Talk:Timeline of the future in forecasts

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===

• • 2020s-2042 and beyond - He will began his rise to power with wars against enemies (including dictatorial nations and political terrorist groups) who would threaten the peace of Earth and the universe. With his rise to power complete, under the name of David Alexander Junius Caesar Augustus I (named after Gaius Julius Caesar and Augustus, founders of the Roman Empire, Alexander the Great, King of Asia,Egypt,Macedon, and the League of Corinth, Lucius Junius Brutus, founder of the Roman Republic and King David of the Kingdom of Israel) as member of the United Nations Secretariat and president of the United Nations General Assembly with the transformation of the United Nations from an international organization in a politically divided Earth to a Federal Imperial Democratic Republican world and interplanetary government in which all nations retain their pre-2042 existance, he will wage war and make compromises with the remaining various opposition groups and began a extensive campaign to crack down on crime in all forms. When he dies, he will leave a world no one could imagine.

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.

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)

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)

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)

Past isn't the future

Why does this article have past events like "# 2007 - a 1Kpixel artificial retina with 1000 electrodes (Department of Energy, 2004)[13]"? I don't know if that happened or not, but it was meant to happen in the past. Deamon138 (talk) 21:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. All the predictions for past years, whether they come true or not, should be taken down as soon as the year in question passes (ie 2007, soon 2008). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.41.142.17 (talk) 08:14, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I am removing all articles with prediction dates that have passed, whether they occured or not is irrevelent, as predictions that have passed should be excluded from a list of FUTURE events. BlazingSpeed (talk) 03:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Then why is there a prediction for the year 2009 still there? What's this? a bulletin board of reasonable forecasting? And who determines what "reasonable" means? I came to the talk section to ask for a page where forecasts of times gone could be listed next to an update on how much close did they get to becoming real... But as I read the complains et al I realized this section is just a mere bulletin board if we make it a timeline of the future in forecasts... I had rather merge it with a timeline of past forecasts and make it a timeline of forecasts, with updates for those in the past as to how much close to coming true they got, or how much was accomplished beyond merely accomplishing it... After all, a failed forecast generate a new one in the form of "sorry, we miscalculated but I bt 3 years more and it will happen" and a succesful one also generates new forecasts such as "and now that we have these, it is clear to us we will get this other thing in this set date".

And yeah, I am an agnostic, an esceptic and pragmatically pro-science but dispite that, and probably because of it, I see no reason to see more justification in a man predicting robots in libraries (when we barely see any robots at all) than whe have in a man predicting doomsday next date with a lovely number (dmn mathematicians, hope they don't use "lovely" for some specific set of numbers, I rejected "perfect" on the ground I know they do use that label for a set and "beautiful" 'cause I feared they could use that word too, anyway, by "lovely number" I mean those that are easily assigned esoteric meanings, like those with three sixes in a row, or sevens, eights or nines, or with sixtynines, or with fourtytwo or with obvious multiples, etc.) Now, stadistic predictions, that's another matter, they seem so reasonable we can easily know they aint reasonable either, nonetheless they ain unreasonable, somehow they belong to their own category where reason plays no part, not even that of folly, stadistical forecasts are never taken as prophetic but rather they serve as an illustrative tool of how bad (or good) things currently are, no one is expected to believe stadistical rates will remain the same through time nor constant in any way, so those belong to a different category, but forecasts done with serious believe of access to fact that writes the future in stone are a different matter altogether... The scientist that predicted library-bots was as much justified as the bible-thumper that spoke of the last days of life as we know it... So dump the "reasonable" out of the equation; it was never a variable on game!!! said this... I hope you understand what I propose and accept my proposal, anyway, this is here for discussion, so, what ya say people?Undead Herle King (talk) 06:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Undead Herle King, I think that your idea is very interesting, but this particular page is concerned only with the actual predictions and the associated dates of those predictions in question, so each year's predictions will be deleted once it gets passed by (since it is still technically 2009 and not 2010 that's why 2009's prediction's haven't been deleted yet), if you have a new date for the same event but its been recalculated by a different or the original source then feel free to repost a deleted item (with the appropriate changes of course). That being said, I do believe that there should be a place where these predictions are either confirmed or denied, and are gone into more extensively and analyzed more thoroughly. Maybe if you can create the wiki pages your talking about, there might eventually be a more developed group page generated where all these things can be listed together. Unfortunately, I have neither the time nor the experience to do this, but if you or any of the other members of Wikipedia feel like taking up the challenge (and it's okay with the admins) then please go right on ahead and do it, i would look forward to seeing a well detailed page like that, it'd be neat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BlazingSpeed (talk • contribs) 04:28, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I know the concerns of this page, but that makes it look like a bulletin board where data is not meant to stay, I mean, I know wikipedia is the Friendly Internet Multimedia Encyclopedia Anyone Can Edit... But "can" does not means "must"; If an article is to be made the intention ought be for it to be in such a state of completion there is no need to edit it; either that or else it is made with hopes that soon enough it will be brought to that state, likewise one ought to edit not for editing's sake but because improvement can be provided... What improvement is there in merely deleting some dates and adding new ones? That's why I had say we need a single article dealing with predictions, regardless whether they were done about times that have already gone or not...Undead Herle King (talk) 00:16, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I have deleted these --> 2009 - robots that perform searching and fetching tasks in unmodified library environment, Professor Angel del Pobil (University Jaume I, Spain), 2004 <--and--> 2009 - 60 pixel artificial retina available for $30,000 - Professor Mark Humayun, University of Southern California <--and--> Implantable gadgets <-- their vigency had expired for the purposes of a bulletin board such as the one this article is...Undead Herle King (talk) 04:23, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Date of prediction

It would be really good if all the predictions were listed with the date that the prediction was made (some already are, but it should be all). If there is a prediction that something is going to happen in the next couple of years, then it makes a big difference whether that was predicted a couple of years ago or twenty years ago. --Tango (talk) 23:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)