French artists in 1899 envisioned what life would look like in the year 2000

Perceptions of the 1899 Predictions

• Many images feel surprisingly accurate: mechanized farming, domestic robots, long‑distance electric trains, video‑call analogs, audio news, and horses as curiosities rather than everyday transport.
• What’s “wrong” often reflects missing general‑purpose computers: humans pull levers, manually operate remote machinery, or fly vehicles that today would be software‑driven.
• Commenters note that modern tech is more complex inside but visually simpler; much “robotics” is abstracted into infrastructure (factories, roads, flat floors) instead of visible gears.
• Some predictions were near‑obvious from 1899 (e.g., armored vehicles, broadcasting), others feel surprisingly on‑target in spirit if not detail.

Humans, Labor, and Automation

• Participants highlight that 20th‑century sci‑fi usually keeps humans piloting, mining, and fighting, whereas they expect future AIs to automate most of this, with humans mainly supervising.
• Modern spacecraft are cited: largely autonomous with manual override only as backup, even for complex tasks like docking and lunar landings.

Gender Norms and Fashion

• The all‑dress depiction of women sparks debate: some say artists “could not imagine” women in pants; others call that historically inaccurate and argue trousers were at least conceivable and sometimes worn.
• Distinction is drawn between illegality, social unacceptability, and imagination.
• Artists mostly left everyday fashion unchanged to keep focus on technology, though they imagined “robotic tailors,” which remain far from full reality due to economics, supply chains, and cultural adaptation to standardized sizing and elastic fabrics.

Underwater vs. Space Futures

• Many images emphasize underwater leisure and transport, with almost nothing about space.
• Explanations offered: oceans were known to be full of life and already under exploration; space seemed too unknown or impractical at the time.
• Today, large submarines are associated with military and oil/gas, while recreational access is mostly via scuba and limited tourism.
• Debate on underwater living: proposed benefits include radiation shielding, survival after nuclear war, and extra coastal housing; critics cite extreme engineering difficulty, cost, and simpler alternatives like skyscrapers.

Medicine and Biology

• Commenters note that the 1899 visions largely omit biology and medicine, focusing instead on environmental and mechanical improvements.
• Some express a wish that 2124 will bring limb regrowth, disease elimination, and safe, accessible biotech.
• Others point to current early work in tooth and cartilage regrowth as signs this domain may advance rapidly.

Futurism, Consumption, and Predictive Limits

• The thread asks what future people will think of today’s sci‑fi and whether any “physically possible” dreams remain (fusion, flying taxis, fully reusable rockets, AGI, unified computing, advanced transit).
• There is sharp disagreement over future consumption:
  • One side argues history suggests humans will consume ever more energy and resources, barring catastrophe.
  • Another expects or hopes for reduced consumption, either voluntarily (to limit climate damage) or involuntarily (due to severe warming and crises).
• Several comments stress that social and political innovation (e.g., non‑consumerist or more cooperative societies) may be as important as technical change.
• Some report shrinking personal “future horizons”: with rapid, non‑linear change (smartphones, AR/VR) already surpassing their earlier expectations, they feel less able or less motivated to imagine far futures. Others remain skeptical that high‑profile AR/VR gear will become everyday streetwear, seeing current use as more stunt or branding than inevitability.

Meta‑Observations

• The difficulty of forecasting fashion and social roles is emphasized as at least as great as forecasting technology.
• Several commenters see these old illustrations as evidence that people tend to get the broad direction of change (automation, communication, mobility) roughly right, while missing key enabling technologies and deep social shifts.