The last really prophetic world's fair was New York, 1939. That's famous for GM's vision of the future of 1960, the original "Futurerama" . Freeways everywhere. RCA had television. AT&T let you make free long distance calls. All that stuff happened.
The 1964 World's Fair had another GM exhibit. Colonization of the Moon. Underwater cities. None of that happened.
What could we have in a World's Fair now that looks ahead? Colonization of Mars? Mars sucks as real estate. There may be research bases there someday, but as a self-sufficient area, it would be tougher than Antarctica or a continental shelf. Robots may some day be a thing, but they still don't work well in unstructured environments.
My mom went to the ‘64 worlds fair almost every day (according to her, she had an uncle that worked there.) She told us stories about various exhibits when we were kids, but the thing she remembered the most was the video phone- that she should see as well here someone across the planet.
Fast forward to 2020 and she is spending hours every day on video calls with her grandchildren.
We might have missed on some of our dreams from 1964, but not all of them. We’ll miss more in the future if we don’t articulate them.
Video phone was not new at that point, though. Germany had commercial installations, though fixed point to point, in 1936. The first descriptions of it date to just two years after the telephone was invented. The exhibit may have made more people aware it was possible, but the idea was already out there, and had been for a long time.
The Early Television Foundation has many links. [1] There's a sizable history of rotating-machinery mechanical television. It's not hard to do, but it never got very good. You can only light up one pixel at a time, so you're stuck with dim, flickering images.
Scophony and Eidiphor, though, were clever pre-CRT systems with more potential. Eidiphor big-screen television projectors were patented in 1939, and were in use into the 1990s.
Of course this was far technically simpler than "proper" video telephony, as they required dedicated point to point circuits rather than function over a regular phone line. Most of the effort to popularise video-telephony was not the concept itself, but solving the engineering challenges of making it work over the regular phone network and making the devices small and cheap enough. In that respect the booths at the '64 World's Fair would have been impressive demonstrations of progress toward that goal.
> What could we have in a World's Fair now that looks ahead?
I want a roboticized home that cleans itself, that is able to do autorepairs, rooms reconfiguration. I want an auto-laundry and an auto-kitchen. I want it smart enough to manage air flow, temperature and humidity efficiently. I want all that to be voice activated. Please make it offline to not depend on some cloud thingies.
I want a powerwall and solar panels, I want an automated herbs garden. I want things to be upgradable and fixable without destroying walls.
If you give me room on the exhibit, I'll throw in an automated greenhouse to produce a lot of the food and maybe an automated workshop that would be able to produce/repair small items.
That's doable, that's not here yet, but we have most of the tech.
The next frontier is not space, it is automation. I would go to a World's Fair that showed a future where we would have less work to do.
It showed the progress of the kitchen over the years and ended with a push button kitchen like The Jetsons
I agree with you though. I want all of the things you listed. In particular, I want something that can dust (clean all the dust from my shelves, tables, books, etc..). I wonder if it could be done with small drones that can fly into the shelves with tiny dusters.
I want my walls and ceiling to be displays like from Total Recall for cheap (say under $500 per wall)
I want sound proofing between apartments, also cheap so there's no excuse for an apartment not to have it.
In college, two of my roommates were tussling and knocked a hole low in the wall between the kitchen bar and the hallway. As the only one with much craftsmanship ability, I took the roomie who was to pay for it down to the home center to buy drywall, tape, mud, and paint to fix the hole. Going to check out, we passed the air intake grills and the light bulb went on - we swapped the repair stuff for a grill and filter, went home to hack out a rectangular hole, and installed a new bogus air intake in the wall in just a few minutes. (The real intake was in the hall ceiling a few feet away, so it wasn't noticeable.)
Way quicker, cheaper, and easier than actually patching the wall and trying to match paint, and it got our deposit back, which was important since we were all broke seniors with no money coming in until we started our jobs. I've often wondered if anyone ever changed that filter! (My wife won't go for this method, so I've gotten pretty decent at matching drywall texture since then...)
I believe that is the basic setup to a few horror movies and episodes in TV shows.
Even so, I'm in, if it comes with an option to not be voice activated. Nothing about modern computing is more frustrating than voice interfaces, except perhaps windows updates.
Any evolution can be used as an horror movie device. Freeways, ubiquitous televisions, in a world that did not have that, you could make scary fictions about it.
I find it sad that nowadays dystopias have become the only depictions of futures.
Kim Robinson's Mars series stands out as a seminal example. Also one of his Three Californias triptych is a classic hopepunk story.
Looking over https://www.goodreads.com/shelf/show/hopepunk there's a lot I'm not familiar with, but can attest to the fundamentally optimistic takes in Andy Weir's The Martian and Martha Wells' Murderbot Diaries.
Have a watch at the classic "The Glass-Bottom Boat" from 1966 - it has a decent view of what they expected would be near-future automation, much of which we're just now seeing as cost-effective.
That sounds like a lot of technology for something you could hire someone to do for you at a fraction of the cost. The main downside of that is that you'd have to deal with a person.
In pre-COVID times we used a cleaning service. I would much rather have a house that stays clean than one that needs cleaning. You're not setting your sights high enough.
Actually it is. 40-50 years ago we hit a point where growth stopped absorbing productivity gains. So all future automation also contributes to under employment, lowering the price of labor, reducing the need for further automation.
To try to bring back growth to pre 1970 leavels alone would cause horrific environmental destruction we cannot afford. In addition to taxing the environmental externalities, we also need to shrink the workweek and disburse UBI to the point where labor is in demand again. Only then will future automation work the way we want it to, and the way it did in the past.
We have a lot of environmental challenges ahead of us. A forward-thinking World's Fair could paint a picture of how we get from here to a carbon-negative economy: solar & wind, battery tech, autonomous cars and less car-oriented cities, better telepresence, carbon sequestering, architecture, etc.
It's not physically more hostile than the moon, but we've never colonized the moon for the same reason. It's really hard to live there for not much benefit. There are plenty of sparsely-inhabited deserts on Earth that are much nicer places to live.
Yes. It will be true for any planetary body that does not have a magnetosphere. But Venus has a magnetosphere. So you can do the old "stick a fucking metal rod into the ground" trick as long as your metal rod doesn't melt... because Venus.
Mars does not have a magnetosphere. The core on Mars stopped spinning so there is no longer the electric dynamo and thus there isn't a potential. So everything has to be a floating potential. That isn't to say that you can't make reference grounds, but it is much more convoluted than "sticking a fucking metal rod into the ground".
Actually if you pay attention to HI-SEAS[0] this has been a cause of an accident (since they replicate Mars habitat.
This problem also, obviously, applies to any planetary body which does not have a magnetosphere. So you don't have magnetic north and you don't have a safe potential ground.
> What could we have in a World's Fair now that looks ahead?
With a few more years of AI, I want software that can automate engineering - so, I can say “figure out a factorio layout that makes 1 rocket per minute”. Then “play factorio from scratch to liftoff”.
