Photo: linh.ngân

Sometimes it feels like my memory fails me much more than it should.

And yet, more and more research seems to provide evidence to the contrary – that, in fact, all information that has ever passed through our brains is retrievable.

But what if all that information wasn’t actually stored in our brains, and what if that means we’re all even more connected than we thought?

Systems philosopher Ervin Laszlo recently wrote a post at Huffington Post asking the question, If Your Brain Is A Quantum Computer, Can It Connect You To The World? In it, he poses a quantum idea of knowing:

Not only are the neurons of our brain thoroughly entangled with each other–so that they can assemble and then process information with lightning speed–they are also entangled with the world beyond our brain. The logical conclusion is that the bulk of the information picked up and processed by the brain is not stored within the brain; it’s stored in the vast information field that embeds the brain.

Laszlo calls this storage facility of ideas and memories (minus short-term memory) our “cosmically extended natural Internet.” From there, he hypothesizes our brain is kind of like a broadband receiver, scientifically allowing for the possibility of extrasensory (yep, ESP) perception.

We know that travel might just make you smarter, and that visiting foreign places helps to see past the headlines and hype. But what this type of perceiving might mean on a human level is that our brains are trying to constantly link in and harmonize with other people, places, nature, and really, the world at large.

Makes a good argument for those who believe we are all interconnected beyond just our DNA, but does it stack up to the reality of a world heading toward harmony?

What do you think of the idea of brain-as-internet, and do you think it can help bridge differences across cultures? Share your thoughts below.

Last November, I was lucky enough to attend TedX Vancouver, a satellite conference based on the popular TED talks.

One of the speakers was Neill Blomkamp, director of the sci-fi film District 9. As his time slot arrived, everyone eagerly anticipated seeing the director on stage… until we realized he wasn’t coming.

Scheduling conflicts prevented him from being in Vancouver. Instead, Neill offered this video exploring what he thinks “real” aliens would look like, should humans ever encounter them.

He also discusses the various Types of civilizations (humans are currently Type 0), and the coming Singularity.

What do you think of Neill Blomkamp’s take on the future of intelligent life? Share your thoughts in the comments!

Photo: Eddi 07

File this one under ‘not quite sure of the implications.’

A recent study set out to determine the “religiousity” in patients with brain cancer before and after the removal of tumors. Turns out damage to one part of the brain, both from the tumor itself and the removal of it, is likely to make you more, you guessed it, God-lovin’.

Actually it goes beyond God and includes the Universe, or connectedness to others, so this finding isn’t just for Christians. But the “holy hole” is in a very-specific area of the brain – the posterior parietal cortex. That means if a person has a tumor in the frontal cortex, or front-part, of the brain, they’re more than likely feeling a bit less universally-connected.

Normally, the posterior parietal cortex is linked to maintaining one’s “sense of self,” and so it is interesting to find it might also have to do with understanding there is something greater than the self.

The outcome of the 88 brain-cancer patients who took part in the study found that those who had tumors removed from the posterior had even more feelings of self-transcendence than before surgery, while the patients with tumors at the front had no change in spiritual belief after surgery.

What does this mean for those without brain tumors? Well, as blogger Ryan Sager puts it:

What this would appear to show is that feelings of self-transcendence, and thus possibly religiosity, can be changed by alterations to neuroanatomy — in this case, first from a tumor, and then from the inevitable damage incurred by removal of a tumor.

Possible Outcomes

As an old professor of mine who posted this article noted, this could point to particular religious practices such as kundalini yoga – where an energy force “snakes” its way up the body and out the top of the head – might have the ability to shift neurons in the brain. Many other spiritual systems focus on energy coming in and out of this same area of the skull, and therefore practicing them may tangibly make people more religious.

What are the negative implications possible? Well, let’s see. Possibly backing up those people who believe that a higher power is simply a survival mechanism that our brains created? Or the more a brain is healthy and fully-developed (and not missing a part), the less likely a person is to believe in God/the Universe? Even better, as Sager points out, the possibility of a quick surgery to “cure” believers, or non-believers, depending on what those in charge desire at the time?

Of course, some could say that from an evolutionary standpoint, developing a tumor and then having it removed in fact develops the brain further – new cells and information are allowed to flood into that open space of the brain that computes self-awareness. Naturally, the same outcome might be true by developing your spiritual muscles.

