Let's Talk Politics

     In the last blog posts I have had some fun playing a fortune teller, even though I doubt the a great deal of my prognostications will come to be. As is usual, future discoveries and events will occur in ways hardly anyone could have imagined. Perhaps someone will find a way around some of the apparently intractable problems.
     A subject I have always been interested in is politics.  The art of governing, the way we select our leaders (or have them thrust upon us willing or not) and why people think the way they do is fascinating, and often disheartening.  Many studies have been made in this field and is a full time profession for a fair number of people, usually in the self interest of their own political party. Everybody has on opinion about politics, so why not me?  
     Why am I a Republican?  Good question.  I don't back all the positions that appear in party platform, but I believe that the Republican Party's basic positions on the most important issues that confront our country is much sounder than the Democrats, and not just by a small amount. I believe that so many of the social issues such a gay marriage and abortion that seem to dominate politics,and a lot of passion of both political parties, are really religious in nature and really shouldn't be part of a basic part of either parties platform.  They really have no significant impact on the well being of the nation, nor the individuals living here, which should be the primary focus. The nation is not going to fall if gays get legally married or if women want to have the option of ending a pregnancy at any time.  The thought may be repugnant to a lot of people, even most, but it really isn't going to impact the average family or the future of the nation at all.  It certainly doesn't have any impact on my ability to buy groceries, the nation to defend itself against potential aggressors, or the ability of a young person to start up a new company. How these issues became central to the election process is beyond me, even though I have a good idea. I think it was short shortsightedness on the party leadership to allow that to happen. The argument can be made that these issues go to to the very moral fiber of the nation, even though they can't be quantified.  More on that later. What is most important to the health and well being of the nation, and to it's citizens in the long run, are probably a few simple things. 
     First and likely most important is the financial health of the nation. Every thing else follows from that. A country can supply little in the way of assistance to the poor, medical care for the elderly and non-insured, or any of the other tasks we have come to expect from government if they are broke. An individual, family, city, state or nation that is living beyond it's means and is having to borrow money just to meet day to day expenditures is heading for deep trouble. The national public debt stands at around 11 trillion dollars at this time. If you include the interdepartmental debt it grows to 16 trillion dollars. About 6% of the budget was allocated in 2011 just to pay interest on the money that had been previously borrowed and we had to borrow more just to meet that obligation. That's a ticket on a fast ride to bankruptcy. In 2011 the federal expenditures were 3.6 trillion dollars, 1.3 trillion of that was borrowed. That's about 1/3 the total budget. That increases the national debt and results in bigger portion of the 2012 budget dedicated to paying the interest on that debt. This is like a snowball rolling down hill. Unless it's stopped it will become unmanageable. Folks, we're living on borrowed money with no plan to get this monster under control. Through a whole host of entitlements, largely led by the Democratic party, the congress and successive presidents have let us into this quagmire. We only have to look at Europe to see the results of over indulgence in government spending on a lavish scale to see the results. Two countries have already needed to be propped up to avoid default on it's debts and more are in jeopardy. It's alright for a state or the federal government to borrow money, but they should not be in a position where they have to borrow more money just to pay the interest on that debt. 
     I don't know about other states, but California (a poster child for the Democrats) has spent itself into a hole from which it's going to be very painful to recover. This has been building for years with a Democratic legislature getting by with a budget that was really all smoke and mirrors, in spite of  the requirement to have a balanced budget by the state constitution. The combination of the Public Employees and Teachers retirement packages are currently 165 Billion dollars underfunded. California spends 1.5 Billion dollars per year on medical benefits alone on retired public employees.  Both of the above must be covered by the taxpayer. There has been some efforts by some to reign  this in, but with little success.  The unions are just too strong.   But, the game finally caught up with this state and it's now time to pay the piper. 
      Governor Brown is pushing real hard to get tax increases to try to save most of the states entitlements and educational system or deep and painful cuts will have to be made. Lately he's tried to negotiate some pension reforms, but even he has run into a stone wall.  The heavily Democratic legislature isn't going against the public employee unions.  He ran for office promising no new taxes unless approved by the voters; an empty promise as all new taxes have to be approved by the voters anyway.  It's the law. Of course the typical California voter heard the no new taxes part and didn't hear or understand the qualifier.      
     The party that is trying to steer us toward fiscal responsibility with an aim to reaching a balanced budget is the Republicans. The Democrats have shown repeatedly that they are not willing or able to even try.  They have shown that they are perfectly willing to spend the taxpayers money to fund programs and organizations that will expand their political base and assure their support on election day, regardless whether we can afford them or not. They portray themselves as being the party that cares and is willing to help the downtrodden, the weak and the helpless.  Well la de da.  It's easy to be very compassionate and hand out money like candy when it's someone else's money. There really is no such thing as government money; it's money taken from the taxpayer.  I'm not sure the public at large realizes that fact.
     The Nation must have a high rate of employment at jobs that provide adequate income. That means most of the population must make enough money to afford a home, meet the daily demands of living and provide the children with a college education. You don't do that by strangling industry with regulations and taxes.  You do that by unleashing the private sector to do what it does best. 
    The private sector must be strong and viable.  It is the private sector that produces the products and ideas that can be sold on the open market and thus produce revenue to fuel the economic engine. And, it is private industry that needs the workers to produce these products. If we can create an environment where there is a lot of services and products to meet this criteria then a large number of workers will be required.  Government workers do not produce anything that has value in a global economy. They live off the money collected from the private sector.  That is not to say they are not essential to the process, but they have very little impact on the overall financial health of the nation.  In fact they are a drain. Their primary function is to provide the services that support the private sector.  They also enforce regulations, provide safety and other services necessary to support a free economy. The problem comes when regulations put such a strangle hold on the expansion of industry that the growth is hampered. 
      The Democrats have demonstrated over and over again that they are not friends of the private sector. Their constituency is the labor unions and they are constantly pushing for labor laws that will enhance the power of the unions and thus increase the Democrats support group for campaign contributions. A recent example was the thwarted attempt by the National Labor Relations Board to let unions organize without a secret ballot. This would allow union organizers to stand over a worker as he/she fills out a request for the establishment of a union, which would be all that would be required to establish one. No voting required. They fight tooth and nail to stop any move to institute any type of open shop in a state. See Wisconsin. They enforce legislation that forces employers to collect union dues directly from the employees paychecks and turn them over to the unions.  This makes sure that the members pay the money to the unions, whether they agree or not on how the money is spent on political campaigns. 
     They cite the working conditions of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries to justify the backing of the poor unions. But, we now have so many labor laws on the books protecting workers from the kind of excesses that existed then that those conditions are not likely to arise again.  And, I will admit that most of those labor laws were championed by the Democrats.  See, they are not all bad. 
      They led the successful efforts to allow the public employees to unionize, something that most states must now deal with.  Something that even FDR said was a formula for disaster. The thing is that public employees were never really part of that downtrodden group that spawned the labor movement in the 19th and early 20th century.
       Now we have the most powerful unions in the states deciding on who their bosses will be, and who will decide on their pay and other benefits, while they pour massive amounts of money into the coffers of the Democratic Party. This situation has led to the states and the taxpayers of that state being on the hook for outrageous pensions and medical coverage for retired public workers. The huge pension obligations to the teachers and other retired public workers are a major factor in the real budget problems faced by the state. Any attempts to modify those benefits are fought by the public employee unions and the Democrats.  They successfully paint the Republicans who are trying to bring sanity to the process as being hard hearted and cruel and go right own catering to their big financial supporters. 
      Democrats love to tax businesses to raise capital for their programs. That sounds good to the uninitiated because it punishes those bad rich guys and they don't have to pony up the money. But.  It is a fact that you don't really tax businesses.  Taxes along with a myriad of other things are just a cost item to a business, and like all cost items they will be passed on to the consumer. If a business is not able to pass this or any and all cost items along due to market conditions, then they will cease to exist. So like all cost items the consumer is the payer of any business tax, whether corporate or whatever.  Today we are in a global market place and we are competing with products and services from numerous other countries. So the cost of doing business, reflected in the price of products or services, determines how well you will do in that market. Do well and you expand and hire people.  Not compete due to high costs and you close down and fire people. 
    Regulations imposed on businesses are much the same story. They almost always cost money to implement. That cost has to be passed on by price increases on the products or services that sell. Democrats have shown a complete lack of awareness of the cost impacts of regulations they enact.  As the regulations mount the cost of doing business in a state or the nation balloons.  California is now the most unfriendly state in the union for business.  That costs California millions in tax money and contributes to the fiscal problems in the state because, quite frankly, manufacturing doesn't relish moving into the state.  The country is no different.
     It's essential to maintain a strong military.  If history hasn't taught us anything it should have made that lesson clear.  The party that backs and supports the military since WWII has been the Republicans. The Democrats have continually tried to strip the military budget to fund their favorite social programs.  The free world actually depends on the United States to maintain stability, and we are under attack from a radical element largely stationed in the middle east.  The world trade center may not be last of the attacks; other attempts apparently have been initiated but stopped by intelligence agencies.  That puts a tremendous strain on our military, so we have situations where individual service men have to spend frequent deployments with little rest in between because of fewer troops able to the deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan. Who knows where the next place will be. 
     And let us not forget, we are not the only large and potentially powerful military force in the world. I can think of two quickly that pose a potential threat to the United States due their adherence to an ideology so foreign to us, and because they have interests that conflict with us in certain parts of the world. We no longer have the luxury of time if attacked that we had in 1941.  The broad oceans that gave us time before are just puddles in today's world. 
     Our infrastructure is falling apart. For the nation to thrive, for commerce to advance and produce goods and services for an increasing population, a sound policy must be made to bring our highways, our bridges, electrical distribution systems, power generation, and other systems which are essential must be brought up to snuff and maintained.  The Democrats have continually stripped the highway funds to pay for other pet programs to aid their constituency. They are the party that you can usually count on to fight any expansion of infrastructure to transport water, oil or natural gas making it cheaper for the consumer. The so called stimulus package, recently enacted, was supposed to provide help in that direction, but much of the money was squandered on programs that aided the Democrats constituency. We are just now beginning to see the results of some of that money.  And, let us not forget, that most of the ideas for the recovery program actually were germinated by the Bush administration, except Bush envisioned a massive building program to build and maintain infrastructure. 
       Social Security, once a financially viable program, is not sustainable without changes. The mythical Social Security Trust Fund in reality doesn't exist. Up till recently more money was collected from the taxpayers for Social Security than was paid out. That surplus money went into the general fund and was spent on other government programs, such a Medicare.  That is how Bill Clinton, supposedly balanced the budget. Without the surplus Social Security funds the budget would have been way of of whack. There is mistaken idea running around that Social Security was some kind of savings account and the recipients were only getting back what they had paid into the account.  Not so.  SS is a pay as you go program.  The politician  that called it a ponze scheme was right on the money. It is only viable when you have a growing bunch of contributors at the bottom of the pyramid.  That isn't happening anymore as the baby boomers are retiring and the pyramid is being turned upside down. The Democrats have made it a real effort to thwart any efforts to make the necessary modifications in the program by blocking efforts in congress and by spending millions in campaign ads scaring the hell out of the current recipients of Social Security and Medicare, even though no one has ever proposed any changes that would effect that group or the one approaching that age. The AARP, another Democrat mouthpiece, is in the forefront of this disinformation spreading their ideology to their large membership. The sad thing is that the media just passes these allegations along with no effort the discover or divulge the facts. The Republicans, especially Paul Ryan now, are pictured as just throwing grandma off the train, or a cliff, aided by cartoons and liberal comedians such as Jay Leno. 
     All of the above and perhaps a few more is why I'm a Republican. I'm afraid my party is not always on the side of the righteous, but the basic core of the party is trying to bring about changes in government to get the system upright and running smoothly again. Without that the social programs, so dear to the hearts of the Democrats, can not be afforded.  
   