Translated into the real world, I want to a robot that can build a brick wall, and an AI that can design and manufacture the brick wall building robot. I think this is structurally the same problem as “play factorio” - the only difference being a few orders of magnitude of complexity.
Ultimately I want to be able to take a few minimal pieces of robotics and drones and stuff into the wilderness (or Mars) and say “build me a house like this with working solar panels and plumbing”, and it can gather resources, design and assemble intermediate machines (Eg sawmills) and bootstrap the manufacturing needed to arrange atoms in any specifically described way.
This is both a utopian and dystopian technology. At scale the same technology could be used to both clean up the great pacific garbage patch, and convert the Amazon rainforest into a massive industrial wasteland. I don’t think this is as far away from our current technology as we imagine it to be. (Decades not centuries)
> With a few more years of AI, I want software that can automate engineering.
"Ok, AlexaDev. I want you to build a SaaS with the following product requirements ..."
[after a half-hour chat]
"Alright Dave, the MVP is in your shopping cart at a price of $5,000. If you host on AWS then I will be your product development team and evolve your service based on usage statistics and customer feedback for an additional $2,000 monthly subscription fee."
(Of course things will be different, as source code will be proprietary walled garden stuff besides some OSS config scripts, there'll be no fixed-price, and AWS is abstracted away behind the AI services)
I would attribute the prediction failure of the 1964 World's Fair to the pace of change. It seems reasonable that predictability decreases as the pace of societal and technological change increase. The changes from 1939 to 1964 (25 years) pale in comparison to the changes from 1964 to 1989 (gene sequencing in 72, Vietnam war protests and ambiguous end in 73, mass-market cell phones in 73, Internet in 74, PCs in 77, disillusionment with nuclear energy in the 70s, the fall of the soviet union, and much more).
I think the pace of change is such that we can't predict what will be with much certainty, but we can imagine and capture the public's imagination. That may help drive change toward what we want to see, and I think that in itself might be a good reason for a World's Fair - not to predict a future, but to collectively imagine the future we want so that we have a more clear cut vision to strive for.
Seems like computers were woven into many of the exhibits (Search a date and get what happened on that day for example). Also the picturephone was just one part of the bell exhibit which envisioned expansive high speed data networks. I think looking back, it may be easy to overlook these, but the certainly seem pretty significant.
GM was at least a little bit right. Their moon base had a moon car and some sort of silvery structure. Five years after the exhibition, we had some guys walking around on the moon and returning to a silvery structure, and two years after that, we had a lunar rover.
> Colonization of the Moon. Underwater cities. None of that happened.
Moon missions had been suspended until last year or so. If NASA had kept at it, I'm sure some level of colonization, at least rotating manned missions a la ISS would have happened by now.
In 2021, We are tired of cars, freeways, traffic, sitting in the car for long hours. Same goes for internet. Same applies to mobile phones. People are looking for less technology, more time with nature, family, friends etc.
Build a dome over New Orleans or York; Call it the New Palace. Or to be more optimistic a nuclear plant, maybe Governor's island? or recommission Indian Point, along with district heating.
I admire the optimism and motivational tone of the article, but fairs and expos are a thing of the past. We don't need to build elaborate, carefully constructed single-use cities to showcase the scientific advances of the world. Those showcases happen day by day on the internet and mass media.
I don't think the argument is valid because it can be applied to nearly every event where people come together, including sporting events and concerts. But like with the Olympic Games, the World's Fair can serve as a catalyst for urban development projects.
Also, the "science showcase" is a thing of the past, the BIE switched to "individual country showcase" a couple of years ago, which makes the whole thing a lot less appealing IMHO, but that's another issue.
I find this perplexing because the Olympic Games is notorious for draining an urban centers resources for years and the result being a bunch of infrastructure that the majority of the time just slowly decays due to the local community not having the same volume of population to fully utilize the utility. The handling of the 2016 games was an especially bad case.
It's overall a nationalistic country level flex at the expense of the local area. It's part of why only big countries host it, the side affects will only affect one city and you have other places to sustain the nationwide economy despite the hit.
That always confused me about the Olympic Games. I guess it makes sense if you think about it as an opportunity for pork stuffed building contracts. It would make more sense for each country to have 1 or maybe 2 locations that are reused whenever they host the games. They could also host national level sporting events in the interim. That way they can be maintained and upgraded over the years without saddling municipalities with decaying and unwanted facilities.
The problem for most countries is that it can be decades between hosting two Olympics, meaning that facilities are either worn out not fulfilling the current Olympic technical requirements.
Also; very few countries has a need for facilities with the capacity the Olympics require, so this would be a huge burden for most of them.
Speak for yourself. Los Angeles ran a profitable Olympics in 1984 and we look forward to doing so again in 2028. And nationalism is at a low ebb here, given our last four years fighting His Nibs on everything. It’s all about competition and entertainment for us. And infrastructure that can be reused for more entertainment.
The 1984 Olympics, considered to be the most financially successful Olympics ever, were ran on the basis of renovating existing infrastructure, not building new stuff in a new city because the previous two Olympics were financial disasters. Also, yes, if you mess up LA the United States will still truck on.
Also Nationalism isn't just flags, hate and hands in the air, it's also an outward expression of ideas and ideals raised on a pedestal to say look how great we are. Such as getting to say "we are all about competition and entertainment" as a story to tell the world as a form of soft power.
were ran on the basis of renovating existing infrastructure, not building new stuff in a new city because the previous two Olympics were financial disasters.
As with...all...of its Olympic bids, LA was not the first choice for the 1984 Olympics. It basically got those Olympics (and 2028, and the 1932 Olympics), because nobody else wanted to host them. In 1932, the world was in the throes of the Great Depression; in 1984, the previous Olympics had bankrupted their hosts; for 2028, hosts of the 20xx games exuberantly built new facilities only to see them wither into decay from non-use (Brazil, China, even London).
Thus, LA's bids have always focused on fiscally responsible games. As with the previous 2 iterations of the LA Games, LA will not be building many new facilities solely for the games. Indeed, currently, LA plans to build no new facilities for the games, though there will be temporary structures/courses built for the swimming events, the BMX and MTB racing events, and NBC will be paying for a temporary media center. Currently, all $7 billion of the estimated costs are being funded by the private sector.
Effectively: no. Cheaply: no. The London Olympics had a final budget of roughly $13 billion, or nearly double the original forecast of approximately $6.5 billion. For comparison, Beijing cost $40 billion, Athens cost $11 billion, and Rio cost $13.1 billion. Note that these are just the budgets for the games themselves, not including ancillary spending on other non-game infrastructure.
For comparison, the combined total of LA's three Olympics (adjusted for inflation and including the forthcoming games) is well below $10 billion.
Does the US still have an identity as a country? I certainly would have a very hard time explaining to someone not from here what it is that the United States stand for at this point.