What do you think of the implications of this study? Share your thoughts below.

Photo: Adam Polselli / Feature: Gerald Yuvallos

Traveling offers us the chance to let our minds roam – probably more than at any time in our lives.

Not only do we have ample time to think, we also continually encounter new and exciting features of the world: amazing animals, diverse human cultures and awesome structures.

While I’ve certainly enjoyed the experiences for their aesthetic value and brilliance, I’ve found my thoughts turning to theories and philosophy. After all, Sir Isaac Newton’s groundbreaking theory of gravity was supposed to have been inspired by the chance witnessing of a falling apple.

One particular event stuck with me:

I was walking along a track near the Kibale Forest in Uganda, where I witnessed our closest evolutionary relatives: chimpanzees. Yet it was not my encounter with the chimps that inspired my thoughts, but a column of ants crossing a path.

An Altered View

As I watched the ants I thought how they resembled a column of human travelers seen from above. Looking closer, I saw ants guarding the flanks, as human soldiers might for a civilian convoy. The ants were oblivious to me and the potential threat I posed: they were focused on their immediate surroundings in the insect world.

While some ant species have managed to travel the world, as we and our machines are exploring our universe, ants don’t have the ability to comprehend Planet Earth as we do.

This inspired me to think how it may be the same for humanity in the great scheme of things. As ants are part of our existence but have no concept of humanity; maybe we are a part of something much bigger and intelligent than we can even comprehend.

It’s not the ants’ fault they cannot grasp this greater truth – just as we are limited by our own intellectual range. We may never have the intelligence to know the true meaning of our universe and existence.

Science Meets Religion

The limits of our understanding were highlighted by a recent BBC Horizon television documentary on black holes: Who’s Afraid of a Big Black Hole?

The show included Professor Michio Kaku and Professor Max Tegmark explaining how growing evidence of black holes in space has cast doubt on Einstein’s theory of general relativity, which was the accepted theory of nature for much of the twentieth century.

Photo: bitzcelt

The scientists don’t think we have even created the equations for working out a theory of everything, let alone solved them.

Although the obvious limitations of scientific theory seem to open the door to religion, our growing understanding of the immensity of the universe also brings religious texts that focus on Planet Earth into question.

If we accept current astronomical discoveries as factual, why would a God spend so much time creating a massive universe, with ‘biblical’ sized events such as polar lights, tsunamis and volcanic eruptions on trillions of unmanned planets and stars for billions of years before humanity acquired the technology to observe a little of it?

We Don’t Know What’s Out There

One Minute Astonomer succinctly explained our planet’s diminutive size within ‘known space’:

• Our Milky Way galaxy is one of forty members of the local group of galaxies.
• The Virgo Cluster of galaxies, which is visible in our sky, has 2,000 galaxies.
• Each big galaxy in the Virgo Cluster has a trillion stars (and some are much bigger than our sun) or more.

I believe humanity’s ability to explain our cosmic role is limited today because we have hardly left our planet. We have not seen the ends of our universe.

In reality, humanity has only been physically exploring the cosmos for the last fifty years; a minuscule amount of time in the great scheme of things.

The concluding sentence from one of the scientists on the Horizon documentary admitted: “We don’t know what’s out there. People might give you an answer, but they’d probably be wrong.”

Relatively speaking, I believe we may know as much as those ants in Kibale knew about the planet we share. Our place at the moment is somewhere between ants and the unknown – offering plenty of terrain left to explore.

What do you think of the “ant theory” of the universe? Share your thoughts in the comments!

Photo: -babo

Following the whole Copenhagen meeting was quite depressing (though not at all surprising).

Touted as the consensus-building answer to our Earth’s woes (uh, us), it merely exemplified that almost every country will put their ability to make money above the future of the planet. Now here we are, left with a watered down version of the Kyoto Protocol.

But I’m not here to lament the fact that, as a human race, we can’t seem to get our you-know-what together. Ok, maybe just a little bit. Mostly, though, I’m here to contemplate what the Earth does for us travelers, and what, in turn, we must do for it.

Weird thought? Yes. Still, it is quite obvious that beyond simple survival questions, without lands both near and far, we would have nowhere to travel. We would lack inspiration to write, to discuss and break through borders in our minds and hearts, and find it harder to believe in the connections possible even when different languages are spoken.