           
      
     
       
     
    

Lets Look Into The Future Part 4

        Let's look at technology: Advances in technology will continue to be the driving force behind changes into the 21st century just as it has in the past. It will impact on everything that touches our lives from medicine, war, transportation, manufacturing, farming, entertainment, law enforcement, and a whole host of other activities and products. It is impossible to accurately predict where it will take us.  The best minds never really contemplated the amazing advances that have already taking place in  just a few years.  Think about it: a little over 300 years ago our mode of power was muscles.  Horses, oxen, or human with a few water powered mills thrown in were the way we traveled, tilled the soil, ground grain, dug ditches, built buildings and anything else we wanted to do. Since then we have seen the steam engine, the telephone, radio, the airplane and a whole host of new innovations come to be. Messages took days, weeks or even months to travel between destinations. What a difference a few centuries make.  One thing is clear, the rate of technological advancement is growing exponentially. More has been accomplished in the last century than over the 130,000 years (give of take) of homo sapians existence on this earth. There is no reason to believe that the rate of development will slow down.  In fact it will likely speed up. 
          The earth and it's population will face many challenges in the future. Technological development will be there to meet a lot of those challenges, but certainly not all. Technology can only do so much. On the other hand advances in technology is like a two edged sword, it will cause major disruptions in the lives of a huge percentage of the population. I have already addressed some advancements in earlier blogs as they pertained to specific  subjects I was discussing at the time. There are some other subjects I thought might be interesting.  At least they are to me. They certainly are not all encompassing; just a short list of things that occurred to me. 
         We talk a lot about unmanned aircraft.  Think of the big advantages that such a weapon would have.  The designers would no longer be constrained in aircraft design by the frailties of the human body.  A lot of the cost and complexity in a modern armored vehicle or fighter aircraft design is there specifically to support the human pilot and/or crew. One of the biggest restrictions on the design of fighter aircraft would no longer apply, the amount of G forces that the human can withstand.  Without that restriction aircraft could be designed to turn and accelerate with almost unlimited G forces. Space and environmental controls would not be required in tanks and other armored vehicles. The only limitation would be hardware design. The designers would no longer have to worry about air, heat, cosmic radiation or other environment issues in crafts designed to fly within the atmosphere or near space. Design measures to save the human pilot in an emergency would not longer be needed. There would be a psychological shift also, as the life of a pilot or crew in a combat situation would no longer be a factor. 
          There a two limitations that need to be addressed and overcome before really effective unmanned warplanes or ground attack vehicles can be deployed as the main line of warfare in the future. 
          First, and probably easiest to overcome is the problem of field of vision.  All unmanned vehicles to date have a very narrow window for the operator, usually defined by a video screen for viewing whichever way the camera is pointing.  Not good enough for extensive aerial or ground based combat. Humans have a broad field of view, with the ability to quickly swivel the head to pick up objects over a 360 degree arc around them and keep everything in perspectivie. An effective armored vehicle or plane will have to give the remote "pilot" the same ability at a minimum. Perhaps the drone operator will don a helmet or sit in a virtual cockpit which gives a complete view of the area around the drone. Likely a better view than the human pilot or vehicle  operator would have.  Much better in fact. And he can look in all directions just be turning his head. This helmet would have all the advantages of a heads up display with the "look and shoot" capability now employed on attack helicopters and the latest fighters. The tank, or whatever, would not have to rotate a turret to fire a round at the enemy.  The gunner would only have to "see" the enemy and trigger the weapon to fire. No more enemy. Of course, "seeing" could be by infrared, night vision, telephoto, or any number of new ways . It is also likely that combat in the future will be carried out over distances far out of the range of human eyesight. 
          The biggest problem, as I see it, is the avoidance of the enemy jamming, or otherwise disrupting, the signal connecting the drone to the control station, which may be another country. My background is not in communications so maybe these problems are easier to overcome that I think. We certainly have to consider interference today in the design of battlefield communications gear. But, consider; to communicate with a drone over long distances would likely require the use of a satellite to relay the commands and feedback between the control station and the drone. Not likely to be there in a high tech war.  An alternative would be for signal relay aircraft flying at high latitude, maybe several if the signal must be relayed over long distances. Not very survivable with the advances in SAM's that is likely to take place in the coming years. 
        That means the control station would need to be "Line of Sight" near to to the drone for active real time control of the vehicle. Not an attractive alternative.
        The answer to the puzzle might be to design machines that can carry out missions without continuous control from a real time operator. The drone will not be able to depend on GPS for guidance, that system would have been eliminated in the beginning of the conflict. Control will have to be by Inertial Navigation supplemented by terrain mapping, and other non-jammable methods. Close in combat will have to depend on infrared, radar and visual signals feeding a very sophisticated computer for combat control. Such a sophisticated vehicle is almost a reality now.  Just look at some of the air combat video games and it is clear that a computer can provide almost human responses in a combat situation.  It isn't a stretch of the imagination to presume that this type of software will be further developed to the extent that it will be superior to humans in the fast paced combat of the future. 
     Of course the war planes and such is not the only application of unmanned vehicles.  There are many dangerous jobs that will be performed by remotely controlled vehicles where communication interruption is not an issue. 
     The way we receive TV will change.  Now you look at a schedule to determine the times of programs you would like to watch. You can watch them as they are broadcast, or you can use the DVR and record them for later viewing. I think that will change in the future.  All programming will be received in your home on demand. Your TV guide will not have times associated with programs, but rather just a list of new programs that you can stream at your leisure. You will be able to stream any of the past programs as you wish, so if you missed a show on the day it became available you can watch it a week or month later. I'm not at all sure how the programming will be paid for.  Advertisers will not care for this new format at all, unless you don't have the capability to fast forward through the commercials. But, I don't think that commercial TV will disappear. Although I do think that online streaming services ala Netflix will become more prevalent. Studies have shown that even when people record a show, the vast majority still sit through the commercials. Advertisers will still get their message across. Even though sporting events can be accessed after the fact, it is likely that most people will want watch their favorite game or event real time, with all the commercial breaks. 
      The dominate type of program will have an option to be interactive with the viewer. One can either watch the show as a spectator or enter the action as a participant. 
      All movies you see at the local cinema will be streamed, that is if the local cinema still exists and it likely will.  That's already happening in a limited way and will become the only method in the future. 
     I think that traditional movies and TV shows will survive, although it isn't clear that live actors playing in those movies will. By traditional movies, I mean plays presented to a largely passive audience.  The viewer is not a participant in the action, but is an observer.  What is clear is that the use of live actors to play the roles in the movies will no longer be required.  Computer Generated Imagery (CGI) is already reached a very high realism factor and will only get better. Whether the public will demand living actors in their movies and TV plays will be the determining factor. 
     I have addressed in earlier blogs how I think these programs, both at the cinema and at home will be viewed. 
     Automation will become the principle method of manufacturing everything.  We already are rather deep into the manufacture of products using robots instead of manpower. But, there is still a large number of goods that are labor intensive and employ huge numbers of people to produce them.  This results in the transfer of manufacturing to countries with low labor costs and lax work rules.  China, India and a host of third world countries have prospered over the last few years because of this. But, I think the pendulum will swing back in the not to distant future.  As automation gets more sophisticated more and more of the tasks that are now performed by humans will be transferred to robotic machines. This move will cause a significant disruption in unskilled labor throughout the world. The demand of STEM skills will increase, but the need for low and unskilled labor will be severely impacted.  
     The nations that embrace automation in the production of more and more products will prosper, while others will be left behind. To accomplish this evolution will require a highly trained and educated work force. And, I'm afraid this where we, the USA, are being overshadowed by other advancing countries. China, Japan, Germany and some other countries are educating engineers at a rate much higher than America and they will likely embrace automation with a fervor, that is if labor unions and other such organizations don't get in the way.  But, what will she do with all those masses of people that now produce the clothing, and other labor intensive products when the factories turn more and more to complete automation. 
     That is the great social question that will have to be addressed in the future. Technology, including advances in medicine, will produce two conflicting outcomes.  Medicine will give us much longer life, resulting in an greater explosion in world population, but automation and other technologies will make the requirement for low skilled labor less and less. 
      I'm afraid that we are going to parallel the Roman Empire. With slaves doing almost all the labor required for the empire, the state was left with the problem of placating the vast population.  The well documented Roman games to entertain the masses resulted. The state had to give the masses entertainment in order to keep them placated. The rich spiraled into decadence and debauchery, while the great unwashed masses lived off what was essentially welfare. Instead of slaves doing the work in future times, it will be machines.  But, I fear that the result might well be the same. We already have ever expanding welfare rolls, a growing government employing more and more of the work force, with a political party offering even more handouts. And, if the government isn't directly providing the perks, then they are passing laws forcing private industry to supply them. 
     The socialist governments handing out perks like they are candy is already evident in most of the European countries,especially Greece, Italy and Spain.  The trend is well entrenched in the good ole USA as well.  More and more, the people want their government to provide them with a high standard of living, with long vacations, short work weeks, free medical care and a lucrative retirement at an early age. Of course, paid for by somebody else.  "The Rich", are the favorite targets, but it doesn't matter as long as it isn't me.  Automation on a grand scale is just going to make the matter worse. 
      Will retail stay essentially the same?  Not likely. The purchase of goods will be done more and more over the internet or whatever supersedes it. The big retail stores will likely not survive, at least in their present form.  The business model may be one where manufacturers, such as HP or Apple, provide a site where people can touch, feel and sample a product, but the product will be purchased on the internet. These sites may turn out to be virtual. With advances in technology a virtual reality (VR) site will be made to seem very real.  Because it's so easy to price shop on the internet, retail will have to meet the price challenge to stay in business. This could become the business model for almost all retail where it isn't essential to the customer to sample the actual product, such as produce in the market, before they buy.
    The way you shop at the market will likely change also. You will select what you want from a menu, it will be conveyed to you directly, priced, and bagged. You will be able to select the actual produce, meat and other products before you decide to purchase.  You will likely not wander the isles as you do now in the large shopping center. For those that can afford a VR site this operation can be done a home.  For others the store will provide kiosks. You will have the option of picking up the purchases or having them delivered, likely at an additional fee of course. This will likely also cause the resurrection of the specialty meat markets and produce markets because a number of shoppers will  want to physically sample the items before buying.  
     Clothes shopping will be different. The customer will have an image of themselves taken.  This will be at home for those that can afford the VR equipment or at a stores kiosk for others. The customer can then select different apparel to "try" on.  What the customer will see is what that particular dress, suit, or whatever looks like on them.  It will be perfectly sized to the consumer. The image will move at the customers direction and show the apparel from all angles. When the customer looks in the "Mirror" they will see themselves with the apparel they're considering being worn. To fit a particular customers preference modifications to the apparel can be made.  The sleeves lengthened, etc. to fit an individual sense of style. In a sense all clothing will be custom made. The choice of apparel using this method will be much larger and easier to find than the mess that one finds in the department stores now. 
     Genetically modified foods will become the norm.  The growing population and the need to feed those people will require greater yield from the available farmland than is possible with unmodified foods. The need will be intense to grow food in places and in soil not currently friendly to crops.  The modifications will make the plants highly resistant to insects and disease.  Fruits and vegetables will be adapted to those growing conditions by genetic manipulation. The organic farm will likely still exist, but only for the elite who have a hangup over genetically modified food and can afford the price that will be demanded. 
     Law enforcement will make huge strides forward in the use of forensic evidence.  Think of CSI on steroids. The real stars of the future in the field of law enforcement will be the forensic people who examine a crime scene with equipment we haven't even thought of yet, except SciFi writers of course. Let your imagination run wild and it's likely to happen in the future.  Perhaps an imaging system that lets law enforcement view the crime as it happened due to some lingering essence that we aren't even aware of today (there goes the SciFi guys again). In any event, forensics will be able to find and analyse the tiniest scraps of evidence at a crime scene. Software will allow searches of vast data bases to match and coordinate data from all over the world in a very fast and efficient manner. DNA matches, face recognition, and other forensic tools will be improved by leaps and bounds, both in speed (almost instantaneous) and in accuracy. To be a police officer in the future might require an engineering degree specializing in forensic science. 
     What will soldiers of the future wear?  The answer is simple, but will be difficult to achieve.  The answer is, light weight armor for most infantry and full powered body armor for an elite group. I think that science will take a page right out of science fiction and equip the warriors of the future with full body armored suits. It is likely that there will two types of armor; light armor for what will be termed (perhaps) light infantry, and heavy, for heavy infantry. Light infantry will be highly mobile and will wear a light weight body armor that can deflect most small arms fire, shrapnel and such.  It will not be powered as will the heavy infantry.  It will provide a moderate degree of environmental protection from heat, cold nuclear radiation and other bad things that might be encountered on the battlefield of the future. 
     The heavily armored infantry will don suits that will give them the ultimate protection from all types of things trying to kill them.  They will be like a walking tank. The suits will provide augmentation to the limbs giving the wearer superhuman strength and speed. They will be able to carry and fire heavy weapons that would be impossible without the power assistance. The suits will protect the soldier from extreme heat or cold as well as other hostile environments. 
     Either suit will provide heads up displays in an environmental helmet that alloys the soldier to see the battlefield with friend or foe definition clearly shown. The helmet will be equipped with many advanced features to aid the soldier in performance of their duties. 
     The rifle, if you want to call it that, will host smart bullets that will find any foe that is designated by the shooter. The rifle itself will likely not be chemically fired but rather something like a rail gun. The projectiles themselves will be very small needle like and fired at incredible speeds, far faster than anything today. The kinetic energy will be sufficient to penetrate and destroy today's heavy tanks, but not the armored vehicle of tomorrow. The heavy infantry will have more destructive weapons at their disposal, a supercharged RPG perhaps, bigger and much more powerful than any thing in today's arsenal. 
     Can technology produce immortality? Perhaps.  The capacity and speed of computers is growing rapidly. Image a time in the future where we can rival the human brain in terms of storage capacity, speed and size. Next imagine that we can tap into the brain and transfer every particle of information stored there into this computer. That information is what you are.  It's all your memories, dreams and personality quirks that make you. So now a complete copy of you is now stored in that computer. Next, let's build a cyborg to house that computer and build sensors to provide sight, sound, touch, etc. stimulus from the cyborg to the computer. Presto, that cyborg has become you. And as the cyborg wears out or is damaged, you can transfer yourself to another cyborg and keep on going.  You can live forever. This scenario is not that far fetched actually.  It is well within the various possibilities of technological advancement in the future.  
         