The hope for the 2028 olympics in LA is more public transportation which is currently being built. It's exciting to see the new lines currently popping up.
Sports is the opiate of the masses — Karl Marx, probably
As long as the government doesn’t lose money, I’m happy. Plus it will be nice to get to LAX without driving a 30 minute loop through the terminals. I’m very excited about that line.
I think the argument is valid. Much of the value of attending a live sporting event or concert is that nobody involved knows how it's going to turn out. You get to experience an unfolding spectacle in real time.
That's not what a world's fair is. A modern world's fair would be essentially a bunch of companies showing off their latest inventions, in a highly coordinated and controlled way, for marketing purposes.
A better analogy would be something like E3, a video game convention which is struggling to find its purpose in a world where it's easier and more effective from a marketing standpoint to just release a video of your new game. I think it's no coincidence that world's fairs stopped being as important right around the time mass communication became ubiquitous.
> Much of the value of attending a...concert is that nobody involved knows how it's going to turn out
You have a point for sports, but concerts? They have their moments, but for the most part, it will be the same set list and the same performance they did in Cleveland a week ago.
Yes and no. I do agree that probably nobody's going to build another Eiffel tower or Crystal Palace any time soon,but we need spaces to explore science, innovation,and simply have for people to do something more interesting than just mindlessly walking through shopping malls.
Fairs and expos inspire. I still remember going to a tech expo as a teenager and seeing all these latest gadgets and thinking: I want to be part of it! Now imagine going to one of these in the middle of last century and seeing rockets, nuclear car prototypes and things like that. You almost instantly want to sign up or at least show it to your kids.
Why bother showing up at the Olympics in person? We can just watch it on TV right? :p
But to refute more directly, the unplanned interactions with other visitors, being able to talk directly with makers who built the things you’re seeing, the viral sense of wonder; all are good reasons to have it in-person.
The vast majority of people do just that. The small number of people who actually attend the Olympics in person are 1) journalists covering it 2) relatives of the athletes 3) people living near the venue who attend a few events out of curiosity and maybe have discounted tickets because of where they live 4) wealthy people who can afford the high cost of decent tickets with a clear view of the athletes.
The Olympics sound a little miserable to watch in-person because you probably won't have a clear view of a sport you're not all that interested in. And unlike most popular sports where it's an event where you pick a side to cheer for, most Olympic events are individual, so there isn't 90 minutes of cheering for your team, hoping they'll win.
Watching a simple competition like the 100M dash, sure. But watch something worth seeing despite the competition such as the gymnastics, figure-skating, or wrestling perhaps, and I at least can just sit and enjoy the skill.
Yet international art fairs and specialty conventions had been taking off for the 20 years before the pandemic. People still like to travel and come together under well organized events. The issue is the wisdom of a city or region pouring in billions of billions for a week-long event. Maybe there's a new model to be invented.
The annual CES convention is still popular. I see it as the modern equivalent of the world's fair, even if it is not quite the same and missing some aspects.
Is it? Half of it is every manufacturer from Shenzhen selling assorted components. The larger, prestigious booths mostly show the next iteration of consumer electronics, and there's the occasional thing that looks awesome enough for a world's fair, but is probably a mock that will never go into production.
Who remembers the Millenium Dome? It was a self-conscious emulation of the 1951s Festival of Britain, that ended up being characteristically Blairite bland.
The Millennium Dome (notably the Millennium Experience inside) was terrific. I don't know why nobody showed up, but it was really uncrowded and enjoyable to visit!
One futuristic thing that has stuck with me from the Millennium expo was a demonstration of structural/mechanical and electrochemical simulation of the human body with computers, for example the skeletal, muscular, and circulatory systems. Which of course can be augmented with models of various organs and micro-level models of cellular interaction and cell internals. The brilliant bit seemed to be the idea of using a finite element and/or modular decomposition, potentially at multiple levels of resolution and abstraction. It seemed like the sort of thing that could yield huge benefits in medicine, health/fitness, education, and video games/animation. ;-)
I am also very Cold War revival. We should be launching competitive science wars with each other, not unlike the Olympics. Set objectives, set time periods, when the time and objective expire all knowledge gained is pooled and published for the world, for free. National or International propaganda campaigns to recruit for teams. Spies, espionage, moles. Not just a science fair, but something a bit more dirty and fun.
> We should be launching competitive science wars with each other
Don't we have this now with competitive global capitalism? I guess it's not the nationstate so much now as the multinational corporation, though, that are the entities competing.
I can kind of understand your wish for a Cold War revival - we certainly had more of a sense of national purpose during that period. But it was driven by fear of the other and I'm not sure that ultimately that's a good motivation.
You'd think that maybe something like a global pandemic would give us a national purpose that would have brought us together, but look what happened, just more fracturing: anti-maskers, anti-vaxxers, even covid-deniers.
I imagine Cold War 2 as a bit more contrived, self-aware, and tongue in cheek. It would need its own Geneva Convention, Oversight Committee.
I'm talking about the Space Race. There might have been some fear of space lasers and spy satellites and whatnot, but for the most part, landing on the moon was purely about pride and bragging rights, and who gets to swing a bigger stick. We need more of that, to get people excited, and to push what we can acomplish, and maybe to make us a tiny bit more reckless. Exploration can be dangerous.
I also believe, from a marketing perspective, branding it as a War and not a competition would engage people more. Football level fanaticism. People arent going to wear jerseys and cheer for a Science Fair the way they would for a Science War. I can imagine selling War Bonds to promote the Science War, with nice prizes, to engage and reward people.
I do a lot of double/triple clicking to highlight text as I read online (fidgeting, but also helps keep track of where I am). On your site, triple clicking unintentionally hits the twitter share button, which opens a new, unwanted window. Bit annoying.
Medium does something similar, but they offset the button so you have to move cursor in between clicks to actually trigger the button.
I’m fascinated by that phenomenon. I don’t even notice I’m doing it most of the time, and I’m shocked by how many other people do it.
Specific, common, digital tics. Another one is control-s after a single line changed. Something immensely satisfying about selecting that perfect block of text and making that “altered document” asterisk go away.
For me it’s partly a habit from writing code. Most of the time I’m only modifying a few lines at a time and am going to do another test cycle. Gotta save to make that happen! (Excluding, of course, the editors that auto save all the time and cover your screen with red lines when you’ve tipped half a statement and then stop to think about it for a few seconds...)
Sometimes I like to middle click and move my house instead of using the wheel (nicer on my joints). Sometimes I like to even just move it a little and have it auto-scroll as I read. It's a fun game to try and match my pace and more engaging that way. So many websites break these too.
Might I suggest having a spot in the margin devoted to that button, placed either halfway down the paragraph or (if you have a really really long P or selection) halfway down the screen?
There are a handful of sites I've encountered that do this and I hate it. Feels like a violation when I can't select text the way I normally do, for some reason.
No mention of Expo 2010, which had representation from 65 different countries: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expo_2010_pavilions. I didn't go, but the photos of the architecture from the different countries were beautiful.
