digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

The future's five enemies (and how to beat them)

valleywag.com — Wasn't it sci-fi author William Gibson who said "The future is here, it's just unevenly distributed among pithy sci-fi authors"? The future is indeed inevitable, and it must fight enemies like the following five: Baby Boomers, the movie industry and music industries, cell providers, the government, and Web 2.0.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • anaesthetica, on 10/12/2007, -8/+45I'm sure I'm not alone in this opinion, but I really believe that the Baby Boomers have been a curse on this country. Just look at our past two Baby Boomer presidents: one was completely directionless, the other had a decisive direction, only he was aimed at catastrophe.

    Now, subsequent generations are going to be saddled paying for the largest, most self-centered, most self-righteous generation as they grow older, demand medicaid and prescription pill benefits, and live off our our tax dollars through the social security money that they extract from us because they blew through all the money that had been saved up.

    It's no surprise that they're holding back technological development and adoption. Just chalk up one more thing on their list of crimes against the future.
    • Natasevoli, on 10/12/2007, -7/+8I agree.. They're taking up all the cheap housing!!! The only affordable housing around here (socal) under 400k is ALL 55+... how is an up and coming family ever supposed to own a home?? Damn baby boomers are retiring and taking up all the cheap housing!
    • sedlock, on 10/12/2007, -9/+13"Now, subsequent generations are going to be saddled paying for the largest, most self-centered, most self-righteous generation..."

      Gen X and Y are going to give new meaning to your words "most self-centered, most self-righteous generation". The writing is on the wall, my friends. Being a member of such generations... give me my money.
    • z00k, on 10/12/2007, -11/+1I can't believe I'm doing this but Just follow what the Dance Dance Revolution song says and "Drop the bomb"
    • fkr3, on 10/12/2007, -4/+21I can't believe a list of the future's enemies on digg doesn't include Bill Gates and/or Microsoft.

      A grown up must have written it.
    • moogle516, on 10/12/2007, -11/+5"No one gets Social Security payments without seven years of manual labor. Bam! Two problems solved! Next enemy!
      "

      Ok who ever wrote this article is a ***** moron. People who get social security payments have been paying in for it for 40 to 50 years of their hard earned money that gets severly taxed.

      Real Enemies of the future: retards that make articles like this
    • AXNJAXN, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8@moogle

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire
    • salmonmoose, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13"A grown up must have written it."

      Grown ups? on MY DIGG? Never!
    • Zarchon, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2@anaesthetica

      "Now, subsequent generations are going to be saddled paying for the largest, most self-centered, most self-righteous generation as they grow older, demand medicaid and prescription pill benefits, and live off our our tax dollars through the social security money that they extract from us because they blew through all the money that had been saved up."

      LOL, omg. How do you deal with the fact that you think in circles? You're worried that we, I being a baby boomer, are going to want our social security after having been forced to pay into all our lives? The average American collects 14 checks before dieing. Seems like the government benefits more than I do from this tax. GW, and you know you hate him, tried to free up my money if I invested it in my own retirement. It meant more money for me when I retire but it means less money for the government on a daily basis so it went down in flames. As for medicaid, isn't it your generation that wants free medical for everyone? Aren't you for socialism? And now you begrudge me getting mine for the 14 months I can? Oh, and I don't get mine for another 15 years. Chances are I will die before then anyway.
    • Darph.Bobo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3You should do a little history research and see what the media and people of their respective times said about George Washington, Ben Franklin, Lincoln, U.S. Grant, Robert. E. Lee, FDR and Kennedy as well as many others.

      We all should thank each and every single person named above for the life you have today because without any one of them you'd have a much different life than you have today and the changes would terrify you.

      This is not the place to make the case but it's easy enough to discover on your own, each one saved the world.
      Just to be clear to anyone that is NOT an American, this includes you too because these Americans saved your asses as well.

      Now for my point, you judge now and condemn the actions of recent leaders past and present, you know not of what you speak. History will be the judge NOT you and you may be embarrassed by how stupid your position will look when the final chapters are written.
  • CMOSLogic, on 10/12/2007, -14/+131Too much federal power
    2 federal corruption
    3 too much federal power
    4 federal corruption
    5 too much federal power.

