I need to start getting paid by the word for this...

I just started re-reading Transmetropolitan today. For those not in the know, it is a graphic novel (the west’s answer to manga). Written by Warren Ellis, it focuses on the character of Spider Jerusalem, a rude, obscene, non-conformist journalist in a wild and super-futuristic Earth.

To give an idea of the tech level, included are stories involving: brain uploading, nano-swarm intelligences, static nanotech construction (build almost anything from almost anything), almost free power, crowded cities that show no signs of collapse – that in fact continue to grow, ubiquitous wireless networking, 2000 channel “basic TV” service, paid and free news services available everywhere, advertisements in the form of memetic “ad bombs” that force there way into your dreams. And that is just what I can remember in a couple of minutes after reading the first two volumes.

But get this: it was written in 1998. Yeah. So I guess not all of the wild stuff Ellis wrote looks quite as impossible as it once did. It looks to me like Ellis tried for the “upper curve” of Heinlein’s breakdown of “future history” trends (the one that shows exploding exponential growth). Heinlein himself claimed to use the middle curve most of the time (continued linear growth), but looking at his writings now, it looks a lot more like his lowest curve, or decreasing technological rates of change over time.

Reading Transmet now, though, it looks much more like a “middle curve” prediction set - almost within reach, and therefore most likely too conservative in nature. One thing that Heinlein emphasized was that, most likely, the real world’s technological development would be best represented by the exponential curve, not the more conservative ones. But most people can’t handle that kind of speculation.

Imagine trying to explain American Airlines to someone from the 1300s. Now imagine someone 40 years from now having the same problem explaining something as simple to them as a major airline. And you just can’t get it. Future shock is likely too conservative a term, also.

p.s.

I intentionally included no links this time. Just use Wikipedia and Google if you are actually interested. I used the correct terms (most of the time, I think) and they should be directly searchable. Oh, except for the hard-to-find Heinlein thing (unless you own the book) – that was from "Where to?", an essay collected in Expanded Universe.