         
      






             
         

Let's look into the future Part 3

Is another world war coming? No one can be sure, but history tells us that the chances are good that it will. The question then is how will it start, how extensive will it be and how much damage will result.  
            In the foreseeable future the main wars will be along the lines that is happening  now; relativity small wars by global standards, limited to a small region and not threatening the large nations. They will be essentially gorilla type wars, with no defined front lines and difficulty identifying friend from foe. So far the larger nations have not confronted each other in an overt way in the middle of these wars, even if they have supplied the arms to fight them.  As long as it stays that way a global conflagration will be avoided. But, history says that is not likely to last.
           What is likely to happen sometime in the future is the large and militarily powerful nations will be drawn into conflict the same way that it has happened so often in the past. We will end up fighting a global war that nobody really wanted, over issues that aren't really defined, because of circumstances that no one saw coming and due to misunderstanding of the intentions of others. 
           The recent experience of WWI is a good example of a single incident escalating, whereby a single assassination set off a chain of events that engulfed the world in a disastrous war, that solved nothing, only setting the conditions for another world war.  It embroiled Britain and America in a war they really had no stake in, with no obligation from treaty commitments to enter, resulting in thousands of lives lost and a huge amounts of money spent from the treasuries. In the end it changed the face of Europe and resulted in America becoming a major power in the world. It caused the downfall of the Romanov dynasty and the growth of communism and the USSR. The Austrian-Hungarian Empire ceased to exist, setting up regional conflicts that are still being played out. Of course they weren't much of an empire by the time of WWI anyway, but they were the nation that sparked the great war. It left Germany in such poor conditions that it made the rise of National Socialism, with Hitler as it's head, much easier to accomplish, perhaps even inevitable. 
        World War II is an example of the conditions that closely align to today's climate.  Nations misreading the intentions and resolve of other nations regarding their reactions to events was really the catalyst that fueled the actions leading to the global war. Hitler invaded the Rhineland with no opposition.  He could have been stopped right there, the German Army had orders to withdraw if opposed. But, France, with the largest land army on the continent, didn't act. After taking in Austria, Hitler then threatened Czechoslovakia, and England's Chamberlain ceded the most vital part of  Czech territory in order to achieve "Peace in Our Time". Of course in very little time the rest of Czechoslovakia fell to the Germans. Hitler then made a bad assumption.  The German Army invaded Poland thinking that the French and English did not have the will to intervene.  But, this time they acted and the war in Europe erupted.  France fell pretty fast, leaving England to face the Germans alone. Subsequently Hitler made another major miscalculation and invaded the USSR while England was still at his back, living and breathing.  At that point I think his doom was sealed. He had totally underestimated the will, and perhaps more importantly, the huge armies and the manufacturing capabilities of the Soviets. He now had a two front war on his hands,which is almost always a disaster.  Then, to add to the range of stupid blunders, he declared war on the United States. A move that FDR was eagerly wishing for. 
         The United States entered the war due to a total miscalculation on Japans part. She assumed that the US did not have the will or the guts to fight a prolonged war, and by destroying the American fleet at Pearl Harbor and early victories in the Pacific she could get an advantageous treaty. One that would give them free rein in the Pacific. She thought of the American people as soft and corrupt. But, as Adm. Yamamoto feared, all they did was awaken a sleeping tiger. 
        One can easily picture several scenarios that exists at this time that might possibly be the spark that ignites a global conflict. The situation among the middle eastern Muslim nations and Israel is a tender box that shouldn't be ignored. Iran, and soon it's close ally Iraq, are open about their determination to see Israel wiped off the face of the earth. An escalating threat to Israel is looming more ominous with the obvious development of a nuclear weapon by Iran, with a way to deliver it.  Israel may very well deliver a preemptive strike at the nuclear facilities in Iran.  They've done it before. However, they might act too late, because Iran may have nuclear  tipped missiles already operational. Under the nuclear umbrella Iran and Iraq, and perhaps the newly formed Arab League, may send massive armies against Israel in retaliation (as if they needed an excuse).  The USA is committed to the support of Israel and with the help of American support the attack could be turned back.  Iran and the Arab League faced with losing the war could launch it's nuclear arsenal against Israel and against the American Carrier battle group operating in the Persian Gulf, which they perceive as being Israel allies.   Now, whether the attack on the battle group will succeed depends on whether the defensive features contained within the battle groups are as good as they have been touted. But, in any event the cat is out of the bag.  The carrier battle groups that survive the nuclear attack will launch strikes against Iran, Iraq and other members of the Arab League that entered the war. The FA18's (or F35's or whatever the Navy's primary strike fighter is at the time) will roll and the missile cruisers will start raining destruction. I don't think that the initial strikes will be nuclear, but with modern technology they will be very effective. The Air Force with finally have something to do; the B2's will be airborne. Because Israel has been so crippled by the nuclear strikes from Iran and because the US was directly attacked by the Arab League, the US sends in the marines to defeat the the current regimes.  What could happen next is anybodies guess.  It could develop as Russia, fearing the presence of the American military on their very borders, counters with land troops of it's own.  And thus, it begins. China, perhaps concerned with the cut off of it's oil supply from the middle east enters the war on the side of Russia, although I would like to think that China would not be drawn in.  Europe and Britain soon follow the US into the mess. I believe the great powers will try to refrain from the use of nuclear weapons, at least in the beginning.  The consequences are just too awful to contemplate. It should be remembered that all the WWII combatants refrained from the use of poison gas during that war, a tactic that was used liberally in the WW I and outlawed in the Geneva Convention. So there is hope.  However, if the war proceeds on for a period of time and one side is in dire straights, then they may try the nuclear option out of desperation.   
        A greater tinder box is sitting in North Korea.  It isn't hard to imagine that the north will launch another invasion of the south, perhaps this time with nuclear weapons. They have threatened to do so many times in the recent past. North Korea has a huge well equipped army and will sweep into the south quickly and successfully.  Thousands of Americans will be killed in the initial assault.  The Americans will retaliate and we will have another Korean War, only this time with far more fearsome weapons.  Determined to never let this happen again, the Americans decide that the North Korean government must be eliminated and the territory reunited with the south. I fear that this course of action will drag China into the war in a big way just as it did before and the escalation starts. Once the US and China are engaged the rest of the major world powers may well be dragged in. 
         Another, and perhaps scarier problem exists in the Chinese claim to Taiwan. It is clear that the Chinese intend to take Taiwan back into mainland China.  But, the current Taiwanese government has no plans to allow that to happen.  The United States has consistently supported Taiwan.  We have sent warships down the straight between China and Taiwan several times to enforce our support. But, if the Chinese decide to force the issue by force of arms, the threat of a major war between the US and China is a real possibility, depending on our response. I don't believe that the US will allow Taiwan to be overrun. We should hope that the Chinese do not misread our resolve about that issue.  This is a problem that can be resolved by diplomatic means, at least I hope so.
         It may not play out that way, of course, but the seeds of a global conflict are present in many places.  Nations not trusting each other or with entirely different goals and political positions. The tinder boxes, at the present time, are the middle east, Taiwan and North Korea. That may change in the future, and likely will.  Consider the ever increasing hostility of  Russia toward the United States under the leadership of Putin, apparently the President for Life for all practical purposes and increasingly looking more like Stalin. A lot of South America is not our friend.  Socialist governments seem to be on the rise there, generally hostile to America. 
        The one thing that may restrain China from hostilities with the US is the fact that we owe them so much money. If that debt were cancelled by war, it might throw the Chinese economy into a tailspin. That's in addition to the fact that we're such a large consumer of Chinese products, and it mustn't be forgotten that the Chinese own a lot of America.  Another factor is that we depend on China to supply a vast number of consumer products that we no longer make ourselves, and no longer have the capability to make, because we have long ago shipped it overseas. And, the US has a lot of investment in China. It would not be in America's or China's best interest to get into a war from purely economic reasons.  We can only hope that China feels no real need to react to a war in North Korea as being possibly hostile to them or that they push the Taiwanese issue into a shooting war. 
          How will this war be fought?  Not like the last great war, that's for sure. Although the Generals will likely think that way in the beginning. I don't think you will see large land armies pitted against each other as in WWII and Korea. Such a tactic will be suicidal considering the weaponry that is currently available, and are likely to be developed in the future, to the Armies and Navies of the advanced nations. I don't think that we will see large aircraft raids dropping bombs on cities as was done by Germany and the Allies in WWII. Modern weapons are achieving greater and greater accuracy, which will result in concentration on militarily important sites with a far greater probability of damage or destruction of the target.  We can destroy the same critical target now with one bomb or missile that took squadrons of planes to destroy in WWII.  Drones are now in play and will continue to advance in capability so that we will see greater and greater use of aircraft controlled remotely. Ground based weapons will also join the robotics game, with tanks that don't require crews and other remotely controlled weapons available to the ground forces. 
          The surface Navies will likely be one of  the first primary targets at the outbreak of hostilities.  The power that can be launched from the seas is too much to ignore.  Depending on the type of weapons used and the defensive capability of the fleet, the outcome could be in doubt.  If the war has already escalated into a nuclear confrontation, it is likely the surface fleet will not exist very long. That will leave the Navy with only the undersea boats with their nuclear arsenal.  It is possible that the Navy will develop other types of ships than the conventional submarine by the time of a new global conflict, so that they will have a vast choice of weapons and delivery methods available that can survive the first few months of a future war. The Navy will then be the only one of the three services that has long range striking capability.  
          Land based airfields, command centers, fuel storage sites, strategic manufacturing and missile launch sites will not survive the initial phases of a global war. They would have long since been identified and targeted for destruction.  It is unlikely that we will ever be able to build defensive capability to stop an all out attack on these facilities. For anything like conventional air power to survive, the ground based facilities will have to be dug into mountains and hardened against weapons specifically designed to destroy such installations. 
          Just as control of the sky above the battle field was important, almost essential, in the recent past, the shift will be upward to space. The first thing that will attacked at outbreak of hostilities will be the satellites in synchronous and nonsynchronous orbit that provide detailed observations and the GPS system that provides guidance. It will be essential to deny the enemy the capability that the intelligence delivered from these sources, and the guidance capability they provide missiles and other weapons, be eliminated.          
        That will spawn a space war as each side strives to  gain command of the space above the battle field. A whole new class of weapon systems will emerge specifically designed to provide space superiority. At the same time each side will attempt to develop methods to provide the "spy in the sky" capability. It will look a lot like WWI aviation, relatively primitive in the beginning, but reaching higher levels of sophistication in a fairly short time.
          We have just seen the beginning of the development of "smart bombs", guided missiles, and unmanned  aircraft.   As the advances in intelligent weapons continues to grow, their effectiveness will become more and more lethal. Such weapons could easily destroy large land armies, and any above ground land based facilities. Of course both combatants will be striving to develop counter measures against these new and deadly weapons. And, the weapons race will accelerate.
          In short, a new world war would be a cataclysmic event. It would be fought by a whole new set of weapons at sea, in the air, in space and on the ground. On the plus side, if there is one, I don't think cities will be ravished just for the sake of destroying them.  Many studies following WWII has shown that the mass bombing of cities really did not achieve the objectives that the leaders of Strategic air-power hoped for. On the other hand the destruction of strategic targets was effective.  
          Let's just hope that the leaders of nations in the future will be able to avoid another global war.  That's a lot to hope for, but as they say hope reigns supreme. 
            
