The year 2000 as seen from the year 1900

There are few things as fascinating as seeing what people in the past dreamed about the future.

"France in the Year 2000" is one example. The series of paintings, made by Jean-Marc Côté and other French artists in 1899, 1900, 1901 and 1910, shows artist depictions of what life might look like in the year 2000. The first series of images were printed and enclosed in cigarette and cigar boxes around the time of the 1900 World Exhibition in Paris, according to the Public Domain Review, then later turned into postcards.

Lots of their ideas involve mechanized devices, flying, or a combination of the two. Some, strangely, involve people interacting in a very close and personal way with marine life. As Open Culture points out, however, there are no images of space travel.

I thought this was very interesting. It is a journey through what people in the year 1900 thought the world would be in the year 2000. Some of the things they suggested were pretty funny and some were really very good. I found it enjoyable to take a look at our time through their eyes.

And it made me wonder...what do you think the year 3000 will look like?

link

I love the 'Aerial Fireman' idea!
Fun Thread. Thanks for sharing this.

The year 3000 will look like this.

It seems to be a common theme among futurists of any age to overestimate how far down a particular technological path we'll go, in terms of how it affects the world as far as the "look and feel" of a future era goes. E.g. we imagined we'd have flying cars by now. And evidently people in 1900 imagined there would be airships everywhere. (They were sort of right, except it became planes instead.)

We've advanced considerably technologically, but instead of cities looking like Blade Runner, they look... well... pretty much the same as they always have, with the exception of sky rises and electrical/telephone lines. Increasingly I wonder if it isn't more likely that technology will not become ever more outwardly visible, but simply more granular and capable "in place," in the footprint it already occupies... or smaller.

That is to say, instead of flying cars filling the skies, robots walking around alongside people, and cyborgs with punk hairdos everywhere, we might simply end up with super intelligent hand-held devices, a small number of flying cars used for specialized tasks (with the rest being drones, ala what Amazon has in the works currently,) and robots only really existing frequently in hospitals, factories, and large specialized corporate environments.

From the outside, cities and towns might look very much the same in the year 3,000 as they do now. Only when we zoom down to the individual level would things be strikingly apparent in their technological transformation. Instead of driving, cars will drive us. Instead of having computers in our desks, we'll have them in our hands, strapped to our wrists, or displayed across our field of vision, and they'll be exponentially more powerful than now (possibly quantum in nature.) Etc.

But when we go outside and look up... nothing much will have changed. As someone who likes cyberpunk ambiance, that's a little disappointing lol.

Peace

Depends on whether or not we figure out how to act responsible for ourselves and our planet.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

Great find!

originally posted by: AceWombat04
It seems to be a common theme among futurists of any age to overestimate how far down a particular technological path we'll go, in terms of how it affects the world as far as the "look and feel" of a future era goes. E.g. we imagined we'd have flying cars by now. And evidently people in 1900 imagined there would be airships everywhere. (They were sort of right, except it became planes instead.)

We've advanced considerably technologically, but instead of cities looking like Blade Runner, they look... well... pretty much the same as they always have, with the exception of sky rises and electrical/telephone lines. Increasingly I wonder if it isn't more likely that technology will not become ever more outwardly visible, but simply more granular and capable "in place," in the footprint it already occupies... or smaller.

(....)

Peace

Some nice thoughts.

There's so mcuh to say. A book could be written about this. So much, my God!! I don't know where to start.

We don't just overestimate certain technologies or trends, but I think we also miss things altogether. A lot of early 20th century science fiction, for example, missed the advent and evolution of computers to mobile devices almost entirely, while greatly expanding the role of robots and mechanical machines. And because much of it missed information technologies they also missed the internet, meaning they did not see social networks like Facebook or remote surgery or online news or online anything! And these have had extensive impacts on the world.

BUT not everyone missed the large role computers would play. In fact, mechanical computing was a common practice in the late 19th and early 20th century. Even as early as the 1820's, Charles Babbage had realized the potential power of a general computing device. He went on to make a prototype for an "analytical engine" or a general purpose mechanical computer. Of course, mechanical calculators started to become popular in the mid to late 19th century and early 20th century, so people became well aware of the power of computing. They even used these mechanical devices on warships to calculate trajectory. I did read there were people speculating about an internet as early as the 1940's. Arthur C. Clark is one of the few science fiction writers I know of who, thanks to his early work on the theory of putting satellites into orbit, was privy to the ramifications of information technology and it DID inject itself into his work.

And check this out, circa 1770's:
That video still causes my brain to choke on itself. So no doubt all the signs were there but they were overlooked! Keep this in mind the next time you examine a technology and do not think it's important.

originally posted by: proob4
The year 3000 will look like this.

I salute your optimism!

I see this as a more likely future.





www.youtube.com...

