I have read science fiction for as long as I have be able to read. My earliest memories are of the "Space Cat" novels as much as they are of Dr. Suess. This exposure to SF lead me to an interest in science and space travel. I did grow up in the 60's after all, and remember not only the Apollo 11 moon landing, but the Apollo 8 lunar orbit mission in 1968, when I was only 5 years old.

So I have been exposed to ideas about the future from an early age. For much of my childhood I believed that the NASA space program was well on its way to bringing us a world much like I read about in science fiction books.

Today, in the closing days of the 20th century, in post-Apollo era, the post-Challenger era, I can't quite look at the future in the same optimistic fashion. From today's point of view, the Apollo program can clearly be seen as being far more about politics than technology, and many of the wonders of the future, promised by science fiction, look as far off today as they did 30 years ago.

So I can understand what leads to the conservative visions of the next century, as expressed in "My Crystal Ball." This is after all, the real world, not a science fiction novel. But the perspective of history can have a distorting effect. So much of what happens, so many of the really important changes, move slowly and subtly, even in our fast paced world.

Wonders such as flying to the moon are rare, and even the effects of major breakthroughs and world changing new ideas often manifest under the threshold of our daily notice.

"My Crystal Ball" takes as a basic premise, that, essentially, nothing new will happen. There may be a slow growth in technology, a gradual shifting of political structure and social patterns, but nothing "different" that will change the overall structure. That may well be the case; there is no way the unpredictable can be predicted. I can only look at the last century and all that has happened and think what the 21st century might be like if things only change as much as they did the past hundred years.

Have we, in our scientific world view, managed to figure out "how things work" for the most part? How much is left to learn? The primary technologies of our daily life in the United States are developments of this century. One could discuss the automobile (and the interstate highway system), the electric power grid, the world-telecommunications network, television, the personal computer, and so and -- and then wonder what new items will trigger changes as extensive as any of these.

I though, want to specifically consider another area, an area of technological change even more fundamental than that of our tools and toys.

In 20th century the sciences of genetics, neurology, and psychology have come into existence. Besides the major breakthroughs and impressive inventions, look at how much our daily lives are effected by just the presence of these sciences: the idea that we are shaped as living things by the genes passed down through our family lines; that chemistry and neural patterns have a lot to do with "who" we are and what we do; the concept of changing aspects of ourselves through both our own will and through drugs; and that experiences from our life, good and bad, continue to influence long after the events are over.

That is a view of "self" that is entirely new in the world and in this century. Will the next century add nothing to this? Will it perhaps introduce ideas and discover information that will bring an equally radical shift? What is the question of how much behavior is "nurture" and how much "nature" came to be answered? What if mood influencing chemicals came to be mastered and easily utilized? What if we found out just what in the world dreams are and how to control them? To accept that science is valid means of learning about the world is to accept that these questions, mysteries today, might someday be answered. And the step to discovering them from where we are now, may (though that's an important "may") be much shorter than the one from the understanding of the mind in 1896 to today. Our view of "what" we are today is not what it was 100 years ago -- and vastly different than in earlier ages. In 2096 just what we think a human mind "is" might be at least as equally different. Politics, economics, law, social interactions, etc will change as well, just as they have done in the 20th century -- often without our noticing.

Technology of the 20th century has also made major changes in what we consider our lives to be and what expectations we have about our lives. The increase in life expectancy has already started to shake the foundations of Western Civilization as the "baby boom" matures. It is not a farfetched speculation that lifespans will continue to increase in the 21st century and a culture with a large number of (perhaps a majority of) healthy citizens in their 90s and 100s will be quite different from what we have today.

That though is only considering the effects of a gradual improvement in medicine. Once again, what of new developments? Gene therapy is a technique in its very earliest stages. It is possible that none of the current attempts will prove practical -- but over the course of a hundred years it seems inevitable. Genetic diseases can be eliminated, genetic damage can be repaired, and we will look at possibility of greatly expanded life spans. We look at not just repairing genes... but improving them.

That takes us though, into the domain that most would call "science fiction." We cannot say where gene therapy or some similar technology will take us, any more than we could have seen the early space program leading towards, not colonies on Mars, but ICBMS and geosynchronous communication satellites.

And who will be deciding who gets the benefits of new medical science. We see in the 1990's vast confusion and argument over health care as a national issue. Universal insurance? Managed Care? Medicine for those who can afford it? Health Care is an issue that can profoundly shape culture. The matter is all the more important since it is inevitable that major health crisises will strike over a 100 year period. Disease and famine can be the most powerful forces that influence a civilization. Wars and messiahs pale in comparison.

In many important ways, humans are very much like they were 40,000 years ago. Those few millenia have been far too short for much in the way of evolutionary change. The purpose to which we put our natural characteristics have changed enormously though. We fight to survive, not on the veldt, but the bustling, crowded city street. These forces are changing and shaping us, and the force and speed of these forces continues to increase. The 21st century looks to be a crucible of change, which we as a species must endure. When the flames die down, I do not know what will be left behind, but I doubt humanity will be unchanged. History shows this. We may not always notice the alchemic transformation of what we are on a day to day notice, but the change does take place. We cannot look back at the year 1906 and say the world is pretty much the same place then as it is now. It's hard to say that about the year 1956. As the rate of change shows no sign of slowing, what the people of 2106 will think of us as they look back may be, in a very literal sense, beyond our comprehension.

:::