With how valuable water is and cleaning. I think the Sonic Shower would be very useful.

I am hoping for better wireless power.

[Thekri]

If you'd replace the incentive that by your explanation was the biggest or most influential drive for human development with something different it still would lead to human development, it just wouldn't be used for war. The problems that were solved with inventions would still need to be solved at some point.

Well yeah, that is my point. In order to make it work out in the same way, you have to invent a new human motivation. In which case, sure, that would work. Don't know what that would be, but if there was one, that would obviously be better.

Indigenous people mostly don't have the means to develop out of the stone age, be it because they are secluded or because they lack the resources. It's pretty hard to develop metallurgy when living on an island without any ore, that however didn't keep them from fighting each other. Somehow their destructive activities did not help them develop past the stone age. I am not aware of any indigenous people that did not develop some form of agriculture.

Ridiculous, they absolutely have the resources to do so. Australia has an abundance of resources, yet its population remained firmly in the stone age until the arrival of Europeans. The reason is relatively simple, because the problems that things like metallurgy and aircraft "Solve" are not problems in the first place. They knew the solutions to all the problems they were normally faced with, so they simply handed down those solutions and kept the same technology level for thousands of years.

If you need to cook a meal, you don't go invent a new stove, you just rely on whatever solution your society has already developed for that. If your culture uses fire pits, or ash cooking, or clay ovens, or microwaves, you just use whatever you were taught to use. You don't advance technology every time you get hungry. "Necessity is the mother of invention" is a very real thing. You invent things primarily to solve problems you don't have a solution for. Indigenous people tend to have solutions for everything, regardless of if they work or not. Every new technology creates new problems to be solved, so you need more technology to solve those, and so forth.

Conflict is the main driver for this, because it can invest in the future in ways that would not be profitable otherwise. Take steam turbines for example. The theory has been understood for hundreds of years, but it really wasn't practical to build them, because the first ones would always be expensive, dangerous, and inefficient. There were plenty of civilian experiments with it, but the technology was never going to go anywhere, because steam turbines were much more expensive then sails or oars, and really weren't any better. Conflict changed that. In order to put more armor on a ship, it needed more power then sails or oars could provide, so Navies invested in ever increasing turbine tech. Then they made bigger guns, to go through that more armor, so then ships needed more armor, and so forth. Once the navy developed the technology to a certain point, it started being good enough for civilian ships. Then when civilian ships started widely using it, shipping costs plummeted, and literally everything got cheaper, because everything was cheaper to move. And so forth. However, if you are a stone age community, you don't need a steamship. Or lower shipping costs. Or bigger cannons. Or armor.

[Mayhem]

Ridiculous, they absolutely have the resources to do so. Australia has an abundance of resources, yet its population remained firmly in the stone age until the arrival of Europeans. The reason is relatively simple, because the problems that things like metallurgy and aircraft "Solve" are not problems in the first place. They knew the solutions to all the problems they were normally faced with, so they simply handed down those solutions and kept the same technology level for thousands of years.

So either you're saying they had no conflicts until Europeans arrived or their conflicts somehow weren't an incentive to develop.

If you need to cook a meal, you don't go invent a new stove, you just rely on whatever solution your society has already developed for that. If your culture uses fire pits, or ash cooking, or clay ovens, or microwaves, you just use whatever you were taught to use. You don't advance technology every time you get hungry. "Necessity is the mother of invention" is a very real thing. You invent things primarily to solve problems you don't have a solution for. Indigenous people tend to have solutions for everything, regardless of if they work or not. Every new technology creates new problems to be solved, so you need more technology to solve those, and so forth.

You need to invent new forms of cooking because your society grows larger, not because of conflict. Conflicts are great in helping develop stuff that does not need to last very long.

Conflict is the main driver for this, because it can invest in the future in ways that would not be profitable otherwise. Take steam turbines for example. The theory has been understood for hundreds of years, but it really wasn't practical to build them, because the first ones would always be expensive, dangerous, and inefficient. There were plenty of civilian experiments with it, but the technology was never going to go anywhere, because steam turbines were much more expensive then sails or oars, and really weren't any better. Conflict changed that. In order to put more armor on a ship, it needed more power then sails or oars could provide, so Navies invested in ever increasing turbine tech. Then they made bigger guns, to go through that more armor, so then ships needed more armor, and so forth. Once the navy developed the technology to a certain point, it started being good enough for civilian ships. Then when civilian ships started widely using it, shipping costs plummeted, and literally everything got cheaper, because everything was cheaper to move. And so forth. However, if you are a stone age community, you don't need a steamship. Or lower shipping costs. Or bigger cannons. Or armor.