Though not about a traveler’s dilemma around climate change, John Wihbey at the Huffington Post wrote a moving piece, After Copenhagen Chaos, A Bit of Emerson for the Soul, about the breakdown at “Hopenhagen” (or Nopenhagen?), and what we do now. He notes:

Environmental thinking…has always had a practical and a philosophical side. At this difficult moment – one that feels almost funereal for many, the very winter of climate discontent – there is still some consolation in recalling the philosophy that got the discussion going.

I agree. If we can’t understand what got the discussion going in the first place, then how can we reassess and move forward?

The Next Great Hope

Photo: Christine Garvin

A traveler makes their way to new and different places not only to experience other cultures, but to literally see new lands. I think about my most recent drive across the US along I-40, which takes you from the flat farmland of Southern California to the mountainous region filled with leaf-covered trees of Western North Carolina (and eventually, the warm beaches along the Atlantic ocean).

Dry desert with seemingly hand-crafted rocks jutting out from the Earth greet you in Arizona and New Mexico; the “Old West” brush and prairies appear in Northern Texas and Oklahoma; the sunset flirts in the rear view mirror, casting golden highlights in Alabama and Tennessee. This beauty, among reflections of it all over the world, is at the heart of the environmental movement and is the purpose for the discussion.

Wihbey also states:

When you look out on wind-blasted peaks that sweep down into valleys of frosted trees – when you are “out there” among the eloquence of the elements – thought of this “romantic” type comes in purer form. So does deeper reflection. What is nature? Why is it valuable? What is our relation to it? Where are we going together?

My questions are: What are we doing? Why can’t we seem to change? It’s as if we are stuck in some way, even though change is such a normal human process. Maybe it’s because we think we will go “backwards” in order to save these precious views for our children and grandchildren, that to have enough clean water available to drink and to keep coastal cities above ocean level means the end of commerce, and comfort, as we know it. And this scares us.

What to do, then? Similar to a recent post at BNT about how science needs to bring sexy back, Wihbey includes a perspective from environmentalist Stewart Brand. Brand laments that we need a whole new paradigm beyond romantics and scientists to take on the environmental battle – we need environmental “engineers”: essentially, problem-solvers that will push us over the tipping point.

Perhaps this is a possible answer to the argument between George Monbiot and Paul Kingsnorth about the seemingly inevitable-coming apocalypse. From what I can see, some sort of new thinking is crucial. Otherwise, the beauty – and our travels – will simply be distant memories.

What do you think must happen now that Copenhagen didn’t fulfill its promises? Share your thoughts below.

Photo: DavidCiriaco

Questions, debates, and arguments tend to flow non-stop from our media about such loving and easy topics as the war in Afghanistan, global warming, and Tiger Wood’s affair(s).

I’ve felt particularly pulled from end of the spectrum to the other over the past couple of days. One of Matador’s writers, Nick Rowlands, passed along an interesting, albeit extraordinarily we’re-going-straight-down-the-tubage, debate between George Monbiot, author of several investigative travel books and a weekly column for the Guardian, and Paul Kingsnorth, director of the Dark Mountain Project.

In the letter exchange, well worth reading by the way, Kingsnorth takes the “shits already hit the fan, let’s get on with this apocalypse now and start over” approach. He discusses a set of graphs that marks the steady rise of a wide range of occurrences since 1750, including the rising CO2 concentration in the atmosphere and rate of species extinction, and how they suddenly “veer steeply upwards” since – you guessed it – 1950:

Yet very few of us are prepared to look honestly at the message this reality is screaming at us: that the civilisation we are a part of is hitting the buffers at full speed, and it is too late to stop it. Instead, most of us – and I include in this generalisation much of the mainstream environmental movement – are still wedded to a vision of the future as an upgraded version of the present.

Monbiot, while identifying with the fact that we are in a precarious situation, believes that we have to go on fighting the good fight. If we don’t, instead of the emergence of an utopian society, we (well, those of us left, anyway) would be in an even uglier place than at the moment:

I’m sure we can agree that the immediate consequences of collapse would be hideous: the breakdown of the systems that keep most of us alive; mass starvation; war…the survivors of this collapse will be subject to the will of people seeking to monopolise remaining resources. This will is likely to be imposed through violence. Political accountability will be a distant memory. The chances of conserving any resource in these circumstances are approximately zero.

