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

[Daedius]

Where's my flying car we were promised we'd have in 2020?!

[zhero]

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.

he said reasonable, even if something like phaser tech was real, it would still just be considered "less lethal" like tasers.

[Felya]

That’s a trick question... if we are missing a variable for this technology, how is any technology derived from it, reasonable? I think a better question is what technology we already have, that could lead to Sci Fi stuff.

[PC2]

Where's my flying car we were promised we'd have in 2020?!

[video=youtube;tTq6Tofmo7E]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTq6Tofmo7E[video]

Casual and cheap flying cars are a long ways off but I've been seeing more people flying on drones so maybe those will become more safe and reliable in the next 20 years.

---

[Daedius]

Yeeeesh, I wouldn't use THAT thing in a million years...

[Thekri]

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



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.



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.

You are not wrong, and those are fine points. I recognize I am over generalizing, but I do hold that conflict is the single largest driver of technological advancement, although it is not the only one. The one specific to turbines is their development, not their invention. Conflict leads to more rapid development, but only rarely completely new technologies.

Anyway, on topic: I think the most plausible and useful sci-fi techs we could have is underwater habitation and farming. If we had chosen to pursue that route in the early 1900s, we could have cities scattered across the continental shelf all around the world, safe from hurricanes and most other natural disasters. We could have gotten our food supply from algae, instead of from artificial ammonia based fertilizers, developed safer and more practical submarines and so forth. All the technology has been doable in theory since the late 1800s, hence Jules Verne writing about it. But we never pursued it, which might be for the best, or not. We aren't likely to find out.

[PC2]

Yeeeesh, I wouldn't use THAT thing in a million years...

I would love to fly around if it was safe! I had just seen a new video of a person casually flying on a different drone a week ago and it was way more smooth and stable and the person wasn't even using a helmet and boots that fully lock in. I went to Twitter to grab the video but they had taken it down.

he said reasonable, even if something like phaser tech was real, it would still just be considered "less lethal" like tasers.

Tasers use barbs which aren't always reliable and they're connected to copper wires. One of those electrical zappy guns from Stargate would be ideal.

[Theodarzna]

Honestly that we haven't really built Arcologies yet. I believe we have the technical ability to do so.

[Ghostpanther]

he said reasonable, even if something like phaser tech was real, it would still just be considered "less lethal" like tasers.

I know. I think it is reasonable. If it was that accurate as I mentioned in stopping a threat, then I would certainly prefer to use it than carry my firearm for self defense. Less lethal items we have now, do not have that high of level of stopping a threat. And esp. if the attacker is also armed with a firearm. Then you are at a disadvantage.

With the phaser, with 99.9% effective rate, you would be on equal terms without taking a life. More than likely would have a advantage over someone with a firearm, because they do not have that high of success rate at stopping a deadly attack. Only about 1/3 of people who are shot, die. And in many cases, they can still be a threat even after they are shot. Many videos of criminals still attacking after they had been shot several times exists.

[Fincayra]

Seriously going for manned space travel is going to leap our technology forward quite quickly. And I'm not talking about faster computers, cooler looking cars, and such. I'm talking about space elevators, moon bases and lighter, faster rockets. Aerogel being used for insulation will save tons of space already, it is just expensive as hell to make right now.

[Goldielocks]

This is sort of off topic in a sense, but I think technological progress has not progressed in the last decade as fast as it had the decade before, largely due to the fact that companies don't need to innovate in order to sell their products. Like for smartphones, most substantial upgrades are camera related. So in the same vein, I feel like we could have widely more intricate phones, but just don't because there's no incentive. There is a massive difference between the first iPhone and the 6th, but minimal differences between the 6th and the current one. PPI has barely changed, the internals have only gradually increased but that's expected. Nothing exciting.

There's also an argument to be made about how energy production in sci-fi is much higher than ours, and the only way to get that is through the use of Nuclear/Solar/Wind simultaneously to achieve it. However, the fear-mongering of Nuclear has held back the field immensely.

