My pessimism is supported by a simple historical observation. The achievements of the last 25 years were actually not that big a deal compared with what we did in the preceding 25 years, 1961-1986 (e.g. landing men on the moon). And the 25 years before that, 1935-1960, were even more impressive (e.g. splitting the atom). In the words of Peter Thiel, perhaps the lone skeptic within a hundred miles of Palo Alto: In our youth we were promised flying cars. What did we get? 140 characters.

This really bothers me. Its a very, VERY lazy approach to history and is not at all representative of what technological history is. It violates a very basic principle of examining the past, which is that the importance of the events at the time were not known to be all that important in the majority of cases.

Let me explain. History is not a line; it is a web of events which rapidly expands from a relatively small number of ideas and questions to the vast quantity of information we now have today. Each event leads to hundreds, sometimes thousands or even millions of other events that directly relate to it. These events in turn lead to other significant events, until you reach the modern day. Looking back, we can see all of these events and pinpoint which ones are the most significant.

Splitting the Atom is significant for obvious reasons, but is it more significant than landing a man on the moon? Well, how are you judging that? Is it by the number of events that indirectly relate to it? How many degrees of removal? If you look at ALL of the effects of splitting the atom, from when it was done until today, yes, it looks more significant than the moon landing because its had more events spring from it.

But you don't know what the future holds. Maybe the moon landing is actually the single most significant event in modern human history, beyond ANYTHING we could imagine. Who knows? I don't. Niall Ferguson clearly doesn't, and really nobody does.

So saying that the computer, the internet, cellphones, everything that is being developed today is insignificant compared to the events of yesterday is a fundamentally flawed view of history. dead5 touches on this in another post, I just wanted to expand further on this.

Can I also just say that Niall Ferguson really doesn't seem to know what he's talking about when it comes to politics, and clearly hasn't bothered to learn from history at any point. Let's look at four great empires which have existed, and I'll try and make this quick. Specifically, let's look at their falls.

1. Roman Empire; immensely powerful and rich, but stagnant after decades of poor leadership, increasing tax rate and inability to adapt to new peoples outside of Rome. Tax rate eventually leads to normal citizens welcoming the Vandals and the Visigoths because at least they won't fleece you for everything you're worth.

2. Spanish Empire. Lasts several decades, built entirely on immense wealth of a previously unknown continent from Europe's P.O.V. Falls due to increasing political instability in Spain and a burgeoning national identity in Latin America, as well as the rise of a large foreign power in Britain. Speaking of Britain....

3. British Empire. Well run empire; takes both colonies and trade agreements, meaning profit does not necessarily mean military involvement. Loses a few colonies over time but is otherwise incredibly stable for a very long time. Eventual fall due to inability to maintain colonies due to one of the most expensive wars in human history, World War 1, followed immediately by a second devastating war, World War 2.

The fourth is the American Empire, which so barely exists in the traditional sense of an Empire that its not even worth using. There's minimal military involvement, especially in the modern day; politically, the U.S. does not control countries, and instead opts for the economic approach. Regardless of what you think of this, its a very effective way to exert power over other people.

Its costs almost nothing to maintain economic connections with countries and stimulates quite a bit of trade. Combine that with a system of government which can adapt rather well, and you actually have a pretty stable system to build off of. The major flaw at the moment is that the budget is not regulated enough to be balanced. Under George H. Bush, with the Pay-As-You-Go policy, it brought the budget in line with how the system works; slowly. Need a project? Raise taxes.

America has had a peaceful exchange of regimes since 1865. Almost no other country has even close to that record, and there's a reason for it. America is going to be the gung-ho industrial nation of post-World War 2 Earth, but to say its collapsing on anywhere near the level that other Empires hit is probably one of the dumbest things I've heard come out of someone's mouth.

A bit of both. I am a technoptimist when it comes to what I think we will achieve, but a depressimist when it comes to what I think the result might be.

Also, I think people often under-estimate the time it takes to get a new technology to market in a way that affects us all. The inventors always imagine 5-10 years, but it's usually more like 20-30.

As an aside, I never wanted a flying car, and never expected one. Unless we have extremely cheap energy, they would be a collossal waste of it.

My prediction is that in the next 25 years Call of Duty will be enabled with a feature that allows the user to absorb nutrition from food sources he finds in the game and to have the feeling of banging the destitute whores he finds scattered throughout the virtual wastelands, making it so no men actually have to get off the couch ever again.

So I would say I'm a pessimist, but many guys I know would say I'm an optimist.

Does anyone else feel like while we're all sitting around waiting for "the future" to happen, Google is out there doing it?