I couldn't find anything about the parsons' turbine being invented because of conflict.

I'd say the biggest driving factor in human development would be society.

[Adam Jensen]

Automated cars. This is the technology I look forward to the most. I hate driving, I find it dull and boring. I'd rather tell my car where to go, and then power up Netflix and watch a movie.

[Mihalik]

Widespread use of the generation, distribution and use of energy derived from renewable sources.

This because the technology exists, it is available, it is affordable and it is mature. Not having it is primarily a political choice not an economic or a technological limitation.

[PC2]

If the last 10k year of human history was only about constructive activities instead of destruction/war/violence, then we might have such wonderful technologies as clay irrigation pipes, and we might have managed to domesticate chickens by now. Not much else though.

-Metallurgy was driven by warfare, tool use for new metals usually followed widespread adoption of it for weapons
-The spread of large animal domestication, such as horses, was entirely for military purposes. Without warfare, they would have remained in the few environments suitable for them (And they would be pony sized still).
-Ship technology would be about the same as 2000 BC still. All shipbuilding advances have been naval advances. All of them. Without the technology derived from naval conflict, we wouldn't have the shipping capacity we have now. Without that shipping capacity, international trade of bulk materials would be impossible, restricting every culture to the resources that were immediately available.

Instead of having realistic VR, a fully peaceful history would result in stone age stagnation. Without conflict, there is little incentive to develop, and the default status of the human race is technological stagnation, not exponential growth. In ~300,000 years of Homo Sapiens, the exponential technology growth has really only occurred in the last 500 years. The 10k years before that saw nearly as many technological regressions as advances, and both were driven by conflict. Without conflict, each human settlement would be forced to survive from their own local area, without clashing with their neighbors for resources. That means stone age tech is all we would ever need (Which was still pretty damn OP, we would have slaughtered all the megafauna with it anyway)

Anything that can be invented because of the pressure of war can be invented in principle in a 100% peaceful scenario. However I very much agree with your overall point that war sped-up many innovations, because nothing quite motivates people more than not being killed in the future.

I know VR tech is pretty much still in its infancy by comparison, but the little bit of time I've spent dicking around with a VR headset at a friend's house made me think that something like a Holodeck may not be too far out of reach.

Yeah and any sensory experience that can be experienced normally can be artificially reproduced with the right technology.

[Fencers]

Driverless cars/buses/trains widely available in the US.

I always thought we would have some dedicated street lane on the roads for automated buses and cars. Where they would stop at predetermined locations. Passengers can just stand at one of these stops, swipe their ride pass, press a little button on a stop sign or something and the next available car or bus would pull over.

My thinking is regular human-driven traffic could continue it's chaotic and dangerous AF pace on a whole separated side of the road. Like how those concrete barriers split highways. While automated vehicles could travel a set and safe path.

Edit: I don't know how to drive a vehicle. So I am not sure what the pitfalls of such a system would be to regular traffic.

[Zan15]

What is a reasonable Sci Fi technology we should have now that we don’t

I would say a sonic shower from TNG. With how valuable water is and cleaning. I think the Sonic Shower would be very useful.

Much wider availability of Genetically enhanced products and treatments.

But you know...umm....science bad....god fearing people....conspiracy right wing nuts....etc etc.

Mini reactors, but ^^^ see above....

[Ghostpanther]

The Star Trek phaser with stun setting. Which actually has a 99.9% chance of disabling a target. Instantly. I hate the thought of taking another life. I know they have tasers and such. But those are not all that effective in some cases and the damn wires, with the probes, can be useless if the person is wearing a heavy coat. Pepper spray also has it's disadvantages.

[Tuor]

In the 60's it was common sense that by the end of the century everyone would be driving nuclear powered vehicles. For obvious reasons, that never happened.

What is sci-fi today, often turns into a de facto impossibility.