         

Lets Look Into The Future Part 2

Let's continue our journey into the future and see where it leads.

Medicine and it's impact on society:
      The strides in medicine over the foreseeable future will be astounding.  Most of the things that kill us now will no longer present a problem.  Cancer, at least most kinds, Alzheimer, heart disease, emphysema and other deadly diseases will be conquered. Some by advanced surgical methods, but most by developing immunization methods to prevent the disease to begin with.  But, a cautionary thought here.  History has shown that the little buggers that cause a lot of mankind's diseases and misery have a habit of mutating  to be resistant to the current Sera and they go on living and wrecking havoc.  Given that history, I don't think we will ever totally overcome all the various known and as yet unknown diseases that will occur in the future. 
           I think the field of nanotechnology has a real chance to be the future for large fields of medicine. Imagine the little machines programmed to selectively attack and remove bad growths in the body and to close small ruptures in blood vessels.  They could repair damaged nerves, or even repair nerves that have been severed due to accidents. They will likely do a lot more than that.  The possibilities are almost unbounded. 
         Interesting experimental  programs are underway now to provide artificial limbs which will react just as the real limb. I expect that the field of cybernetics, or robotics if you wish, will allow the attachment of artificial limbs that react to the wearers impulses just as an actual arm or leg. The technology depicted in Star Wars is likely in our future.  However, somewhere in the future we may find a way to actually grow limbs, who knows.  That would be a better outcome.
       Perhaps the stem cell research will develop as everybody hopes and we will be able to grow new organs that will not be subject to the rejection problems now present with organ transplants. And, perhaps repair  spinal cord injuries as some have speculated. Whether that avenue of research is fruitful or not, we will find a way to replace failing organs in the future without having to rely on another persons gift to do so. If we can understand an organs functions, then we likely could build a machine that can duplicate those functions. We already know a lot and can duplicate, to some extent, the functions of the heart and kidneys.  The future research and development will result in artificial hearts and kidneys that can fit in the body and effectively replace the living organs. The liver, pancreas and other essential organs will follow.  
         One of the most interesting fields of study will discover the mechanism the causes our bodies to grow and age, and we will learn how to slow the process or even to regulate it completely so that we could be forever young. Eternal Life.  Wow, what could be better? Of course people will still be vulnerable to resistant diseases, accidents, suicides, murder, war related trauma and other violent ways to end life. But, advances in medicine, engineering and other sciences will reduce those, to some extent, from our present experience.  
          In the future I feel sure that women will not have to bear their children.  We will be able to create artificial wombs that will nurture the fetus as it grows. I have no clue how this will be implemented but, I feel sure it's coming. Whether this method will be adopted on a wide spread bases is a matter of public policy and individual preference. I think there will be a lot of women who will wish for a child, but just as soon not go through the discomfort and pain of carrying and delivering it. We will be able to manipulate the DNA of the unborn to select the sex, characteristics of the child, and to eliminate any inherent birth defects. I.e. a custom made child. Sounds like the plot of a SciFi movie does't it?
          All of this sounds like a blessing, but is it really?  The advances that will be made in medicine will result in the population of the world living longer and longer lifetimes.  This is especially true if we discover the secrets of aging and learn to slow it down or stop it altogether.  Overpopulation, already looming as a problem, will be the first and most damaging of the outcomes, especially in the advanced nations where these medical advances will be first applied. Population in the industrialized worlds will explode, that is until something is done to slow it down, either voluntarily or by the state (see China). Starvation, especially among the poor and the third world countries may be the result, as all the planets resources are diverted to feed the ever growing numbers of people. The nations that have the strong military will take what they need from the weak when the need becomes desperate. World wide riots will result as the scarcity of resources begins to impact the population as a whole. Strong central governments will need to arise with central planning and power to meet the crises. Draconian measures will be applied, with the resulting abuses of power that always results when too much power is deposited into a few hands.  
         The long term effects on the human species could turn out to have a negative outcome, and probably will.  Young people would be frozen out of careers with futures. And, there are fewer and fewer young people being born as population controls come into being.  New ways of doing things would be squashed by the older generation who would now stay in their jobs for long periods of time.  After all, the older generation brings vast experience and longevity to the work place. Sometimes a good thing, but not always.  After a while we get set in our ways and think that there is no better way to do things.  It's usually the younger minds that challenge the status quo. Certainly such programs as Social Security and Medicare will have to be rethought, even over the dead bodies of the AARP and it's ilk. If we're living into our hundreds and beyond, we certainly can't be retiring in our sixties and living off a rapidly dwindling younger working class. That's already a problem today. Imagine what it would be like if our lifespan were doubled, or more. 
        When you consider history and the advances in critical thinking that occurred, what stands out is that the significant leapfrogs in thinking were generated by the great minds when they were young. Einstein, Newton, Neils Bohr, Copernicus and Kepler along with many others in scientific world conceived of their breakthrough concepts while young men.  Apple, Facebook, Amazon, Microsoft and Twitter were not conceived in the big laboratories of IBM, at Barns and Noble, Sears or any other of the established well staffed big name companies, but by young entrepreneurs looking for a new way to do things.  
          The young are, and have always been, the driving force behind political change, right or wrong. They are the ones who demonstrate in the streets, who lead the protests against some real or imagined wrong or injustice.  They have not always been right, in fact they often are acting out of pure self interest, but they are sometimes effective in the long run. They have always represented a large section of the total population which gives them significant political power.  But, under this scenario that will be less and less true.  Population restrictions and much longer lives of older people, in thought if not in appearance, will make the young become far less significant. As a result there will be less and less social changes in our political structure.  There will be no outraged young mob that will congregate, march in the streets, and demonstrate to bring about social change in this new dictatorship that will emerge.  
         I guess I don't believe in the future as depicted by Gene Roddenberry in Star Trek.  I don't think mankind will reach condition where poverty, crime, oppression, and hunger are not with us, whether we live longer or not. There will always be small and large dictators in our world. The third world dictators will always be with us and will spread misery among the people of their countries. The Stalins, Hitlers and their ilk will always arise, especially as resources become scarce and discontent rises.In fact I don't see a real change from the political conditions that exist today.  The names may change, but the jockeying for power among nations, religions and political factions will continue. We are not entering Utopia. 
        Part 3 to follow. 