Monbiot ends one of his letters with this: “Perhaps we are both in denial: I because I think the fight is still worth having; you because you think it isn’t.”

Whew, intense. I certainly felt compelled by the certainty of both men that no matter which way we turn, things aren’t going to be pretty.

Or Could They Be?

Photo: Maira Kalman / New York Times

And then, lo and behold, a friend sent along this piece by Maira Kalman at the New York Times blog. Beautifully illustrated through pictures and actual written words (ok, maybe it’s a writing font), Maira looks to how our land, eating habits, and movement have changed greatly – and negatively – since our “founding fathers” stepped foot in the US.

Yet there is this undercurrent that – dare I say it, is beginning to overflow – of people not only understanding our need to return to the Earth, but who are actually doing it.

Kalman states:

It is not about dropping out (though that sounds tempting now and then). It is about bringing elemental things to the present time with commerce and optimism.

In “not dropping out,” she doesn’t forget to ask the questions. On the picture of a cow, she wonders, “Land of cows that we eat. Should we? Shouldn’t we?” And in showing children in Berkeley, CA growing, preparing, and eating organic meals together at school, she poses, “Many children often do not sit with their own families. And some drink soda for breakfast. So what do we do about that?”

Even if we are working in our own lives to make changes, I think that forgetting, or dismissing, the reality of what is happening outside of the confines of our own world is a huge part of the problem. Positivity is a beautiful thing, as long as it doesn’t negate the realities of others.

Yes, we create our own reality, to a certain extent. Yet each of our realities runs up against everyone else’s. That means chemicals being dumped, wars being fought, and food being frankened effects you. But don’t forget to check yourself on negating the positive realities of things happening around you, too.

So then what is the answer – watch and even hope for the apocalypse? Fight it tool and nail? Look at the bright side? Maybe, just maybe, the answer is somewhere in the middle.

What do you believe is the answer to our survival conundrum? Share your thoughts below.

Photo: Ralph Buckley

Unless you’ve had your head under a rock, you’ve probably heard the world is supposed to end in 2012 (my apologies to those with rocks atop their heads).

Yep, according to many of the great minds throughout history, Nostradamus, the Mayans, the History Channel, it’s all gonna come tumbling down 12/22/2012. Damn, just three days before I turn 34. Oh, wait, maybe that’s a good thing.

Well, everyone from NASA to National Geographic to this guy is out to debunk this “myth.” All it takes is a much-hyped movie coming out on Friday for everyone and their mom to have their say.

So Discovery News got in on the action with the Top 10 Reasons Why the World Won’t End in 2012. The author, Ray Villard, rationalized some of the most common theories, including:

• The Earth’s magnetic field will reverse: “Don’t hold your breath. The last field reversal happened nearly 800,000 years ago. Fred Flintstone and our other ancestor cavemen survived.”
• The Earth’s rotation axis will tip: “An object the size of Mars would have to hit Earth to transfer enough momentum to knock us out of kilter. But Mars-sized protoplanets were kicked into interstellar space over 4 billion years ago. The solar system doesn’t make ‘planets-gone-wild’ anymore.”
• The Sun will align with the galactic equator on the winter solstice: “So what? These are simply coordinates in the sky. It has no physical reality any more than the intersection of Broadway and 7th Avenue at Times Square influences the geology of Manhattan Island.”

Ok, points taken, though arrogantly made. But what kills me is the smuggie, smug, smugness of statements like these:

Apparently the Mayans knew something about the heavens we don’t…our multi-billion dollar telescopes, space probes, and 6,000 professional astronomers somehow just can’t keep up with the mystic knowledge of an ancient superstitious culture.

Once again, we know so much more than those who came before us, right? Right.

Breaking it Down

Let me start off by saying that I don’t believe the world will end in 2012 with any sort of a bang. But I think there are some worthy arguments worth putting forward.

First of all, we don’t know for sure that the Mayans predicted the end of the world in 2012; we might be the only ones assuming because their calendar ends, it means the end of us. But, they did predict certain things with accuracy, such as eclipses.