> After the six-month run, the Expo had attracted well over 70 million visitors. The Expo 2010 is also the most expensive fair in the history of World's Fair, with more than 45 billion US dollars invested from the Chinese Government
> I didn't go, but the photos of the architecture from the different countries were beautiful.
Apparently, the American pavilion was not among them:
Now that the US Pavilion has been open for several days, its reviews, to be generous, are mixed. Visitors, after a two-hour wait, enjoy the upbeat attitude of the student “ambassadors” who greet them in Mandarin — but few are impressed by the three films that constitute the US Pavilion’s content. (One reporter noted that the price for the three shorts, about $23 million, is more than the production costs of the Oscar-winning film, The Hurt Locker.) The “American people’s” sole walk-on are brief vignettes that flicker on the screen and then are gone. Chinese visitors are reported to have remarked, especially after the hype and long wait, “We expected more from America.” Visitors exit the theater into a large hall dedicated to fawning over the 60-odd corporate sponsors whose names and brands are the only aspects of American life and culture to which the pavilion accords recognition.
Definitely, check out the photos on the Wikipedia article I linked. USA looks very plain, compared to Thailand, Taiwan, India, France, Portugal, UK etc. USA's architecture looks closer to North Korea than the others.
Sounds like Disney. Disney World (? - the one in Florida, USA) had a gift shop at the exit to every ride last time I was there. The bean counters probably consider it a great addition, and I'm sure it pays dividends, but that sort of unadulterated cashing in puts me off.
This thread is a perfect microcosm of the american psyche - two extremes that only see the other side's extremism. There is little measured, nuanced opinion to be had. Both extreme jingoistic nationalism, and shame for any nationalism at all are unhealthy.
There is a difference between nationalism and patriotism. Patriotism is the love of/honoring your heritage, gratefulness for the work that your elders did for you to be here. Nationalism is the promotion of a specific group at the expense of others, relies on victimism to justify supremacism and deludes itself with an ideal that never comes.
The difference between these 2 is mostly known in continental Europe where it became very pronounced in the 20th century, but the psyche of the rest of the world (US included) still has to go through a learning excercise. And this knowledge is also quickly fading in Europe itself. There is no healthy middle ground when it comes to nationalism (not patriotism)
I don't think there's any of what you're saying here. Compared to almost any other country, objectively, there are more flags per capita in the USA, more flags displayed (where else does everything from a car dealership to a hardware store have multiple prominent flags?), etc. These phenomena exist everywhere, but pretending that it's not more prominent in the US of A is committing some fallacy of the golden mean or something.
I must not have, I took you to be saying that my comment - and others like it - were a good example of how 'extremism' on 'both sides' was causing divides, when in fact I think my stance is pretty far from 'extremist', and definitely a far cry from what I think you're equating it with on the 'other side', if that makes sense at all.
Why does someone doing something over-the-top mean you can't enjoy doing it normally?
Look at how and why people want to be in the USA and look at those things as worth caring about. Try to make your country better for everyone and be happy/proud about your efforts and those of your predecessors.
I've visited some 40 countries and have never been in one that was anywhere near so ostentatious in displaying symbols of national pride as the US. It's like you guys will forget you're Americans if you don't see a flag for a minute or two.
Ordinary people hang US flags off the front of their houses. In a bizarre indoctrination ritual, they make their kids pledge allegiance to the state from a young age. They think they're the greatest country in the world.
It's abnormal behaviour. There's no reason to hang your country's flag in front of your house. I mean... maybe if you live near the Canadian or Mexican border and are feeling particularly patriotic or insecure.
> I’ve seen people from all over the world wear or display their own country’s flags.
You may have imagined it. If not, could you say where? It is a uniquely American thing. I mean, Indians will pull out a flag quite often, but they're perpetually at war with their neighbours so it's kinda understandable. In the US you'll see flags on houses in the middle of buttfuck nowhere, owned by people who've never met another foreigner. It really is bizarre behaviour.
Germany. Southern Germany specifically. Lots of people even have Bavarian or German flag stickers on their cars.
Lot’s of flags in Italy including regional flags like Siena which has 17 different flags corresponding to the parts of the city. Lots Italian and Vatican flags in Rome.
I’ve met a Costa Rican tourist in Europe who had a flag hat, shirt, backpack, and a small flag in hand.
> I’ve met a Costa Rican tourist in Europe who had a flag hat, shirt, backpack, and a small flag in hand.
That's very common with tourists, and it makes sense... you're travelling through other countries, representing your own. Same with carrying a flag in a protest or at an international sports event.
That's very different to putting up a flagpole in front of your house to fly a national flag.
Flying in front of residential homes? I don't think so. I could go onto Google Maps and in short order find a US flag on a random US suburban residence. It'd take days to find the same in the UK or France.
Not as common I don't think here in the UK as US, but it does happen in certain areas/by certain people, and carries the same connotations, just with the possible addition of football (soccer) hooliganism.
I don’t get the fuss with the pledge of alliance (non American here).
> "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
Why is it bad to declare your commitment to the country you’re born in and it’s values? It’s not like you can’t leave (except for the IRS) if you don’t like it.
Borderline indoctrination. You're not pledging commitment to it's "values" and young children are not at an age to have a nuanced discussion or awareness about what those exactly those values are, and make a decision about if they should be declaring a commitment to them or not.
Should everyone wait until their kids turn 18 to start teaching them their own morals and values? You’d just be auctioning their brain to random others who are willing to do that.
I think we either have very different concepts of what indoctrination is, or there is much more beyond the pledge itself, and that is where the real issues are?
> Should everyone wait until their kids turn 18 to start teaching them their own morals and values?
You keep saying morals and values. Which part of the pledge pertains to morals and values? It was still said during a time of complete racial segregation. Did the practically unchanged pledge teach children about the morality and values of that? Or domestic internment camps during WW2? What about during the Vietnam war? What deeper nuanced meaning am I missing where it balances "freedom and liberty for all" with the massive expansion of the post-9/11 surveilance state?
It's got nothing to do with morals or "values".
Perhaps we should just say "if you feel so strongly about your country at the age of 15 that you want to recite a prayer to it every morning then you can in your own time".
> Which part of the pledge pertains to morals and values?
Pledging allegiance to the things that protect and serve you. Support for something larger than yourself. The American ideals in the constitution and on the statue of liberty, even if you don't feel others support them as much as they should.
The USA is a tremendous country that has done more to build protections for people into its law than almost anywhere else. You should see this and support it even if there are problems. America pledges equality and it's actually available. There's a reason the entirely of South America would move to the USA today, and it's a flattering reason if you'd look at it.
> It was still said during a time of complete racial segregation.
No, that never happened. Even during slavery, only some states practiced it and it was distasteful elsewhere, and even in those states it wasn't universal. Small help to a slave, sure, but your representation isn't fair.
> Did the practically unchanged pledge teach children about the morality and values of that?