Lets Look Into The Future Part 1

      I often wonder, as I'm sure a lot of people do, about what the future holds for our planet and mankind.  I thought I would put down what I think the future holds and what I don't think is coming up in any foreseeable time.  Of course this is a lot of speculation.  It is clear that some of things that were predicted to have happened by now by the so called experts, and so easily made,  haven't come true and likely never will. Gene Roddenberry' Star Trek was a fairly good example of science fiction becoming reality, at least in a lot of applications (remember the communicators).  It's also an example of what will likely never happen (recall the transporter).  Lets start with science:  What is likely to happen in the foreseeable future in the world of science, both physical and medicine.?
      Is human star travel in the future?  Not in any future I can foresee.  Einstein postulated that the speed of light was absolute and that no object can travel faster.  So far every piece of  data and the outcome of every experiment has enforced that theory. The only exception, based on recent theories, is that whole galaxies at the far reaches of the universe are traveling faster than light speed.  That means traveling to the stars, even if we can solve the problem of accelerating a starship near the speed of light, will take many years. Usually more than a human lifetime. No scientist I have every heard or read has presented a viable method to achieve space travel that is within the capability of mankind to achieve.  Ideas such as folding space seem to be only way that could overcome the absolute limit on  speed, but the kicker here is the enormous power that would be required to make that happen is more that can be generated on earth.
      Other daunting problems associated with long term space travel, the lack of gravity, food, water, air to breath and some way to stay warm in the frozen environment of space, cosmic radiation,  etc. can likely be overcome by methods that we can understand and in fact already employ in certain applications. The problem in most of the solutions we have at our finger tips now require power, which will be hard to come by over the time span required to travel between the stars.   The sheer distances between stars, especially stars with planets that hold some chance of being compatible with human existence is overwhelming. That means any mission to another  planet is likely a one way trip stretching over 100's if not 1000's of years. Some Science Fictions writers have envisioned the discovery of portals in space, i.e. sort of like wormholes, or some such method of travel out of our universe, that allow starships passage through space to achieve FTL relative speeds. I believe that Einstein postulated such things might exist, specifically worm holes, but the theory postulates that entering near one would be highly destructive. 
     Of course UFO believers state that the problem has been solved by another advanced civilization, so why not us? Maybe. Or it could be that such vehicles, if they exist, were launched thousands of years ago on exploratory missions by a species that doesn't even exist anymore. A very advanced civilization would be able to produce machines that can think and react to situations it encounters during it's explorations on earth or any other world. I.e sentient machines.  These machines could be programmed with a mandate to avoid contact with any sentient lifeforms it encounters.  Thus, the reason we haven't been contacted, and the reason the vehicles can accelerate at phenomenal rates,far beyond what is likely a living being could tolerate.  That is more palatable than having flying vehicles manned by aliens. And, it should be noted that all the viable data on UFOs don't really support the notion of aliens being present in the vehicles.  We just assumed that there were organic sentient beings present because that's what we would expect. Of course the UFO types point to the marvels of the past as evidence that some advanced being was responsible for the the great building projects. They don't give much credit to the fact that humans are very inventive and likely did figure out how to build those structures.  I think they are reaching a bit far. Who knows. If we reach into the stars that is likely the way we will do it. 
     It is very likely that we will travel into near space (within our solar system) in the future. I think, however, it will  be very limited to commercial enterprises. Our demand for resources to feed the manufacturing industry will likely demand it. This is especially true if we find minerals, rare earths for example,  on a near planet; mars is the most likely, that we need so badly that it becomes economically feasible to mine and transport them to earth. Such facilities would be housed under a geodetic dome and largely automated, requiring a minimum number of humans to operate, maybe none at all.  Even though we are recycling metals now too some extent, we are not, and likely never will, be able to reuse them at a rate approaching 100%.
     I really don't expect that humans will ever colonize the other planets, or the moon, to any extent, as some pundits seem to think.  The environment is just too unfriendly for humans for that to be a popular choice. We will take other drastic actions here on earth before we would do that. The only way that could happen is a major breakthrough in terraforming, so inhospitable planets could be turned into earth-like environments.  Mars seems to be only candidate, but even then, I'm not sure it has the gravity to hold an oxygen rich atmosphere to it's surface. The other planets are just too far or close too the sun. What would be much easier and cheaper would be to convert areas on the earth that are not friendly to humans into habitable land.  The deserts of the world, Sahara, Gobi, etc., northern Canada, Russian Siberia and so forth.  
      Can we play God in the future?  Well, yes, in a way.  Computing power is advancing at a phenomenal rate, something like doubling  every 13 months. There is surely some end to the growth, but not right away.  In the not too distant future computing power will be so huge we will be able to create cyber worlds that are populated with sentient beings that we create, that are aware of the world and the environment we construct for them. They could exist in a virtual world with no idea that they're just a digital construct in that world.
      We could build that world setting out "laws" of nature that every single entity in that world must follow. We could start that world with some event, like a big bang, and let the natural laws we created for that world govern events from then on.  Because time is relative in that world we could make years in the virtual world pass in just milliseconds in ours. We could then stand back and watch how this simulation plays out. Wouldn't it be weird if that was really all we were?  We would have no way to find out would we?
     Transportation: I see long distance high speed ground transportation as being the principle mode of travel around the continent in the future.  Likely some extension of the so called bullet train. Powered by electricity,  and moving at near sonic speeds, (or maybe supersonic speeds if in under ground tunnels or tubes moving in a near vacuum) the trains will transport people in far greater numbers, and much more cheaply, than can reasonably achieved with air transportation.  The trains would be suspended in a magnetic field and propelled by the same principles that drive the electric motor. It will be cheaper, and environmentally cleaner than any version of air transport that one can imagine. Electrical power can be generated in large plants where the environmental conditions can be better controlled.  The amazing thing is we essentially have the technology to build such systems now. Almost all the technical bugs have been worked out and are in use to some extent already.  Such a system could be stretched into intercontinental travel with the construction of tubes either on the oceans or beneath them. If we can build stable platforms in the ocean to drill for oil, we surely find a way to support a transportation tube stretching between continents. 
     Local, personal and other such transportation will likely be by electrical power.  And, most likely still on the ground. I don't see airborne vehicles, other than ground effect applications, being used extensively in any foreseeable time frame for individual travel. That's been the dream and prediction for years by other prognosticators, but it hasn't happened yet and I don't see it in the future unless we develop some new source of portable power. There are just too many problems inherent in that application. 
     There are perhaps three applications that might end up the winner in the race to power such transportation  A couple involve application of self contained power sources in the vehicle itself and the other will involve embedding the roadway with electrical energy that can be used to propel vehicles.  I think it will end up a combination of both approaches.
     Advances in electrical storage (Batteries) capability could allow long distances to be covered between charges, but the charging time will need to be significantly reduced. Alternatively the storage medium could be light and portable so that it can just be changed out at refueling stations in a matter of minutes. I don't see chemical batteries as being the answer to the electrical storage problem that must be solved.  Some other method will have to evolve, perhaps some application of large capacitors, storing power at very high voltages. This would allow very fast recharges on one hand, and after converting the power into lower voltages for usage might provide long term power for an vehicle. The downside for this approach is the handling of very high voltage equipment. In any event a way must be found to store enough electrical power to move a three thousand pound vehicle something like 300 miles. And, to make matters more challenging you have to move a heavy truck of perhaps 20,000 pounds over the same distances.  All this without taking a long time to recharge the power source. 
     The second application that is now underway and will likely further evolve is the adaptation of the hydrogen fuel cell to the vehicle.  This would mean the conversion of what is now gasoline stations into hydrogen stations for refueling. This is a technology that is already in limited use.  The efficiency of fuel cells closely resembles that of combustion engines. I think this approach will be the winner, at least in the near term, for individual vehicle propulsion. At the moment it looks to be very expensive however.  I suppose if it comes into wide spread use the costs would go down quite a bit. I'm not sure it would ever become as economical as oil in the near future.  But, oil is going to increase in price in the long term. That's a certainty. So it might well become price competitive in the not too distant future. The fuel cells would consume the most abundant element in the universe and only produce water as a by product.  There is much work to done to fully develop this technology however.  The short comings now involve not the fuel cell itself so much as the production of hydrogen to power it. It isn't self generating. It takes more energy to produce the fuel than it produces in return. For the fuel cell it's a negative return on investment. Not a good thing. The power to produce the hydrogen is, at the present time of course, derived from mainly from fossil fuels.It is likely the most inefficient of the options considering the power required to extract the hydrogen from water. But, it is clean burning and could provide power for mobile vehicles. 