Second, who said these predictions didn’t include the possibility of human-induced disasters? Yes, global warming is real (ahem), and might go further than any North-South Pole flip-flop. Don’t forget the economic meltdown. Plus, some believe WWIII is on it’s way, with 9/11 as the kick-off and Nostradamus’ accurate prediction of events.

Third, and most important to me, is that many believe 2012 won’t be the end of the world, but the end of the world as we know it. Which essentially means we will undergo a radical shift in consciousness, one which we have been building up to the last few years. What this means exactly is up for debate, but mostly includes the idea that humans will start being nice to humans. Imagine that.

Let’s just hope the consciousness shift comes before the nuclear button is pushed (or another 2012 movie makes it to the screen).

What do you think about the predictions – and their debunkers – around 2012? Share your thoughts below.

Photo: Sue Richards

Ok, so we’ve talked about what the future of travel might look like.

Condé Nast Traveler magazine, on the other hand, decided to recently air out the top five rumors about the future of airline travel.

I must note all of these are much less exciting and futuristic than want we think is going to happen.

Yet in consideration of our hard economic times, and the unfortunate losses that so many corporations are facing daily (’we only made a $999,000,000 surplus last quarter, down from $2 billion last year during the same quarter!’), I think it is our duty to try and help out, at the very least, the airline industry.

I mean, how much can they really be making from charging us for meals, checking in luggage, and cramming in more seats? It really is the only fair thing to do.

Rumor #1: Southwest will fly to Europe

Guess a rumor has been going around that some $99 seats would getcha outta JFK and into Rio. Nice thought, but no dice.

But really, with jokes like, “Pushing the light-bulb button will turn your reading light on. However, pushing the flight-attendant button will not turn your flight attendant on,” I’m willing to pay at least $150.

C’mon, Southwest, then you too could charge us for peanuts. Really, I bet you could get $5 a pack on one of those eight-hour flights.

Rumor #2: Airlines are planning “standing room” seats

If they make it mandatory to check all of your luggage while charging you $50 per piece, there will be plenty of room in the overheard compartments for small women and children.

Also, get some good, sturdy straps and the plane’s wings suddenly become another 30 seats (just make sure there are small TVs installed the length of the wing to keep people entertained). It’s a win-win-wing situation.

Rumor #3: Ryanair is going to install pay toilets on its planes

Photo: Sapphireblue

Soon enough, flying will be just like being about to pee in your pants in Europe and not having €.50 to get into the toilet. Seems this one hasn’t fully been dashed yet, so you can keep your hopes up. Anyone have change for $100?

Rumor #4: A 1,000-passenger commercial jetliner is on the drawing board

Sweeeet! If they could just squeeze in a few more, it could be like an Indian wedding! We’ll have sari-wrapping in one corner of the plane, and bhangra dancing in the other. Maybe even a pig-on-a-spit to give it a little Southern flair?

And we can all be dancing, eating, and laughing as we lift off 50 feet in the air and then crash into the end of the runway.

Rumor #5: Richard Branson will install casinos/discos/health clubs/[fill in blank here] aboard his new planes

Traveler notes that, “Branson has also been a master of smirky references to the mile-high club when unveiling plans for ‘double bed’ suites.” Now that Virgin megastores are on the downward skid, wonder if he’s having more trouble getting some and has to live vicariously through his clientele?

Maybe they can just charge double when people would like to ‘go to the bathroom’ together? Don’t let him down, my friends!

What other crazy rumors have you heard about the future of the airline industry? Share your thoughts below.

Watch a recent Time report on the wisdom of Burning Man:

Here are the 5 things stated in the film:

1. get rid of cars
2. encourage self-reliance
3. rethink commerce
4. foster virtue (with shame)
5. encourage art

And perhaps the most important message spoken by Larry Harvey: “What good is this unless it’s about how to live the rest of your life?”

What do you think of the lessons cities can learn from Burning Man? Share in the comments!

Community Connection:

Check out my ode to future friends in Burn Baby Burn: Heading Into The Black Rock Desert. And my post-burn roundup of Burning Man links.

Photo: Fabian Bromann

I’m assuming most of you reading this believe in evolution, or at least parts of it.

The most interesting aspect of an article I just read on the Daily Galaxy website is that it states evolution, as we have known it, is now obsolete.

Oh, really?