I have to admit, when I asked the question, "what do you think the year 3000 will look like", I had two scenes firmly in place. One was a high tech wonderland and the other was a desert wasteland. I think its 50-50 right now...

originally posted by: IAMTAT
I love the 'Aerial Fireman' idea!
Fun Thread. Thanks for sharing this.

I know what you mean. I like this kind of stuff. I always was a bit nostalgic, and I always have an eye on tomorrow. This is kind of future nostalgia...the best of both worlds. Perfect for dreamers...

a reply to: Vroomfondel

Very cool... S&F

Apparently back then they thought all we needed to do is add some wings and everything will fly...

I so want to see a whale bus though lol

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: Vroomfondel

Very cool... S&F

Apparently back then they thought all we needed to do is add some wings and everything will fly...

I so want to see a whale bus though lol

I know...lol

They had a real fascination with sea life. I had no idea. Although, I guess it makes sense. 20,000 Leagues Under The Sea was published in 1870. So give it 30 years to permeate society and inspire their imaginations, and there you have it.

I loved the idea of riding the giant sea horses...

Every historical era envisioned a future that was the result of contemporary trends continuing and intensifying. So yes, in the age when powered flight was cutting-edge technology, futurists imagined airborne cars and flying traffic policemen. Notice how fashions in those pictures don't seem to have changed much in a hundred years; the flying people and cops are still dressed in fin-de-siècle styles.

Today's futurists imagine a confluence of technology and biology that will transform an intensely networked world. So today's futures are all virtual reality and cyborgs and transhumanism. Essentially, they are linear extrapolations of current trends. This is true even of those who preach a forthcoming technosocial 'singularity'.

Futurists are always wrong. There are two reasons for this.

One is that history is rarely comprised of unbroken sequences of events. There are accidents, disjunctions, technological game-changers, unforeseen calamities. Nobody can possibly predict these, so we cannot account for their effects on history.

The second reason is more subtle. It was, as far as I know, first pointed out by that well-known futurist, Arthur C. Clarke. The human imagination extrapolates linearly, but the curve of scientific and technological progress has been exponential. Hence we always think the future will be less different from the present than it eventually turns out to be.

originally posted by: Astyanax
Every historical era envisioned a future that was the result of contemporary trends continuing and intensifying. So yes, in the age when powered flight was cutting-edge technology, futurists imagined airborne cars and flying traffic policemen. Notice how fashions in those pictures don't seem to have changed much in a hundred years; the flying people and cops are still dressed in fin-de-siècle styles.

Today's futurists imagine a confluence of technology and biology that will transform an intensely networked world. So today's futures are all virtual reality and cyborgs and transhumanism. Essentially, they are linear extrapolations of current trends. This is true even of those who preach a forthcoming technosocial 'singularity'.

Futurists are always wrong. There are two reasons for this.

One is that history is rarely comprised of unbroken sequences of events. There are accidents, disjunctions, technological game-changers, unforeseen calamities. Nobody can possibly predict these, so we cannot account for their effects on history.

The second reason is more subtle. It was, as far as I know, first pointed out by that well-known futurist, Arthur C. Clarke. The human imagination extrapolates linearly, but the curve of scientific and technological progress has been exponential. Hence we always think the future will be less different from the present than it eventually turns out to be.

Great observations. I didn't notice the clothing. Good catch!

The observations by Clarke have to be taken into consideration when you talk about the future, he having created and predicted so much of it. But he doesn't take into consideration the Einstein thought process. It accounts for exactly what he described as the failure of people thinking linearly. This process, though not attributed directly to Einstein, was said to be more of an estimation of how his mind worked. It involved taking every conceivable path from a given point, and following them through to an end. Of course, from any point there are billions of possibilities. It takes someone like Einstein to sort out the less likely and resolve down to the handful of those whom possess the attributes he desired.

Impossible? Possibly. But if you can manage it, or even come close, you will find yourself envisioning potential outcomes you had not even considered previously. Its fun to play with, but you can give yourself a cognitive hernia if you aren't careful... lol

originally posted by: jonnywhite

There's so mcuh to say. A book could be written about this. So much, my God!! I don't know where to start.

We don't just overestimate certain technologies or trends, but I think we also miss things altogether.

I completely agree with your whole post (only shortened for the sake of brevity.)

Peace.

ETA: Though, I would argue Star Trek TNG at least offered a tangential glimpse into mobile devices. Some of their hand-held devices looked an awful lot like today's nooks, kindles, and tablets. (And the communicator could even be argued to be an example of a "wearable" lol.) It also seems to be one of the only - if not the only - work of sci-fi that presaged the inclination toward flat, multi-touch interfaces with bright, rounded, colorful icons. Skipped right over Windows and went straight to something akin to iOS lol. (Not exactly, but still.)