[PC2]

Honestly that we haven't really built Arcologies yet. I believe we have the technical ability to do so.

Ah yeah that's one reason why I put "indoors agriculture" on my sci-fi list. Arcology is a self-sustaining or self-contained mega city which means that society must learn to internalize production. Probably we would have to make a project like that work on Earth before we could truly start space colonization.

[Fincayra]

This is sort of off topic in a sense, but I think technological progress has not progressed in the last decade as fast as it had the decade before, largely due to the fact that companies don't need to innovate in order to sell their products. Like for smartphones, most substantial upgrades are camera related. So in the same vein, I feel like we could have widely more intricate phones, but just don't because there's no incentive. There is a massive difference between the first iPhone and the 6th, but minimal differences between the 6th and the current one. PPI has barely changed, the internals have only gradually increased but that's expected. Nothing exciting.

There's also an argument to be made about how energy production in sci-fi is much higher than ours, and the only way to get that is through the use of Nuclear/Solar/Wind simultaneously to achieve it. However, the fear-mongering of Nuclear has held back the field immensely.

Why take a giant step forward when you can take a baby step and then sell that product for 1k+?

[Ripster42]

Anyway, on topic: I think the most plausible and useful sci-fi techs we could have is underwater habitation and farming. If we had chosen to pursue that route in the early 1900s, we could have cities scattered across the continental shelf all around the world, safe from hurricanes and most other natural disasters. We could have gotten our food supply from algae, instead of from artificial ammonia based fertilizers, developed safer and more practical submarines and so forth. All the technology has been doable in theory since the late 1800s, hence Jules Verne writing about it. But we never pursued it, which might be for the best, or not. We aren't likely to find out.

Eh, there's a few reasons we didn't develop underwater cities.

Pressure is no joke, even at a depth of 30', and you'd need to be double that to really avoid hurricanes.
Catastrophic failure risk.
Cost of maintenance and supplies. The logistics of just air are pretty crazy unless we developed some magic building material where you didn't need to pressurize the compartments. Let alone the difference between how corrosive air and salt water are.
Continental shelves are generally in seismically active areas.

The benefit (as far as I can see) is basically just ignoring the surface weather. Not really a good trade off. If you've got some other benefits in mind, what would they be?

I am, obviously, separating aquaculture and underwater cities.

[Felya]

The benefit (as far as I can see) is basically just ignoring the surface weather. Not really a good trade off. If you've got some other benefits in mind, what would they be?

Habitable land? We are talking about populating the universe, before we populated most of the earth. We have not tapped full potential of earth... It also why we are around .60 on the Kardeshev scale... we have not even tapped the full energy potential of the planet and none of the current means are sustainable to even reach Tier 1...

[kail]

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.

So here's a hypothetical question for you. If we did perfect a "stun gun" that has a 99.99% success rate, should we still allow lethal firearm possession?

OT: Like others have said, automated transportation. The human element is the main cause of automobile deaths because of an idiot behind a wheel or intoxication. A synchronized network of vehicles would likely save thousands of lives while providing the practicality of doing something else while getting from point A to B.

[Puupi]

Honestly that we haven't really built Arcologies yet. I believe we have the technical ability to do so.

Arcology, my favourite spire in Surviving Mars.

[XDurionX]

Arcology, my favourite spire in Surviving Mars.

Yeah, there's no match for it, sometimes use the sanatorium or the medical one. But nothing saves as much space and opens up as much options as the acrology spire, especially in basic domes. Great game, and great DLC.

[Puupi]

Yeah, there's no match for it, sometimes use the sanatorium or the medical one. But nothing saves as much space and opens up as much options as the acrology spire, especially in basic domes. Great game, and great DLC.

Yes, I wish they had continued making more DLC's.

I only use Arcology until I start making combined megacolonies that have an extensive pathway network and then dip those other spires in.

[The Butt Witch]

Lightspeed engines.
Energy weapons.
Sonic weapons.
Power armors.