I was born soon after the end of WW2, and grew up with this kind of narrative. What's important to understand though, is that it was primarily a symbolic narrative, not necessarily a serious set of predictions. It was the mythology, if you like, of a time when science was manifestly being used to improve the lives of ordinary people, and when it was seen as a force for good, if properly controlled. (Note the word "you" in the headline of your story.) For a generation after WW2, science and technology was, indeed, responsible for an unparalleled improvement in the conditions of life for ordinary westerners. Mundane technologies like hot running water, refrigerators, vacuum cleaners and washing machines freed people from domestic drudgery: when I was small my mother and grandmother spent all day every Monday washing and drying the family's clothes by hand. In those days, monsters called Smallpox and Polio still stalked the land, but they were conquered by vaccination and improved health-care and sanitation. In Europe, at least, public transport, power distribution and other infrastructure was rebuilt and modernised, technical and scientific training was heavily promoted, and the scientists became popular heroes because they were seen as working to improve the lives of ordinary people. Even nuclear power was essentially part of the same argument. It promised an end to the pollution-filled air, filthy coal fires in houses, deadly urban fogs, and dangerous and unpleasant jobs in mining. The future would be as much clean power as you could want, effectively free, provided by a highly-trained specialists. Television when it started had an enormous educational impact on ordinary peoples' lives. I still remember the shock of watching David Attenborough's Zoo Quest programmes on a black and white TV. Even something as mundane as the record player and the 33rpm long-player brought previously unreachable cultural goods to ordinary people. Flying cars, to the extent that they were ever taken seriously, were a symbol of the idea that technology would continue to be developed and employed for the good of ordinary people. What changed, of course, was not technology but politics. In most western countries, utilities passed into private hands, spending on R and D was cut, and technology companies were sold off or just closed down. Rent-seeking, through looking around for ways of making a quick profit from the inventions of the past, became the order of the day. Technology was only interesting as a way of making a quick fortune or for purposes of surveillance and marketing. Technology companies, with a few exceptions, gave up trying to improve the lives of ordinary people decades ago, and now only seek to exploit them. The Internet - born in the last days of optimism about the possible uses of technology - turned into a nightmare of surveillance and exploitation, because that was where the money was. (Indeed, the open technologies of the Internet simply could not be developed today). As a result, and for the first time since perhaps the eighteenth century, people now increasingly assume that the future will be worse than the past. (I would suspect that, for anyone born after about 1970, this is simply the story of their life). The result is a kind of cultural pessimism - the "end of the future" discussed by critics like Franco Berardi and Mark Fisher, where there is nothing to look forward to, except for the ironic recycling of the history, culture and technology of the past to make money. The facile explanation - technology over-promised and didn't deliver - is, like all such explanations, partly true. But it's only a small part of the answer. The political cancellation of the future at the expense of strip-mining the past is at the heart of it. I don't know that my generation ever really thought there would be flying cars, but we did have a fundamentally optimistic view of the continued political will to use technology to make our lives better.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
(no subject)
Date: 2021-05-14 10:39 am (UTC)What changed, of course, was not technology but politics. In most western countries, utilities passed into private hands, spending on R and D was cut, and technology companies were sold off or just closed down. Rent-seeking, through looking around for ways of making a quick profit from the inventions of the past, became the order of the day. Technology was only interesting as a way of making a quick fortune or for purposes of surveillance and marketing. Technology companies, with a few exceptions, gave up trying to improve the lives of ordinary people decades ago, and now only seek to exploit them. The Internet - born in the last days of optimism about the possible uses of technology - turned into a nightmare of surveillance and exploitation, because that was where the money was. (Indeed, the open technologies of the Internet simply could not be developed today). As a result, and for the first time since perhaps the eighteenth century, people now increasingly assume that the future will be worse than the past. (I would suspect that, for anyone born after about 1970, this is simply the story of their life). The result is a kind of cultural pessimism - the "end of the future" discussed by critics like Franco Berardi and Mark Fisher, where there is nothing to look forward to, except for the ironic recycling of the history, culture and technology of the past to make money.
The facile explanation - technology over-promised and didn't deliver - is, like all such explanations, partly true. But it's only a small part of the answer. The political cancellation of the future at the expense of strip-mining the past is at the heart of it. I don't know that my generation ever really thought there would be flying cars, but we did have a fundamentally optimistic view of the continued political will to use technology to make our lives better.