    Those are the 5.
  • monergism, on 10/12/2007, -25/+7There is no future if the Islamists have their way. At least no future I want to be apart of.
    • Bamborzled, on 10/12/2007, -10/+30There is no future if the fundamentalist Christians have *their* way.

      Even if you were joking, I'd like to point that out.
    • monergism, on 10/12/2007, -17/+7Doesn't change the fact.
    • AdonisEffect, on 10/12/2007, -11/+13@monergism (#6623707)
      Don't be ignorant. The radical Muslim sects that get news coverage are not an accurate representation of Islam.
    • monergism, on 10/12/2007, -1/+28It's not only the radicals I fear. It's anyone who supports Sharia law. I like freedom.
    • IRoaChI, on 10/12/2007, -9/+3@adoniseffect

      Yes they are.
    • Zarchon, on 10/12/2007, -6/+5@Bamborzled

      In what way? BTW, I am not a believer in god but I don't see your point.

      @adoniseffect

      And there are only 1.2 million radical Muslims and they seem to be running the entire religion. Seriously, if you 2 actually think there is little difference between Christianity and Muslims, there is a really cool video on the Internet of some Muslims stoning a young girl in the streets. Its really cool.
    • FluffyArmada, on 10/12/2007, -9/+3Umm... Those aren't Muslims. Those are extremists. There's a difference.
      And you, my friend, are a rasict.
    • Zarchon, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5Hardly a raciest "my friend" and yeah, there are 1.2 million of those "extremest". And that just happened to be a whole city of extremest since nobody stepped in to help her. You, "my friend" can go bury your head in the sand all you want, but until I see the other billion Muslims stand up against this sort of thing then, in my opinion, it is a fair assessment of the situation. You seem fairly judgmental yourself.

      Oh, one more thing. Muslim is not a race, it's a religion. And I thought, here on Digg, that hating religion made you intelligent? You, my friend, are a sheep. Baaahhh!
    • synik, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10@fluffyarmada

      He isn't racist, Islam is a religion not a race, dumbass.
    • FluffyArmada, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3So... according to your numbers, every 12 in 1000 of the Muslim people are extremists. Not exactly helping your argument, because that would mean that 988 in every 1000 Muslims are perfectly good people. That's 1.2%, by your numbers of course.

      I agree, racist probably wasn't the best word, and I'm sorry about that, but "prejudiced over-generalizing ethnocentric" just doesn't quite roll off the tongue. And don't act like your "whole city of extremist(ts)" doesn't exist anywhere else in the world. It's not just Islamic people. Ever seen one of those anti-gay rallies around the bible belt areas? I'm willing to bet that if our government were as screwed up as the goverment in some of those countries that you would call extremist, those homophobes would be stoning perfectly innocent gay people left and right. The only difference, is that we're lucky enough to have a reasonably fair ( reasonably might be a bit of a strong word ) legal system, and a lot of good non-currupt police who wouldn't let that happen.


      'You seem fairly judgmental yourself."
      I don't judge people, but I'll be glad to give my opinion on the stupid things that people say.

      And trying to insult me by calling me a sheep doesn't make you look to bright either.

      Have a wonderful day.
    • Zarchon, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2Synik, how someone could dig you down for stating a fact just goes to show that some people here digg things down simply because they don't want it to be so, not because it is wrong. It's just another form of censorship practiced here.
    • Zarchon, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3That's right, 988 are not extremist. But you missed it, you must have, because I said those extremist seem to be running the whole religion and when the other billion start making them accountable then my opinion will change. Am I judgmental? Damn straight. But you do judge people. And I quote "Ever seen one of those anti-gay rallies around the bible belt areas? I'm willing to bet that if our government were as screwed up as the government in some of those countries that you would call extremist, those homophobes would be stoning perfectly innocent gay people left and right."

      I see you as a hypocrite. You shout racism even when there isn't any, you judge people yet you think judging people is wrong. You stir up anger and hate under the pretext of trying to stop those you see as being angry or hateful.
    • FluffyArmada, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3"That's right, 988 are not extremist. But you missed it, you must have, because I said those extremist seem to be running the whole religion and when the other billion start making them accountable then my opinion will change."
      What do you suggest they do? Are you going to be responsible for holding people like you responsible for what they may have done?