Of the country that fought a hard war to end slavery, and is trying for equality? I dunno, you don't seem to have heard that message.
> Or domestic internment camps during WW2?
Meh, war is tough. When you're shooting some people it seems less bad to merely imprison some. Find a solution for the war itself and then let's talk about the imprisonment which were practiced to prevent more killing. Also, Canada did worse in its internments. More theft from the victims, and even worse scapegoating.
> What about during the Vietnam war?
What about? It was a badly chosen war that was guaranteed to go past the initial semi-principled stand into a huge quagmire of a proxy war. Dumb idea and bad. But are mistakes forever damning?
> What deeper nuanced meaning am I missing where it balances "freedom and liberty for all" with the massive expansion of the post-9/11 surveilance state?
So, like the Vietnam war, it's a mistake. But fight to save what you've got rather than equating it to the worst dictatorships. It's also a forgivable thing though, to overreact to murder. It took the UK and Ireland a long time to trust each other after the troubles.
You should be proud to be American. Your country at least tries to right wrongs.
Even if all of this were true, there's no reason one should be pledging allegiance to the state. You can be proud of your country, your state, your city, and your community but to have to make pledges in front of other people to signal your patriotism is weird to anyone who wasn't brought up within that bubble of propaganda and jingoism.
Have you seen footage of North Koreans pledging their allegiance to their government? Dial that down a little and you get (some) Americans. It might seem normal to you, having been born into that bubble, but believe me the average patriotic North Korean feels the same.
Patriotism is just tribalism, and while it was crucial five centuries ago, it's a cancer on any modern society.
> footage of North Koreans pledging their allegiance to their government
You're literally just inventing stuff to get upset about. There's no dictator in America. When you pledge allegiance to the country - or when someone else does - they aren't saying they'll serve anyone's orders, they're affirming their support for something that's actually great. Whatever about the hand and heart - that's a bit demonstrative, but the sentiment is a good one - a better one than almost anywhere else.
It would do you good to try to see the good, before you destroy one of the last remaining bastions of opportunity with ... whatever moral relativism you're on.
> It might seem normal to you, having been born into that bubble
Lol, did you just assume nonsense about my life or what. No, but I can see from outside that you're pissing on the best thing you'll ever have because it isn't perfect. You can't see that what makes it great is the intent.
> Patriotism is just tribalism
No, blind patriotism to any country you're stuck in, is. Patriotism to a country that tries, and succeeds, to be better than most, that's just acknowledging that you've got it good and have a duty to extend that to others.
> it's a cancer on any modern society.
The exact opposite. The lack of patriotism you so embody is the cancer. If America isn't good enough then which country would you work to support? Who is good enough that you won't righteously tear them down?
Leave America and sponsor a migrant on the way. Let them appreciate the thing you despise.
It's just so nice of you to care if I'm upset. I love you too.
> about the idea that not everyone practices patriotism in the same way as you.
No. Just saddened that they feel the need to denigrate the opportunity when there are so many clamoring to get it. So stuck in hatred of America they can't see that most of the world disagrees, and they're the ones in the bubble. Practice however you want, the hand/heart thing and the pledge are not the issue.
I guess the idea that the reason the "entire of south america would move to the USA" and are "clamoring to get it" (other than, you know, geographical proximity and no funds to travel transatlantically) is in no small part due to the historical actions of the USA in destabilizing the regions where they live hasn't crossed your mind?
Of course it hasn't. Those countries suck because they are not the USA. USA on top = the natural state of things. USA! USA! USA! Think critically about the actions of the country and the shadow which it casts to this day? Suck it up snowflake or get out!!
It's exactly your kind of bland patriotism, devoid of any appreciation as to why things are the way they are, that the person you where replying to was talking about. And it's part of the reason as to why things are the way they are.
I think perhaps you view patriotism as a core part of why America is in the position it is today, but unfortunately to think that is to ignore history.
And lastly, the rest of the world doesn't really agree. I expect you'd be surprised the real damage Trump has done to the reputation of the USA abroad and how much it's tarnished the image you think you had.
> I guess the idea that the reason [...] hasn't crossed your mind?
Oh my god, I'd never considered that other people have experiences and they differ from mine! Sweet f-ing Jesus, it all depended on you assuming who I was and sarcastically mocking me! Hallelujah!
> Of course it hasn't. Those countries suck because they are not the USA. USA on top = the natural state of things. USA! USA! USA! Think critically about the actions of the country and the shadow which it casts to this day? Suck it up snowflake or get out!!
Do your parents cry when they hear you? I'm not American. I'm not justifying my tribe or anything.
> It's exactly your kind of bland patriotism, devoid of any appreciation as to why things are the way they are, that the person you where replying to was talking about. And it's part of the reason as to why things are the way they are.
Just a week ago I was re-reading a great account of the CIA in Guatemala. I'm quite familiar with the situation in general. I don't think you can even comprehend that someone can know the same facts as you but come to differing opinions.
But, about my patriotism. What do you think you know about it, and what about it is bland? How would we make it exciting? Do you actually have an idea or are you just slinging words around looking for a cheap shot?
> I think perhaps you view patriotism as a core part of why America is in the position it is today, but unfortunately to think that is to ignore history.
You're ignoring 90% of history by jumping up and down as if you're the only one who's ever heard of the CIA. It's pretty reductionist though, and frankly it feels a little racist and insulting to the South Americans, to think that the USA is responsible for the entire continent. I don't think you'd get broad support for your idea from the people of those countries. You're probably acting on some white-empowerment thing where you think you're so powerful you have some sort of skin-color based duty. A bunch of old Brits have a message for you...
Nobody is having the 'X country never did anything wrong' argument with you. For one, I don't think you could come up with a country that didn't (attempt) fuckery, but I don't think it's relevant to the attitudes and that's the core of the point about patriotism. You aren't celebrating some pure history, or your side being blameless, you're celebrating and supporting those around you, and those who will come join you.
And patriotism is even open to one such as yourself. You don't have to adopt anyone's jingoism. You don't need any "us over them". You simply need to find a core of what you want being American to mean, and embody that. If you think people aren't educated enough about history, then educate yourself and share the knowledge - like you do now, but without this "I'm the only educated person in the world" vibe.
If you can't, seriously consider finding an immigrant and adopting a bit of theirs. Support what they find meaningful until you can find it within yourself.
> I expect you'd be surprised the real damage Trump has done to the reputation of the USA abroad and how much it's tarnished the image you think you had.
Hahah, wow. You are not in for a good day. Sorry, but the world doesn't mind Trump one-hundredth as much as you do. I'm not in the USA and I think I have a vastly better idea of how the world views the USA pre/post trump than you do from inside your white-man's burden bubble.