      The third and most attractive is the embedded roadway. This would represent the ultimate in auto transportation. The required electrical power would be carried in the roadway itself and would be transferred to the vehicle on demand.  There would be no need for refueling stations.  All the major thoroughfares and highways would be embedded with the capability.  There are several ways that power could be transferred to the vehicle, either by direct contact (sort of a third rail) or by induction. Likely the latter. Some form of on-board power will be needed however, as not all roads will be equipped with power transfer.  As you leave the main highways for city streets, etc. you will need power to complete your journey.  That puts far less strain on the on-board system than if it were the sole source of power, so here you could employ chemical batteries.  In addition the embedded system would charge the storage medium in the vehicle as you drive the main thoroughfares. After the initial costs of installation this would likely be the least costly of the alternatives.
      Automatic guidance and speed control of the vehicle is in our not too distant future, a technology that is already in it's infant stage. You enter the vehicle, tell it where you want to go and it will take you there.  The control of the vehicle by the system, after it's fully implemented,  will allow cars to be spaced very close together with much more efficient movement of the mass of vehicles that will be on the road at that time. And it would be much safer, with wrecks almost unheard of.  At the present time a combination of GPS and proximity sensors looks like the best way to go.  But, in future we may find the devices in the major roadways will emerge as the best approach.
     Where is power coming from in the future? Lot of factors come into play influencing how we generate the enormous power needed  in the future.  The main one is the ever decreasing supply of fossil fuels and the corresponding increase in costs at the pump.  We are running out folks. The reserves of fossil fuels are limited. Oil more so than the others. The ever increasing population of the earth will put additional strain on resources that must be met if we are not to retrograde significantly in our standard of living. And, the earth can not stand  being enveloped in the residue caused by the burning of dirtier fossil fuels and there is significant efforts, even today, to wean us off of their use.  One of the biggest problems is that fossil fuels, particularly oil, is used to make a huge number of the products we use every day.  It's used to make plastics, produce our synthetic fibers such as nylon and polyester , and numerous other products that we consume and use, most of which we don't even realize the use of petroleum based products in their manufacture. The clamor will grow in the years to come with the growing industrialization of China, India, Brazil and third world countries we don't see now.  Perhaps the middle east, Egypt, and who knows. It is possible that one of the most abundant fossil fuels, coal, can be be made to burn cleanly which would extend the life of fossil fuels but, in the end it will run out.  It's not renewable. 
      I do not believe that the picture many movie makers painting of an earth shrouded in a brown haze is in our future. There are efforts underway already, headed by large and powerful countries, to clean up the environment.  And, in spite of the opposition from some industries and the reluctance of some countries, I think the initiatives will take hold and major efforts will be undertaken to keep our environment relatively clean. We now have the spectrum of Global Warming to brighten our day, and that is something that is going to discourage the use of fossil fuels. 
       Most of the projects being deployed today really do not hold the answers. Maybe a combination of Solar, Wind, and similar non-polluting sources of power will meet a portion of the requirements for power, but they alone will not solve the massive power requirements that will be needed to run this planet. They are already running into opposition due to their impact on the local habitat and as we try to blanket the southwest with solar panels or wind turbines the opposition will grow. And, it isn't cheap. Today you see homes and businesses being equipped with solar panels, and that will likely continue in the future as the price of electricity continues to rise. Many homeowners associations forbid the use of solar panels, but is likely to be overridden by legislation. But, this application is only economically feasible due to subsidies.  
      The ethanol lobby is pushing their technology, but that is almost dead on arrival. We can not afford to put valuable land that can be used to grow food into producing massive amounts of ethanol and causing a shortage of food in an ever increasing world population. And ethanol is not pollution free.  It's still carbon based. Without government subsidies none of these alternatives would be economically feasible.      
     One of the most intriguing sources of huge amounts of power is the ocean tides and currents themselves. Here we have a massive amount of power that can be tapped. I'm sure that isn't all that simple to place generators into this water stream but, there are already prototype programs underway to use tidal movements to generate electricity.  Perhaps there are environmental impacts that I'm not aware of, but it certainly provides an attractive place to go. Right now the pilot programs are concentrated on a few areas of the earth where there are large tidal movement.  But, there is tidal movement on the shores of every ocean of the world, and that's a lot.  
     Nuclear power at one time seemed to be answer to everybody's hunt for the cheap clean burning power source. But, recent events has really soured the public on this form of power. In a larger sense the biggest problem with nuclear power isn't really meltdowns and accidents, but rather the long term storage of nuclear waste. Even if we learn how to design nuclear power plants to make them very safe in an almost absolute sense, the problem of waste disposal will still be with us. However, nuclear power does provide abundant power at a reasonable cost and is likely to be a major source of power in the near future, as it is now, especially in Europe. Perhaps it will end up the winner as a replacement for fossil fuels if the problems of waste storage can be solved. 
      Water: The most precious commodity in the future will be water.  We already are in a position where parts of this country have to undergo water rationing during low rainfall periods. Farmers have to cut back on crops because lack of fiercely rationed water.  In the future there will be greater and greater need for water for use of a growing  population. Water to drink, cook our meals, grow our crops, feed our livestock, and on and on. It will be necessary to turn even more of the deserts into farms in the future and the main thing needed will be water to do so. We've already done that in the southwest.  Without the aqueducts the Imperial Valley, Los Angeles, San Diego, the San Joaquin Valley, southern New Mexico, Arizona, west Texas and the associated cities and areas would be deserts. 
     So, where is all the water we need coming from?  Really, all it takes is money to solve the problem. There are two sources of water in abundance.  The most reliable is the oceans of the world. The only problem is they are full of minerals that make them incompatible for animal consumption and for growing plant material that we can tolerate. We already have  desalinization technology.  Such plants exist around the world now. The other method is to transport the water from where it is, to where it's needed, much as the California aqueducts do now. There are environmental consequences to both approaches and they must be approached carefully. It is clear that feeding Los Angeles without considering the impact on the source of the water in the Owens River has proved disastrous for that area. We have found that damming of rivers to produce power and to control and provide water to surrounding areas has it's drawbacks. But, either we cut back on population growth or we will have to face this problem head-on in the not too distant future. I don't know how reducing population growth would be possible at all, short of draconian measures to limit the birth of children worldwide.  Maybe some world wide epidemic will solve the problem. 
      Movies, TV and such.  First we figured out how to capture images of real events, then we figured out how to simulate movement of those images, made the moving images talk and then added color. They were called movies and they were the principle vehicle for entertainment for many years. Then someone figured out how to project images over the air using radio waves and TV was borne.  First they were small black and white screens, but they grew rapidly in size, adding color and greater clarity. The movie industry started losing patronage to this new form of entertainment.  To counter they developed CinemaScope and other wide screen applications that let them show sweeping vistas in their movies to lure back their customers. But, then came the large flat screen monitors showing in wide screen format and some of the movies advantage vanished, at least for a lot of movie types. The movie people weren't through: along came 3D which is really catching on. To keep pace the TV industry is also tinkering with 3D, available now at your local electronics outlet. 3D will continue to evolve over the next few years.  The need for special glasses will be solved, making it more comfortable to view the picture. Other senses will be activated, especially in movie houses, such as a sense of motion in action movies. 
       So where do we go from here?  I know that movies, shown in a virtual realty format, are coming.  What isn't clear is exactly how that will be implemented for the mass audience. There are at least two approaches I can think of.  One is too project the picture as a holographic image almost surrounding the viewer. Thus, the viewer would be in the middle of the action, as if they were a true spectator to the events. The other would be to fit the viewer with special glasses that would allow the same kind of image. The likely winner, at least for mass use, will be the virtual reality glasses.  It will be cheaper. Perhaps homes in the future will be equipped with holographic image projectors, but more likely this form of entertainment will be the province of movie theaters. The media will be dominated by interactive type showings, where the viewer will have some form of control over the action.  Not sure how that will work, but somebody will figure it out. That will be in addition to the games that will be available to play, much as they are today, on X-Box and other such game consoles.  