      "But you do judge people. And I quote "Ever seen one of those anti-gay rallies around the bible belt areas? I'm willing to bet that if our government were as screwed up as the government in some of those countries that you would call extremist, those homophobes would be stoning perfectly innocent gay people left and right.""
      Ok, yeah, I guess I do judge people. But at least I'm not making an over-generalization about an entire religion. Just some of Christianity's (at least that's what these people are calling themselves) own extremists. I don't see you trying to take a jab at the entirety of Christianity, because a small percentage of *them* are extremist.

      "I see you as a hypocrite. You shout racism even when there isn't any, you judge people yet you think judging people is wrong. You stir up anger and hate under the pretext of trying to stop those you see as being angry or hateful."
      And how am I stirring up anger and hate? I'm just calling you out on your massive over-generalization. I haven't made any myself, except for maybe the homophobe thing, but I promise I meant "a lot of those homophobes..." instead of just "those homophobes"; that's my bad. But lf you'll read my comment again, you'll also see that I never said that I think judging people is wrong. (Although, truth be told, I think judging *people* is wrong. I do, however, see nothing wrong with judging the actions of people when circumstances are considered.) I already corrected myself on the racism point... yeah, that's about it. Look forward to hearing from you again.

      Have a wonderful day.
    • Zarchon, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7I like your response. Let me say this first, I don't think any one human being is better than any other human being.

      "But at least I'm not making an over-generalization about an entire religion. " Honestly, rather you were or not isn't important to me. The Digg community makes that judgment about Christianity all the time. It is only unacceptable if you are talking about any religion other than Christianity. I am OK with that BTW. To address your statement though, I look at ALL the countries I know to be of Islamic faith and I can't come up with one country that I would want to live under their leadership. To me, in comparison, our present leadership is a godsend. I read here how despicable GW is, how heartless people are who drive SUVs here in America are, how we are losing our freedoms daily, and yet I defend a guy who thinks his life would be worse under Islamic rule and we both get attacked. And we are a Christian based country, although I expect that to go by the wayside in all ways shapes and forms. For or against that is another debate.

      Islam is not just made up of the extremist. Richard Gere kissed a lady on the neck in India, a country I hardly consider extremist, on the neck and a warrant was put out for his arrest. Even Ahmadinejad got in trouble for kissing the gloved hand of a woman in public and was held accountable. If anything even remotely close to this was happening in America it would be.. well, I digress from the topic. I could not live under Islamic rule and I don;t see any correlation between Christianity (of today, not 1200 AD) and Islam.
    • FluffyArmada, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Now, that last post is something I can definitely agree with you on completely. And to be honest, I'm proud that I can say that I'm part of a community that is capable of having these sort of conversations (arguments? :p) without just breaking down into an mass of unintelligence. It was enlightening to say the least. I'm sorry I called you a racist, it is now rather apparent that I was wrong. I beg your pardon.
      Have a wonderful day.
    • Zarchon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I must say the exchange has been very enjoyable. I have a habit of sometimes overreacting and things go crazy after a bit. Thanks for keeping me in check and making this what I think Digg should be, an exchange of ideas and not just a place to digg down "those of the other side". Take care and perhaps we shall meet in disagreement again some day. Was enjoyable, thanks
    • Twisty, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2That was amazing. Not Gonna lie.
    • staticneuron, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1@zarchon

      You do know that india is largely Hindu not islam. And what you consider extreme is just a matter of culture. There are many countries that frown on PDA even china and japan, aren't to big on it and they are not islam run countries.

      To paint the islam religions we use terms like Extremist or terrorist that leaves an impression on peoples mind when talking about the religion or its followers. You would find no such words discribing people who do horrible things in the name of christianity. Abortion clinics, Bombings, the religious war in ireland, massacres in Tripura (india) and many other incidents around the world and in several different countries.

      Here is the big sticking point..... people who do extreme acts in the name of christianity are not considered christian to the christians in power so when information comes out about these acts they are not labled as "christian" extremist/terrorist attacks. Why is it that christianity cannot be labeled for extremist attacks yet islam can? Horrible how they don't acknowledge women as proper contributing humans... well how about how Homosexuals in america cannot have rights of their own "largely" based on the influence of religion on our leaders.

