Sounds straight out of science fiction, I'm not saying that this would never happen but personally I'd rather live in the present rather than be worrying about something that may never happen in the near future.
My impression is that the author is mistaking the future they think should happen with the future that will happen. I think that it’s more likely folks become more internet obsessed and disembodied, so to speak, even though they might say they want more tech that helps them remain present in the real world.
That would upset quite some powers that be. What's more interesting here is how X's future is framed as an ever fluid app reacting to the supposed wants and needs of society. There is some irony in squaring the fluidity of his future visions and his mocking of the fluidity of people.
I think the point of stories like this is not so much "what about the future?" but what about NOW? We already have serious problems in the world. This story basically exaggerates our current ills. It is a caricature of current issues. The actual future is likely to be far different in important ways we cannot yet imagine.
What about nature, ecology, biodiversity? What about third world societies? Natural disasters, immigration, gentrification, violence, crime? I imagine the author as living in a big city, working in tech, living the connected life, but seriously, this kind of "future" is to me rather narrow-minded.
But the idea is to envision what the future will be like. In the article he couldn't imagine the world as it is now. A simple idea like the newspaper being outdated was beyond him.
Your argument applies to science fiction and other works that make grand speculations about the future. The future is not knowable thus it is useless and misleading to speculate according to your argument. Your counter argument is far more shallow and misleading.
Our progress towards the future happens regardless of a limit. So why write science fiction? Why write fiction at all? Because we're human. I speculate, therefore I am.
Either way your argument doesn't address the heart of the matter. Is my speculation correct? Or is it incorrect? You have failed to logically address this argument. On the other hand I have only said that one outcome is far more likely than the other, I have not been definitive about it either.
reply