Maybe we have recovered.

There is much discussion among the media and the talking head economists about when the economy will recover from the great recession that we have officially just came out of. What they mean by recovery is back to pre 2007 levels.  But, wait a minute, maybe this is it. Maybe we have recovered.

          Let us consider for a moment what was driving the great economic engine before the collapse. Primarily it was the artificially stimulated housing market where borrowers were able to get loans and buy houses that they could not really afford. A great many of those loans were adjustable rate mortgages with a very low interest rate on the front end. It appeared that nobody could lose.  You could buy a house with a small down payment and at very low interest rates and turn it over before the mortgage's higher interest rate kicked in, usually about 5 years, take the equity generated by the escalating price of real estate and buy even a bigger house the same way.
         The banks and other lending organizations, such as Fanny Mae and Fanny Mac thought they were safe because the ever escalating value of homes covered their risk.  To add to the problem the government was on a kick where everyone should own a home and was urging the lending institutions to make that happen. That spurred a building boom, with it's corresponding growth, in fairly well paying jobs in the building industry and the resulting spread of money through the the whole economy. The ever escalating value of property poured money into the coffers of the local and state governments and they naturally went wild  trying to  spend it.
          The apparent wealth resulted in a consumer frenzy of buying. We were turning over houses at a profit and constantly trading equity gained through inflation of the market into bigger houses and consumer products. We were taking out home equity loans on the inflated values of our property and using that money to buy all kinds of goodies.
        All was peachy keen as long as the formula held.  As the wealthiest nation on earth we literally fueled the economic engine of the world.  We bought all kinds of things we really couldn't afford. China became an economic power house due to our import of Chinese made goods.  