The piece begins with this quote from Freeman Dyson at the Institute for Advanced Study:

Now, after some three billion years, the Darwinian era is over. The epoch of species competition came to an end about 10 thousand years ago when a single species, Homo sapiens, began to dominate and reorganize the planet. Since that time, cultural evolution has replaced biological evolution as the driving force of change.

This brings up several questions for me (global warming, anyone?), but for the purpose of this post, I’ll stick to author Casey Kazan’s point of reference: the “domestication” of biotechnology will be the driving force of the next 50 years. To some extent, this is already the deeply-embedded case: take a look at food engineering (with the newest scary idea to breed cows that feel no pain), and the continued debate over stem cells.

But the real gist of the article is that cultural evolution, which is not Darwinian in nature, has replaced biological evolution. So what does this mean for the 21st century traveler?

Cultural Interdependence Vs. Separate Identity

Kazan adds:

Cultures spread by horizontal transfer of ideas more than by genetic inheritance. Cultural evolution is running a thousand times faster than Darwinian evolution, taking us into a new era of cultural interdependence which we call globalization.

Interesting view, especially if we consider whether it is possible to culturally integrate based on nature vs. nurture. But Kazan once again quotes Dyson, who says, “…the rules of Open Source sharing will be extended from the exchange of software to the exchange of genes. Then the evolution of life will once again be communal, as it was before separate species and intellectual property were invented.”

Photo: h.koppdelaney

This information makes me wonder, will the need – or desire – to travel then become obsolete?

If you contemplate that the evolution of man came about from constantly moving to new areas and developing survival mechanisms based on place, if biological evolution is “over,” do we need to keep moving? Or will biotechnology simply bring another place to us?

Part of Kazan’s argument sounds wonderful to me: the holistic interpretation that we are not separate, but instead are all one and interconnected, and that this will extend to how we share and live in a global community.

The other part, though, I must admit I’m afraid of: losing any separate identity, and therefore culture, will negate the need to see other places. We can just conjure up our desired locale based on an antiquated idea that the people of a different place had something to offer us. But these positive differences will no longer be a reality.

Then, we might just long for the past.

What do you think about the “end of evolution” and its implications on travel? Share your thoughts below.

Photo: Source

Alright, kids: the future is just about here.

A British scientist was recently awarded £100,000 by the Royal Society to develop an invisibility cloak. Yes, really.

It seems the good (mad?) scientist, Professor Ulf Leonhardt, believes he can develop “a material that bends light around itself, making it invisible to the naked eye” in just two short years.

Sweet. Sounds simple enough. Have the cloak simply “grab hold” of light rays so they don’t bounce off into our eyes, which enables us to see objects. Instead, curve the light around the object, basing this approach on Einstein’s theory of curved space. Use the Invisible Woman and Harry Potter as your inspiration. Don’t forget to check with the What the Bleep?! people.

But it seems this type of project has already been in the works for a while. Researchers at the University of California at Berkeley have been working on a garment since at least 2008, with funding from the US Military (hmmm). And way back in 2006, Duke University researchers released this video demonstrating the world’s first working invisibility cloak:

My question is, when will that invisibility cloak get me across the globe without having to board a plane?

What do you think about the possibility of an invisibility cloak existing in the next two years? Share your thoughts below.

Community Connection

Interested in the possibility of time travel? Then check out the article, Is Time Travel Possible? Or, if you think we should be already be farther ahead in our travel options, 6 Revolutionary Forms Of Travel That Don’t Exist Yet… But Should will comfort you during the wait.

Feature Photo: adotjdotsmith

It’s been 60 years since George Orwell wrote 1984, his forward-looking satire of a sad and dysfunctional society.

The country of Oceania has a government who monitors every aspect of its people’s lives, participates in a never-ending world war, and rules over a society overrun by poverty due to sacrifices being made for the war effort.

The government officials, though, still live the good life.

Heh, heh, good thing Orwell was so off base about the future.

Love Your Leaders!

Nationalism was the central theme of this imagined society, with unquestioned love for a leader who may or may no longer be alive.

Orwell also looked at the idea of “transferred nationalism,” or the psychology used to transfer the love or hate for one government to another. Sexual repression was yet another overriding theme of the book–though this repression came from the government, not religious organizations.

Luckily, we see no-such-thing today.

To honor the anniversary of this book that gave the previous generation a look at what the future might hold (seriously scary how close he was), The Complete Works of Orwell has the entire book online.