      Your defense is that "hey, at least we don't kill them" so I guess you are also one of those who thinks the slave trade wasn't as bad as the holocust because quite a few of them lived huh? Next you might even say that more jewish people were killed in the holocaust than the slave trade? The way people convey information may not seem important or trivial to you know but believe it or not it paints peoples perception of the truth.
    • Zarchon, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0@staticneuron

      Maybe you will revisit this post like I did. Sorry I wasn't around to respond. The topic of discussion was my defending monergism on his not wanting to live under Islamic rule. Does he have to add every form of government to his post in order for it to not be Islam-phobic? (new coined word. lol) And your correlation about terrorists being labeled Muslim terrorists while Abortion bombers are not labeled Christian bombers can be addressed in two ways. One, the Christian community deplores the bombings and public denounces it. The Islamic community is fairly minimal in their opinion on these Islamic terrorists. Secondly, Muslim terrorists are in the news daily with their bombings and be-headings and stuff. Abortion bombings? How often do you here about those? I bet it is the Liberal press with-holding all those stories so as to protect religion from the public outcry that they would surely feel if the rest of the country knew just how violent Christianity in the 2000's actually is.
  • thefaithful, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11Wow, that Web 2.0 comment is interesting.
    And it's true, the general populace are the ones generating the content, for free, that draws people in and lets the corporations make a profit.
    The only value or service to the user is the ability to contribute to the corporate ad revenue generation. We pay with our time and energy to make a website that more people will come to but get nothing out of it but the maintence of a site that "lets" us put our time and energy into making it better...
    These sites aren't about providing anything product wise to the generic internet user, it's about serving up the generic internet user to the advertisers.
  • geronimo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6The baby boomer thing is a bit more complex than a little 1 line blurb. Read "The Coming Generational Storm: What You Need to Know about America's Economic Future" by Kotlikoff for a detail analysis:

    $2 on Amazon:

    http://www.amazon.com/Coming-Generational-Storm-Americas-Economic/dp/0262112868

    Talking about this while blind will only lead to lots of comments and little substance.
  • z3021017, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3Article forgot aliens.

    And everyone knows you beat aliens using water.
  • thetaggerung, on 10/12/2007, -6/+0Web 2.0 is dangerous if used incorrectly.

    http://www.techcx.blogspot.com
  • d3dm, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2Oh yeah... "Woe is me! I'm a victim! Boo (effin) hoo!"

    Quit blaming other people and build your damn flying car in your own garage.
  • trollick, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2The bears!
  • speerross, on 10/12/2007, -10/+1I'd say capitalism is another threat to the future, but maybe that goes hand in hand with the government (especially in the US) since Oil money and big business seems to control the government. Watch as the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
    • tech42er, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Are you kidding me? Do you even know what capitalism is? What would be your alternative?
    • franksands, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Capitalism is really part of the problem. At least what is called "savage capitalism" or "dumb capitalism", where making profit is more important than the actions you did to obtain said profit. Like, for example, invading a country on false pretenses to get a little oil, you know?
  • newagenda, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1This article is a good concept badly executed. The members of the list are too broad and poorly researched. Could have been a lot better written. NO DIG!
  • trolleyfan, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8Biggest threat to the future? People who think they know what the biggest threats to the future are...
  • jwdav, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15Every new generation must respect, yet try to tear down, improve or add to what the generation before it built.

    Ronald Reagan had a great retort to some student protesters( ie: baby boomers) who entered his office to tell him that his generation could not understand their issues because he did not grow up with the modern conveniences like television & computers. Reagan replied that the protester was correct - his generation did not grow up with computers or televisions ... his generation had invented them.
  • greymaxcat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+19What about evil robots. Evil robots are gonna be a prob.
  • JSager, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Sorry, Web 2.0 is not "YouTube and Flickr".

