I’ve just been watching a film
clip from 1964, made by the science fiction guru Arthur C Clarke. It is really
strange to watch this clip, which is from a BBC programme entitled Mysterious
World. Clarke, who died at the age of 90 in 2008 had a great knack for
predicting what the future would have in store for us. In this particular video
he points out that those who predict the future are caught between two stools.
On the one hand if they are too conservative, natural technical advancement
will soon make their predictions seem pedestrian, whereas if they really push
the bounds of what might take place, they will be seen in their own time as
being lunatics.
Back in 1964, Clarke was talking
about cities of the future, and was postulating what might take place after the
year 2,000. In fact he was talking 50 years into the future – so actually about
now. A little sadly, for Clarke’s reputation, what he had to say doesn’t sound
at all revolutionary now but that is because even those of us who were alive in
1964 have forgotten what life was really like then.
When talking of the future city
Arthur C Clarke suggested that by the turn of 2,000, cities would not really be
needed at all. This he put down to the revolution that would take place in
communication. He suggested that it would be possible to undertake business
from absolutely any place on the planet and to talk (as good as face to face)
from any point on the Earth to any other point. He even suggested that there
would come a time when a brain surgeon in London would be able to operate on a
patient in New Zealand.
How utterly remarkable and even
outlandish this would have sounded in 1964, whereas now it doesn’t sound
remarkable in the least – because with the exception of the brain surgeon
(which is only a matter of a short time) it is happening exactly as Clarke
predicted. The city is indeed becoming a much less important feature on our
landscapes than it once was. Even shops are gradually becoming redundant in the
face of Internet purchases.
Clarke usually got things right
but occasionally he was completely wrong. But did everything Arthur C Clarke
envisage come out of his own head? In my next blog I want to suggest that in at
least one case, and perhaps also in many more, he might have had some
assistance.
No comments:
Post a Comment