Talk:Timeline of the future in forecasts

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 5 April 2008. The result of the discussion was keep.

Contents

[edit] Removed section

I took out the below because it doesn't seem encyclopedic to me. Any thoughts? Secretcurse 16:56, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
John-1107 15 Jan 2005 (UTC):This section refers to what i will do in the future so this concerns everybody else too. So please Secretcurse i'm not insane! And stop interfering me as if y'all are not friendly and always misunderstand me so y'all will kick me out of Wikipedia.

John, I really don't want to kick you off and I don't think you're insane, I just don't think your plans belong in the article. I plan to write a novel and a nonfiction book or three, that doesn't mean I can add myself to lists of American writers.Secretcurse 22:54, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)


==If User:John-1107 completes school and college (please note that all of the events are unexpectedly subject to change)...==
===Artificial Intelligence, robotics, and Biology===
  • 2016-2050 - Create various half-human and half-AI and half-animal,half-human, and half-AI races and sentient nonhuman robots for household, business, and the military.
===Space and Time Travel===
  • 2021 - Conduct experiments on time travel to find out if time travel can become a reality.
-Upon Humankind's first landing on Mars, he will continue on in a spaceship that is used for diplomatic and secret military purposes with an ion engine to parts unknown to look for signs of civilized or other inhabited worlds. It doesn't matter if he returns with his secret mission completed or uncompleted....
===United Nationsworld government===

[edit] Older Discussion

It should not be chronological, because we can't integrate forecasts from different authors. It should be probably split into several distinct fields, with entries in each field sorted according to complexity, closeness, not specific chronological estimates (still, it can be tried). However, each entry should be accompanies by different forecasted dates (by various authors). Only predictions and forecasts from acclaimed sources should be included, or at least that should be the goal. While the sequence of developments may be to some extent done by us, the predicted dates/periods should be taken from respected authors and organisations (it's not a problem if some of them conflict with each other).Paranoid 19:24, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Please leave your comments about this. Is it worth trying? I think it's a novel idea that expands encyclopedia into new previously off-limit areas in a potentially very interesting way. But what do others think? Paranoid 19:45, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Interesting - how about some more guidance on how you see this working? A couple of examples? The Trolls of Navarone 19:47, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I added a placeholder in the article. Here is a more detailed explanation of what I first conceived. Wikipedia already covers past (history in various incarnations) and present (most of Wikipedia). It has also made some forays into the future, like Timeline of fictional future events or 2004#Predicted and scheduled events. I don't see a reason why an encyclopedia shouldn't cover something which hasn't happened yet. :) Of course, we need to stick to the well tested approach of Wikipedia - find sources, explain their viewpoints in a NPOV without introducing our own bias. This article might be a collection of things that are going to happen a bit later than 2004, together with estimates from various authors on when they will happen.
Here are some examples. There are important scientific and technological milestones (targets) like general AI, base on Mars, household humanoid robotic servant, flying car, etc. Some of the most popular future events (such as these ones) were covered in detail by many forecasters and there is even a solid body of research work, including even market research. So we can present a collection of views on when will household humanoid robotic servant become common (of course, not all forecasts specify what they mean by "available", "common", etc.). There are also some economical, social and other events, like world government, depletion of oil reserves. Some of the first predictions were probably made centuries ago (that would give extra depth to the event coverage if we can add what, for example Aristotle said about something :] ).

Paranoid 20:20, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

21st_century#Predictions_for_the_21st_century_as_of_2003 contains a list of predictions for 21st century (most by either Hans Moravec or Ray Kurzeil). This can probably be taken and expanded into what I originally conceived.

[edit] Fictional predictions should be excluded here.

Just because someone mentions something in a work of fiction does not mean that they believe that this technology will be available on the date indicated in the book. It is both unfair to call authors to task when reality fails to line up with their fictional accounts - and also to credit them when some technology happens to arrive when it did in their fictional world.

I suggest removing so-called predictions that are merely abstracted from a fictional work - and retain only those entries where some futurologist has concretely predicted some event as being likely in the real world on some specific date.

Which fictional predictions do you mean? Paranoid 10:07, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Future currently in progress...?

"Progress so far" of private space flight in the Space subsection is not a FUTURE EVENT of course, so I'm taking it out. Kreachure 19:54, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Propose removing Arthur C. Clarke "2001" forecasts

Out of the 50 or so forecasts in this article, there are a small number (I count 8) that are attributed to "Arthur C. Clarke, 2001". I propose removing these particular forecasts, as I believe they detract from the quality of the article. If the only reference we have is 2001: A Space Odyssey, then it could be argued that these are fictional "in universe" forecasts. They do not sit well with the non-fiction forecasts in the rest of the article. The impact on the useful article contents will be minimal. If someone can find a non-fiction Clarke reference for any of these forecasts then of course it could stay. Reactions ? Gandalf61 (talk) 09:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Um, those are not predictions from the movie/novel "2001"... those were made by Arthur C. Clarke in the year 2001. Also see here: http://www.kurzweilai.net/meme/frame.html?main=/articles/art0361.html Der Hans 11:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Excellent - I will add this reference to the article. These "2001" forecasts are causing some confusion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of the future in forecasts, as editors are assuming that they come from Clarke's fiction. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)