There are hilarious videos of Americans not knowing which president did things, like build cages at the border. Foreign news almost always says "originally built by ..." and gives a fuller story than American news. (I picture you watching CNN, reading Snopes fact-checks, Tweeting your outrage.) Most everyone watching from outside knows that the stuff about walls and immigrants in cages being "Trump-Bad" was nonsense - they were things that every president did and would keep doing, and that the laws of the country and the people voting for those laws fully support. (Interestingly, most 1st gen immigrants in the USA support stricter immigration checks to stop illegal entry.)
I, and certainly my country, are no Trump fan - of the man personally. But his forceful actions on the world stage helped bring peace and are probably the best hope for Palestinian freedom ever but are also the only actions I've seen taken against China despite their posturing against Taiwan, who's our ally as well as yours. Simply calling Taiwan to thank them for congratulating him on his victory was monumental.
So even though he entered into some really annoying trade wars with us we don't have this hate that you do. We sort of grudgingly admit that he got what he wanted and because he was working for you, not us, that he did his job.
No, the rest of the world doesn't agree with you at all. And it's clear why, you're apparently stuck in a loop of yelling at your dad because he just doesn't understand you.
This is why you need some patriotism. You need to find something good and strive to improve and share it, your life is one of bitterness and internalized shame despite being in one of the best places with all the opportunity. And with a pretty good history actually, if you look at it as a unit and compare with the what other people have accomplished. Much to build on.
America is a great tool so grab the reins, wield her carefully, and do good for the world.
I believe you missed the parent's point. The Pledge of Allegiance is pretty thin on values, other than "liberty and justice for all" crammed in at the end like an afterthought. Mostly it's "my country and religion, right or wrong".
> Why is it bad to declare your commitment to the country you’re born in and it’s values?
It's just indoctrination. I mean, commitment to your country is implied. Do you stand up, put hand on heart and pledge allegiance to your family? Your church? Your friends? Why would you do that for your country? It's nationalistic nonsense that has no place in a modern, democratic society.
> Do you stand up, put hand on heart and pledge allegiance to your family? Your church? Your friends?
I didn't pick the marriage ceremony my culture used. If it involved a hand over your heart I wouldn't have worried about it.
> Why would you do that for your country?
That specific gesture aside, perhaps because I cared about the ideals it represents and the words in the affirmation.
> It's nationalistic nonsense that has no place in a modern, democratic society.
No. Without some sort of bond to those around me why would I respect their views enough to allow a democracy? It's because we share some goals and ideals. If I thought you hated the things I loved about my country I might see you as an enemy, and vice versa, but if we see that we share our dreams we can survive not sharing any other opinions.
When you're a child you can't realistically leave, and the pledge sounds rather like a promise to never do so. The people making those pledges have very little idea what values they're signing up to. It has the same vibe as chastity pledges, made by kids who don't know what they're talking about at the urging of their parents.
I just quoted the entire pledge and there is no semblance of that. Interesting how every reply has a different, deep interpretation of it. There must be some cultural context that is not possible to get from the outside.
> Why is it bad to declare your commitment to the country you’re born in and it’s values?
Why would you declare commitment to a country just based on the fact that you were born there? Say you were born in North Korea, would you still do it?
I dunno, I’d rather declare my commitment to a country that actually deserves it.
The pavilions were truly incredible (from what I remember, Saudi Arabia comes to mind, just look at that! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expo_2010_pavilions#Saudi_Arab...) but like the article says, it felt more like each country's branding exercise rather than any unified vision of the future.
Was very surprised to not see any mention of Expo2020, which has been hailed as a "World's Fair for the 21st Century". UAE and Dubai put tons of resources and capital into it but obviously had to deal with the issue of in person events in 2020. As I understand it has been rescheduled for the end of 2021...
> Today, World's Fairs have been rebranded as "International Expositions" that occur every 5 years, and are a hollow shell of their former glory. They no longer showcase the promise of the future or celebrate achievement. Instead, they serve as national branding exercises, infrastructure development projects masquerading as innovation, architecture competitions, and an opportunity to promote tourism.
I don't know enough about Expo2020 to agree or disagree, but I assumed the author's assessment above was in reference to the series of which the Dubai exhibition is a part.
I really don't think Expo2020 counts. Rooting the future in the UAE seems like a losing battle, and it seems like the amount of entities that would choose not to participate would outweigh those that would.
Switzerland? The Nordic countries? Even the UK hasn't annoyed most countries to the point we wouldn't welcome guests for something like this.
It's basically the equivalent of the Olympics of the business and science world; of you are granted the honour of hosting, you go out of your way to extend an olive branch.
Oh, you have got to be kidding. Quit it with the Nordic worship.
I mean, they're pretty great overall but all the problems you think the USA has, they have in spades. And while they are great they aren't solely because of ideals as much as luck of their conditions forging a good culture and climate for success.
We fundamentally believe in the prosperity of our physical world. The fair itself will be physical, but will have a virtual component so that anyone with a smart phone or, even better, a VR headset, can participate.
Countries are made up of people and companies. There are definitely people and companies that otherwise would attend were it not at a country with massive human rights issues (like, say, making homosexuality illegal).
Expo 2020 is shaping up to be an incredible project, however I'm still expecting it to fall victim to the same challenge that all Fairs since 1970 have had: a lack of a unifying vision. Since every country presents their own narrative, it's hard to guarantee alignment.
I'm heading out there next month and will hopefully find something inspiring to help shape our efforts.
I'm not sure how you could have a unifying vision for something as broad and diverse as "the future," or "the good parts of the future," without projecting it down into a simplistic, synthesized work of very fictional storytelling where all resemblance to reality (and consequently all authority) has been sacrificed in favor of comprehensibility and persuasiveness.
In other words, the clearest route to getting people excited about a World Fair involves sacrificing the reason you'd want people excited about a World Fair.
To clarify. There's no unifying vision because most of the Pavilions are developed by large government committees where everyone wants to show off a little bit of everything. As a result, their Pavilions end up being a watered down version of their vision for the future.
For better or worse, the future itself is to a large extent developed by large government committees - or at least the funding allocation for the cutting-edge research projects that show up at World Fairs are.
It’s not exactly the same, but Burning Man comes pretty close in a lot of ways.
If you haven’t been, there are thousands of art projects at a grand scale, things that take up blocks of space a piece, and they are built by artists from around the world, giving everyone a global perspective of what is possible.
I also love the idea of showcasing what is possible for a society. There is a true sense of community, immediacy, and collaboration where everyone there is an active participant.
There are dozens of smaller events with similar properties, likely one nearby.
> They no longer showcase the promise of the future or celebrate achievement. Instead, they serve as national branding exercises, infrastructure development projects masquerading as innovation, architecture competitions, and an opportunity to promote tourism
I kind of feel that these were the exact goals of the original world fairs too.
This is true, and the reason for why they are no longer a thing is the same reason why companies don't sponsor theme park rides anymore. They simply don't need to. With the ability to reach more people more quickly with less money over our mass media networks, there's no real reason to sponsor an attraction of any kind.