         Then the bubble burst.  Just like what happened to the stock market in 1929, the housing market experienced the same effect in 2007, except instead of stocks it was housing.  Such a condition, as existed, is clearly not sustainable. The value of property was reaching it's upper limits, even in this kind of environment.  The adjustable rate mortgages low interest rate times were expiring and higher rates were kicking in, and guess what, a lot of the borrowers couldn't meet the higher monthly payments. So many of them were coming into this condition that the market began to be over supplied with housing by people trying to unload their property.  The buying slowed down. The sellers trying to unload the homes they could not afford  found they could no longer get enough money from their sale to cover the outstanding balance.
          So the foreclosures started.  The banks were heavily invested in these sub-prime mortgages and so they began to have real problems. Suddenly there was a surplus of houses on the market that were underwater on their mortgages.  And the whole house of cards came tumbling down. It was like a snowball rolling down hill.  Getting bigger and bigger as it progressed.  Pretty soon the whole economy was in a state of chaos. Two of Americas car makers had  to declare bankruptcy and were be bailed out by the government.  The largest banks required government help to stay afloat. The big mortgage holders (Freddie Mae and Freddy Mac) were going belly up. We really were on the verge of total economic collapse.
The government blamed the bankers and the bankers blamed the government.
         Consider the situation now. The banks have tightened their lending requirements such that the only people buying homes are ones that can afford them. The Feds have done a great deal trying to get the housing market to be active again; we now have the lowest historical interest rates on mortgages, with only minimal impact.  The banks, hesitant to make risky loans, don't want to get caught in the same trap again. The result is now, and in the foreseeable future, that  the housing market is pinned to overall economic growth.
         Many more workers have to become employed in higher paying jobs.  The minimum wage type job just doesn't support the purchase of a home. But, wait a minute.  Where are these jobs coming from?  We have essentially shipped the blue collar middle class jobs that once were the bread and butter of the economy overseas. And, they are not likely to return. The unions and government together have drove the cost of doing business in this country to levels such that many  industries can not afford to compete against foreign made products with their cheaper labor and far less restrictive regulations. It's cheaper to have that TV or computer made in Taiwan or China and shipped here, than to build it here. The other thing that's driving the engine is the ever increasing use of automation to perform tasks that once were accomplished by labor. It seems that all the clothing, electronics, a huge percentage of cars, appliances and a host of other products are made in China, Japan, or elsewhere or are largely made with computer driven machines requiring far few workers. 
        We have been adding jobs lately as the economy recovers and the government likes to tout those numbers.  But, wait a minute what kind of jobs are they?  In an article by Bernard Condon and Paul Wiseman of the AP, we lost 7.5 million jobs during the recent recession, of which half were middle class earners ($38,000
to $68,000 per year).  But, only 3.5 percent of the 3.5 million jobs gained since the end of the recession were mid pay.  Nearly 70 percent are low-paying jobs; while 29 percent paid well. They point out the countries that use the Euro are actually worse off than we are. Almost 4.3 million low-pay jobs have been added since 2009 but, the loss of mid pay jobs has never stopped. A total of 7.6 million disappeared from January 2008 through last June. To put icing on the cake, they point out that a great number of the mid level jobs are not coming back.  They didn't get moved somewhere else, they just disappeared, the tasks they performed now being accomplished by computers crunching numbers or driving robotic machines. 
          What's left in this country, with a few exceptions, are two classes of workers.  The service industry, which for the most part doesn't pay all that well, and the high tech industry which requires extensive training and education to enter and is exceptionally well paid. Of course you always have the government, which is another story. By high tech I mean all professions that require education and training, engineers, RN's, doctors, skilled technicians, i.e. Science, Technology, Engineering, Math.  American schools are not turning out these kinds of trained people at rate approaching the need.  And that is our best hope of competing on the world market.
         Our universities graduate lots of young people with degrees in fields which have no known requirements in the real world. Very few of the liberal arts degrees have any real application in the modern work place. The colleges and universities are turning out graduates with degrees in Philosophy, Psychology, Black Studies, Political Science, Art History, etc. at an astounding rate. Try competing for a job outside of government or some non-profit with those degrees. Especially a job in an industry that competes on the global stage.  The latest statistics I read indicated the something like 50 percent of the college graduates from the last 2 years are either not employed or are severely underemployed in jobs that have no relevance to their degree. 
         Of course we have a growing class of government workers who make good money for what they do and realize lush fringe benefits.  But government workers don't contribute to the economy.  They spend money that was taken from some worker in the private sector, so there is no net increase in the buying power of the population. And, their retirement benefits are causing local and state governments to have real budgeting problems. They produce nothing that can be sold in the global market.
         There is a surplus of workers to fill the low skilled type jobs and a real need of  personnel to fill the jobs requiring extensive training and education.
         People that have jobs, and many who don't, are spending money on things they need and want, but they are a little leery of overspending on high ticket items. We still sell lot's of IPads, Smart Phones and other nonsense which really isn't needed, but satisfies some inner desire. In general the consumers are still cautious about too much debt, and rightly so. And, they are likely to remain that way.  All the lending institutions have tightened their credit requirements making it harder for the buyer to really get in over their head.
         To get the economy moving upward toward the pre-recession levels would require buying and lots of it. I just don't see that happening.  Where we are, is exactly where we can expect to remain, with slow, and we hope steady, growth over the next decade of so. The wild times of the decade are not likely to repeat.
        Government stimulus packages do not generally have a significant impact on the overall economy. The primary reason for that is the way that the stimulus money is allocated, primarily to activities directly tied to the public sector such as welfare and public service. I.e. schools, law enforcement  etc. And, sometimes we create new organizations; remember the WPA, the NRA (National Recovery Act), the PWA and the whole New Deal alphabet of bureaus created by FDR. After all, government can only redistribute money.  It's takes money from Peter to pay Paul.  It's a zero sum game. If Peter doesn't have the money to pay Paul what the government wants to pay him, they borrow it, and we go deeper into debt with corresponding higher interest payments cutting into the budget and a growing inflation rate. 
      History has shown us that large government spending in the private sector can create a vigorous economy, at least for awhile.  Remember WWII. The spending to create the war machine for that war pulled us out of the depression.  All the social programs created by FDR prior to that time did not have any real effect on the economy, but it did make the poor feel good. The unemployed rate was about the same in 1938 as it was in 1932 and the GNP remained fairly flat.  Hitler pulled the German government out a deep economic depression by spending on infrastructure, remember the Autobahn, and building up the German war machine. Hitler and FDR used the same formula to lift the economies of the countries from crippling recessions. Defense spending during the height of the cold war resulted in a thriving economy. Eisenhower's spending to create the Interstate highway system created a lot of high paying jobs. But that only lasts as long as the spending lasts.  Generally we have to borrow money to sustain large spending over any extent of time in either the private or public sector and that is not sustainable in the long term. 
     The liberals love Keynesian economics philosophies. The problem is that they love only one side of the Keynesian model, not the other. The Keynesian model is based on the idea the government should spend money in the bad times to stimulate the economy and pay it back in good times. The attempt is to level out the hills and dales to which economies are subject. We have fervently embraced the spending part of the model but have neglected the pay back part. 
      Unfortunately that has been going on for well over a score of years as the government goes deeper into debt and the dollar has lost buying power as the government prints money to pay it's bills.
        So, I contend that a rapid return of the economy to pre-recession levels is not going to happen quickly and that we are where we should be. The real unemployment rate will remain fairly high, probably in the neighborhood of 7 to 10 percent at best (it's actually about 15% now). The unemployment rate stated by the government is not the actual rate as the job seekers that have literally given up are not reported, only those actively seeking employment through government monitored agencies. Adding to the problem is the fact that a very high percentage of the jobs being added in the future are low paying. 
       I don't think anybody has a good idea what do about this problem. Entrenched government entitlements, bureaucracies, regulations and the influence of public employee unions make for a hostile environment for opening and maintaining a small business, especially one the competes on the global stage.  Unfortunately our government has created a montage of rules and regulations that really hamper the establishment and growth of small business. I don't think that large manufacturing will be the solution. Manufacturing, while  more profitable than ever, is becoming highly tech driven, requiring far less workers than were used only a few years ago. And, even start up small businesses have embraced technology and are using fewer workers that would have been previously employed.