    Web 2.0 is a much broader term than that, comprising things like RSS and Rich Internet Applications... if you want to see Web 2.0 go to some site like http://caps.fool.com or http://examples.adobe.com/flex2/consulting/styleexplorer/Flex2StyleExplorer.html

    I'd bet that the majority of people reading this article are subscribing to a Digg RSS feed... wouldn't have that without Web 2.0, would we?
    • cpthector, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0You are just arguing semantics here, however this does not make the points that were raised in that portion of the article any less valid.
  • cpovey, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Is it just me or are big gas/oil companies surprisingly missing from this list? I don't know about you, but making these people billionaires is not something I particularly like about our current situation...
  • AscendedDaniel, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3This sounds like a "Threat Down"... and I thought bears were the #1 threat.
  • nikitam, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Lots of interesting ideas present in the article, even if the author is a bit dismissive of Web 2.0. I think that it (along with, to lesser degrees, the other four) are redeemable...what remains to be seen is if they, in fact, are redeemed.
  • mikecap, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The cell provider comment is even more insightful than the author realizes. The big phone corps are using the FCC to hamper the development and spread of new technologies like Ultra WideBand (UWB) that would make devices like the iPhone the ultimate in handheld communication. UWB tech would enable multipath signals and live real-time video, have natural encryption and peer-to-peer communication, make GPS obsolete, and not require massive towers blotting out the landscape.

    But we can't have that because the FCC says "no" and because the cell providers won't be able to soak the consumer as hard as they can right now.
    • Peepsalot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1For anyone else dismayed at the current state of the cell phone industry, I would just like to recommend checking out the OpenMoko project and the Neo 1973.
      http://openmoko.org/
      This project is just starting up but I see great potential for it, and am personally very excited to see this coming.
      The current state of cell phones is that the devices you pay for are locked down and crippled by the phone companies. They often make it impossible(or prohibitively inconvenient) to modify or customize your phone and the software on it, so that any extra features you want will require you go back again and again to the greedy phone companies to purchase: a) content, b) applications/games c) proprietary/non-standard connectors, or d) a completely new device. The OpenMoko concept is to create a completely open source(hardware and software) phone platform that gives users the power to configure, modify, and customize their devices to their hearts content. Making it open also gives developers the freedom to create new applications and without restriction.

      It's not going to instantly solve all the problems in the cell industry, but I think it's a great start.
  • g00dETH3R, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Five fingers of the same hand...

    The problem is consolidation- Government, media, military industry and banks are all owned or controlled by a small and shrinking elite.

    WTF the movie and music industry? Come on! you're not going to give a ***** about music or movies if you cant feed your family because someone in India is doing your job for 10c an hour.
  • aurifex, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7The baby boomers will get social security.

    My generation won't.

    In short, we're *****.
    • Zarchon, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2Aurifex, you worry over nothing. Socialism is alive and well in America. By the time you are ready for your social security we should pretty much be a socialist country and you will have even more benefits in your old age.
  • th3wiz4rd, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Nice attempt... I'm in a good mood so I'll spare this a bury even though it wasn't really worth reading...
  • FluffyArmada, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Sorry.... digg this down, it was supposed to be a reply.
  • Number23, on 10/12/2007, -6/+0What a bunch of fags! This thread is about out 600 hp muscle car, and you ***** car argue about is Bush, WOT, baby boomers and web 2.0

    As to the car. I'm sure it's fast but NON IRS and 3600lbs makes it very uninteresting to me. A Z06 would mop the floor with it at any road course you can name AND driven with a light foot would return 28+ mph highway.
  • daydbai, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Just a thought.......

    if people in places like india couldn't do your job for cheaper than it is possible to do in the US..... you couldn't afford to live in the US with the higher paying job that you have.

    Think about it, if your computer was assembled by people live on American wages, it would be so expensive that your wages would have to increase to be able to buy it.

    Not that I am in favour of exploiting under payed workers, but development has to be consistent and sustainable. We live in a global world, and if we spent less time moaning about "problems" that are actually the products of our own selfishness, and more time helping the people who sustain our lifestyles to be able to sustain their own.... the world could be a better place
  • n8f8, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Radicalized Religion?
  • slapthemonkey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1just 5, are you sure? Thats great....
  • Twango, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1That's it, give those Boomer enemies all the ***** they deserve. Remind them "if you're not ahead, you're behind." And play this song for them:

    "Soon you'll attain the stability you strive for
    in the only way that it's granted
    in a place among the fossils of our time."

  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.