...wait eagerly for Jessica Watkins to take the first step on Mars
There's an unfortunate name collision, I didn't know who Jessica Watkins was so Googled her, and the top results are for a Jessica Watkins who participated in the attack on the USA Capitol... I spent a moment pondering what her link to Mars was.. but farther down the results list is NASA astronaut Jessica Watkins.
It's a shame that the astronaut has her search results cluttered by the insurrectionist. Back when I was doing online dating, I shared a name (and similar age and nearby city) with the brother of a recently convicted serial killer, searching for my name brought up articles about him... I warned potential dates that if they looked me up online, I'm not that guy (which, I suppose, is exactly what the brother of a serial killer would say).
Yes, a bit unfortunant, and I did the same thing. Being a non-american I thought she was a congresswoman as well. But it's such a minor detail and in the end no less, that it shouldn't detere from the main point of the article
The US already has established air travel. And mass transit via trains is not a technological problem, it is a political and a marketing problem. Hyperloop has the potential to solve the political and marketing problems.
Hyperloop struggles mightily with the "mass" part of "mass transit." Its theoretical capacity is easily ⅒th of an equivalent rail line, and even then you're making some heroic assumptions about how frequently the "pods" can be safely dispatched.
Hyperloop itself creates the political and marketing problem. Is a fantasy created by the billionaire owner of a car company that is a distraction from the actual totally viable solution of contemporary high speed rail.
Hyperloop may solve political and marketing problems, but doesn’t solve the “cheap, safe, and fast transport problem” in any ways. That’s a completely impractical concept.
The 1963-64 world's fair shaped my entire life. My earliest clear memories were from that fair, and ever since I've been fascinated by "futurism", technology, computers, space, architecture, etc.
Every school and career choice I've made was based on some inspirational spark that hit me there.
The post starts to share a vision for a new fair. Are they proposing that the new fair should actually contain all those elements? Or is it just an example? How were the visions in the previous (successful) fairs agreed upon? Did space go to the highest bidders? Furthermore, was the space divvied up so that NASA had a section (for example) and Ford had their own space? Or was it all intermingled?
Great question. We're planning to compile the most compelling vision of the future that we can. We'll shape the content to suit the technologies available, but also need to ensure we paint a picture of where we can go.
Most Fairs struggle with this because the organizing body has no control over the content of most of the Pavilions. By privately organizing and operating it, the new World's Fair will function more like Epcot where we craft the experience pulling in corporations, countries, and ngo's as we see fit.
Lastly, the Fairgrounds are generally split up into themes with each of the companies/countries hosting their own Pavilion. The map from the 1964 New York World's Fair is a pretty good example of this: http://www.nywf64.com/maps01.shtml
I'm not sure we can ever get back to the techno-optimism that characterized much of America in the past. This article seems to suggest that we as a country can become optimistic about the future again by having a World's Fair. That by doing so we'll recapture a shared vision of the future and a shared cultural purpose that we had until it started to fall apart in the 90s. It's a quaint idea, but it doesn't seem likely to succeed in bridging the widening gaps between various tribes. Much of this cultural disintegration was caused by technology.
Yes! Success for most Fairs depends on the timeline you're looking at. Even the 1984 World's Fair in New Orleans (which I know I call out in the essay), was considered a failure at the time. Now 30+ years later, New Orleans has a thriving waterfront district that wouldn't have been developed without the Fair.
>over a hundred years later, Chicago is still making money from the economic, social, and infrastructure benefits of its fairs.
Because of the way the economy works, this can be said of absolutely any expenditure anywhere anytime for any reason. If even one project laborer buys a cup of coffee on the job, at least $4 of value then gets sent out into circulation in a way that has been plausibly colored by the construction of the Big Money Pit of 1849.
All expenditures stimulate the economy equally, as measured by the "marked bills" theory. That means the only way to compare them is to evaluate opportunity costs. Spending a million bucks on constructing a big hole in the middle of nowhere, and performing an important infrastructure revitalization, will both put dollars in the hands of laborers, and thereby grocery stores and so on, at the same rate. That's why all of the useful parts of the discussion are on the specific, immediate consequences; the distant consequences are the same no matter what you do.
I really think the closest thing we have these days is the Consumer Electronics Show (CES) in Vegas every winter.
At some point in the last twenty years or so, it became less about companies demoing next year’s products and more about really grand visions of the future (of course, where the company in question was the centerpiece of this grand vision). I believe it was Panasonic in 2020 who had a huge booth showing off a flying car concept, accompanied by a wall-to-wall LED display showing a video of families in the future taking it to work/school/etc.
Once I realized that CES is less of a marketing event and more of a modern World’s Fair, I really started to enjoy it a lot more. Even with the corporatism. Can’t wait to (hopefully) go again next year!
It's amazing to me that the World's Fair gave us so many iconic and wonderful structures, all of which are probably too impractical to build otherwise: the Eiffel Tower, Space Needle, Unisphere, Palace of Fine Arts, etc. It's unrealistic, but it's worth having a new world's fair just for an excuse to build another one of these!
As stated in the essay, they now operate as "International Exhibitions", not "World's Fairs." There's some nuance to this, but the problem is still the same. These events are national branding exercises & architecture competitions, not a place where the future becomes real.
A World’s Fair now would be like The Olympics, a ridiculously expensive, corruption-laden affair that would cost many countries more than they could ever recoup, benefiting only a few rich 1st-world countries and/or multi-national companies. While the average person would see “marvels”, they’d be the corporate-approved, mass-market-acceptable marvels that were cleared through legal before being shown to the public.
You can see more innovation in an afternoon spent on blogs than you would ever see in a 6-month long, static display of corporate bullshit.
Talk to the U, Hk, and B people in Asia, ... sorry but “collective vision” is the problem. NASA does not dominate but individual. Collective is evil and commonness is a crime. Let individual be individual. You do not need this for a steve job to thrive. But any joint ignoring individual rights ... it would be 1984 coming today, as it has and coming to a lot of human beings.
We have been told that technology is the solution to problems we face. But, many problems we face are created by technology itself. May be it is time to look at technology not as a solution. Technology may provide solutions at some times for specific cases. but we need to be very selective and careful about that technology.
> Unfortunately, this all started to change after the U.S. put a man on the moon. While this was certainly a "giant leap for mankind," we lacked an understanding of what our next step would be.
Is there supporting evidence of these assertions? There are some interesting ideas in here, but I’m not seeing anything to back them up.
Maybe what we could do in a much more short term is another "Mother of all Demos" [1], focused on more than just the future of computing technology?
Have calls to action/RFPs, and have a conference of some sort - the goal is to have one cohesive demo per track. Distribute this thinking across the world, like Pioneer.app does instead of consolidating it in one country or geographical area.
I’m imagining a future where you can get idempotently vaccinated w/ legit antibodies for any in person event you attend for near instant immunity to illness.
I feel the article is, at best, a nostalgic take to a Post-War time between 1945 and 1970. And, at worst, merely an itch to indulge in consuming modern technology.