Now remember, Big Brother is always watching, so don’t make any sudden moves on the internet.

Do you think Orwell was dead-on about what was to come for all societies, or is his vision a thing of the past? Share your thought below.

As a kid, I was told the future would be vastly different. “A hover car in every garage!” my parents said. “Vacations on the moon!” they said.

Most of it hasn’t come true. While personal gadgetry has certainly advanced (an entire record collection now fits on an iPod), revolutionary transportation options lag far beyond.

For this reason, we’re forced to imagine through movies and tv shows the changes we can expect. What forms of travel don’t exist yet, but should?

1. Tube Transport System (TTS)

Illustration: Futurama

Why rely on pneumatic tubes to deliver inter-office memos when one can merely state any destination in New York and get sucked along for the ride?

Futurama’s tube transport system is revolutionary and scenic, allowing tube-goers the opportunity to pick up some fresh Popplers at Fishy Joe’s “tube-thru”, and see the best of the city from above and below.

Unfortunately, even this form for transport isn’t beyond rush-hour traffic; city officials may have to commission the construction of several new tubes, causing delays throughout the system.

WARNING: The tube should be entered headfirst. Failure to do so will result in serious head injury or death.

2. Wormhole Opener

Photo: Sliders

For every action we take, there exists an infinite number of alternate actions that play out in parallel universes, continuously splitting like forks in the road.

Now suppose you had a wonderful device (like in the tv show Sliders) that allowed you to travel in and out of these alternate worlds… “a world where the Russians ruled America.. or where your dreams of being a superstar came true… or where San Francisco was a maximum security prison.”

Perhaps you might even come across a universe identical to our own in every way, except there no one argues about the difference between a tourist and a traveler.

3. Teleportation Deck

Photo: Star Trek

Teleportation may not be too far off. Instead of dealing with ridiculous security sweeps, checking baggage, sitting for hours, and eating tasteless food, why not eliminate it all by standing on a transporter pad and arriving across the world in less than a second?

Haven’t you ever imagined where you would go and what you would do if commuting times were essentially reduced to zero?

Live in Paris, grab a sushi lunch in Tokyo, kayak down the Amazon in the afternoon, relax with some meditation walks across the barren South Pole, then follow it up a real Mexican dinner and Thai fried bananas fresh from the street stalls for dessert.

4. Hover cars

Photo: Noah Nipperus

Despite the promise of these wonders as a child, hover cars have yet to arrive – though MIT students may have accelerated the schedule by producing a prototype.

The Terrafugia personal air vehicle is to be released by 2011 and provide all those who can afford it the chance to drive their “plane” from their home to the airport for takeoff.

Perfecting this flying car technology should be the least of everyone’s concerns, however. We all need to make sure it’s kept out of the hands of The Fast and the Furious creative team… just think of it… a movie with flying cars, Vin Diesel, and no plot whatsoever.

5. Jetpacks

Illustration: Rocketeer

All the early 20th century sci-fi books promised everyone in the future would be zipping around in jet packs to go to school, play high-altitude basketball, and enjoy a nice Sunday afternoon flight.

Well, now it’s the future, where’s my jetpack? The latest developments in jetpack technology seem to come from Glenn Martin of New Zealand, whose own design has been proven to hover at three feet for at least thirty minutes.

Although regular commuters may as well stick to the transporter, there’s something about having complete mastery of the skies, nothing between you and the Earth for thousands of feet.

6. Infinite Improbability Device

Photo: capt tim

With this technology from The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, the more improbable it is that something will happen (e.g. your arm turning into a delicious looking bag of potato chips), the more likely it is to happen with the drive engaged.

“…based on a particular perception of quantum theory: a subatomic particle is most likely to be in a particular place, such as near the nucleus of an atom, but there is also a small probability of it being found very far from its point of origin (for example close to a distant star). Thus, a body could travel from place to place… if you had sufficient control of probability.” – Source

Travelers should be careful not to turn the device to full infinite probability, as it would cause everyone and everything in the universe to vanish in an “unlikely” explosion of ice cream.

I think I’d still prefer this over dealing with the airlines…

Feature illustration: Steve Thomas

What forms of imaginary travel do you wish you could use in the real world? Share your ideas in the comments below!