Both takes are missing the mark about what a World Fair is about. Here's why.
The 3 decades after 1945 were a time when economies of formerly allied nations were booming. In France, these years äre known as the "Trente Glorieuses". Many more countries had their own "economic miracle" during this time. Even West-Germany and Austria had their own "Wirtschaftwunder" as their economies bounced back.
Many parts of the world were still formal colonies to Western nations, or their economies hadn't fully modernized yet to a point where a sizable middle-class has access to democratized /commoditized comforts of a Western lifestyle e.g. aviation, healthcare, education, even sanitation, access to media and so on.
Not to mention the spectre of the Cold War that loomed over these decades.
Against this historic backdrop, the fair is notable because it was a showcase of mid-20th century American culture and technology. That shouldn't really come as a surprise since it was firmly organized within the sphere of influence of America's hegemony.
Such were the times in 1965. And they are incomparable to 2021. The organization of a World Fair in 1965 happened in a vastly different context, with vastly different incentives, interests and motives then it does in 2021.
The author misses that completely and marches blindly onward hence:
> Today, World's Fairs have been rebranded as "International Expositions" that occur every 5 years, and are a hollow shell of their former glory. They no longer showcase the promise of the future or celebrate achievement. Instead, they serve as national branding exercises, infrastructure development projects masquerading as innovation, architecture competitions, and an opportunity to promote tourism. If anything, they're the perfect representation of our current vision for the future: unfocused and uninspiring.
> But it doesn't have to be this way; we can't afford for it to be this way.
> The world has changed dramatically since 1984. We now live in the most incredible time in human history. The internet has brought billions of people together and tech companies have given us supercomputers in our pockets. We're starting to build hyperloops and supersonic jets. We're on the cusp of incredible breakthroughs in genetics, biology, medicine, food science, energy, transportation, manufacturing, computing, and robotics. We're finally going back to the moon and then on to Mars. We've once again seen the power of a collective vision with the record-breaking development of the COVID-19 vaccine.
The World's Fair is a reflection of the World in 2021 and the future. With the complexity of representing 7.8 billion people, an array of sovereign nations which didn't exist in 1965. It's an event which competes with against the complexity of a exploding plethora of modern mass media, new stakeholders, emerging markets, and so on fueled by globalisation, digitization and automatisation.
A Fair isn't just an marketing event, it's a global forum that aims beyond other events that present themselves as global fora or gatherings. It's an opportunity for nations and peoples to present a showcase to the world. It gives them the chance to put a message out. In that regard, the World Fair is akin to that other global event where the world gathers: The Olympics.
The organization of the World Fair is no longer rooted in the political or economical global hegemony of a handful of "first-world" (for lack a better term) nations showing off their industrial might and international prowess, such as it was during the latter half of the 20th century.
The Fair is now also home to many new nations and upcoming economies or regional powers who are making their entrance to the World's stage, and to whom the importance isn't plain "technological innovation" but above all showing themselves to the world, what they have to offer to the world, what their aspirations are, what they hope for the futre, and taking part in the global forum.
In that regard, the vision for World Fair extends far beyond technology per the offical website:
For sure, there's going to the Moon or Mars, and there are hyperloops and driverless cars, or there's even developing a COVID vaccine. These are wonderful developments. But are they really the developments that need to be put front and center at World's Fair at the expense of everything else? Are these the only developments that should matter to 7.8 billion people in 2021?
The second part from this article seems to voice a want for the World's Fair to limit itself to showcasing technology, engineering and media. To me, it sounds like not much more then a want for being able to indulge in advertising when visiting the Fair. And that comes across as, well, rather tone deaf.
A World Fair isn't about merely basking in the marvels of technology or innovation. It's about the humans and humanity that are represented, visit and meet at a Fair.
Technology and engineering are universal achievements, and a main part of how society as a whole progresses. A sociology focused world fair would just be the words most hated and divisive fair ever, exactly the opposite of what it should set out to achieve.
Yeah no, we should use this money to fund energy research. Trying to woo idiots is a stupid game already won by youtube, online advertising and TikTok.
We as a species gave up trying to solve difficult problems and now we're only concerned with inflating asset prices to feel "wealthy". Smart engineers are working for HFT firms instead of NASA. We've equated "wealth" with "progress" and we're now discovering how hollow all these fake numbers are.
> We as a species gave up trying to solve difficult problems
We live in an era of constant fascinating biological and cosmological discoveries. In the past 3 years we have entered the era of gene therapy healthcare with several genetic treatments recieving approval by he FDA. We are on the cusp of break even if not effective fusion energy.
I cannot deny that the financialization of everything has diminished the moral imperative of some of these efforts but to act as if no one is attacking big problems is silly.
Absolutely. Everyone wants to talk stagnation, but we don't realize how much incredible work is being done in the background. Then, because we live in filtered versions of reality, we don't see it. The Fair serves as a showcase of all of the incredible work being done to shape the future to 1) give people hope and 2) inspire more people to help build it.
It's not a "filtered" version of reality, the actual reality is getting worse for many people and the work you're talking about is orthogonal to the reality of declining wages, worsening health outcomes, infrastructure decline, etc. A fair isn't going to inspire hope to fix these things because these things require collective action, a concept that the USA thoroughly denigrates in favor of elevating the individual.
The fact that every nightly news program includes a report on the stock market (which they invariably conflate with "the economy") but not any of the things you mention is kind of my point. We used to glorify that work. Now the best we can hope for is that it gets ignored lest some senator notice and cut their funding to "eliminate government waste".
I agree. This work is being done in a spirit of pure profit seeking. Even when the individual contributors have altruistic intentions they cannot help that they are part of a larger system which seeks to extract profit from their work. And I also agree that a world's fair would only succeed in highlighting our willingness to pour money into profitable benefit while turning a eye from the growing need in our society.
I really wish we could recenter our society on collective benefit with the financial aspect considered as one of many values involved.
One of the largest problems is due to the negative media cycle and focus on things that drive engagement. Hopefully by stepping out of this algorithmically generated world, we can get experiencing the future and imagining their role in it.
I’m a pretty smart guy, or at least I keep getting told that, and I work near HFTs in the finance world. I am also a huge space nerd thanks to a love for things like Star Trek and Star Wars in the 70’s 80’s. I would take a significant pay cut to work for NASA because that work would feel amazing compared to the grind I’ve been in.
I am 100% confident I would not be hirable by NASA, confident enough in that assertion to shut down without trying. I think you may have some bias from your media bubble coloring your perception if you truly believe what you wrote is true.
The 1964 World's Fair had another GM exhibit. Colonization of the Moon. Underwater cities. None of that happened.
What could we have in a World's Fair now that looks ahead? Colonization of Mars? Mars sucks as real estate. There may be research bases there someday, but as a self-sufficient area, it would be tougher than Antarctica or a continental shelf. Robots may some day be a thing, but they still don't work well in unstructured environments.