Which predictions made in 2030 did you feel were most accurate? Which would you like to see in your lifetime?

Which predictions made in 2030 did you feel were most accurate? Which did you think were unlikely? Which are you most hoping will come true in your lifetime?

I loved the no-pilot jets, I totally want one of those! A cure for cancer is an obvious one, who could be against that (except Mr. Brooks, of course =).

The grim assessment of the future of our country if we cannot control the medical costs and the debt situation were what I saw as most accurate - not ones I would like to see in my lifetime - nor in my grandchildren's - but still very realistic. The idea of a world currency was also scary as I watch the money trials of Europe with the Euro.

I'm afraid the debt situation and medical costs could be accurate. I would hope that the cure for cancer is also accurate, and personally I wouldn't mind having that fat pill!

I would love to see a cure for cancer in my lifetime or at least my granddaughters. No way on the no-pilot jets! It's hard enough for me to get on a plane let alone knowing no ones at the controls! I thought the super highways and trains they were going to rebuild after the earthquake would be really neat. I could see that happening in the near future. I also saw the debt situation as the most accurate and most scary!

As I was reading, I was wondering when he started to write it, and how much of what Albert Brooks talked about as history, happened AFTER he had already started writing the book. The inability of the government to actively do anything, the health care situation, and, of course the whole debt situation paint a gloomy...but maybe not far from the truth situation.

It woud not surprise me at all to see a partnership with China come to pass. As the book stated so many times, we owe the Chinese more money than we will probably ever pay back. I loved the health care ideas the Chinese implimented. Curing cancer is amazing, but they still couldn't cure the common cold.

Much of the scenario was imaginative and yet completely plausible, at times promising and at times sad and scary. The technologies, the debt, the medical breakthroughs, the public/private partnerships seem most accurate to me. A cure for cancer in my lifetime - YES! I would also love to see the cranes at the side of highways removing wrecks. Brilliant idea!

I would love to see a cure for cancer. The debt situation could easily be accurate.

So much of what has changed between the current day and the descriptions of 2030 are believable: the medical advances (including the problems they create), the communications technology, the dominance of China, etc. Part of the book's effectiveness is that this isn't a Jetsons future. It isn't at all difficult to believe that 2030 could look like that.

One of the other predictions that was scary and yet could be coming was the idea that you would have to keep people on life support - the other end of the abortion issue. After reading the posts about which group you identify most with and the postings on DNR issues. I have agreed with my family for both my dad and myself to "pull the plug" in many situations. I would hate to see this right become unlawful!

The most accurate prediction i thought was the portrayal of total government gridlock with no governing taking place. Don't we have that now? It seems like Brooks simply lifted the notion of politicians simply running for office and re-election to the neglect of everything else. Don't they do that now? I'm not so sure of borrowing extreme amounts of money from other governments to pay for natural disasters, we still are likely to give money away in foreign aid so it's going to be a long time before we actually run out--but it could happen. As for a naturalized foreign national becoming president--I don't think so. There is just too much "tradition" in this country to make that one a go.

I feel the technology aspects predicted are probably not too far from accurate and the debt as well as the skyrocketing medical costs are also reasonable to assume can happen. I would love to see the cure for cancer
and a more efficient system of building cities and transportation systems but there has to be someway to pay for it all and we can't even pay for what we have now.

I had forgotten about those movable cranes - what a great idea!

I love how most of us are thinking 'I have got to get that DNR done!'. I watch a lot of medical shows, and it's a common plot point. Do we pull the plug? Can we? Should we? I love the idea of ME being the one to make that decision for myself, and I guess that means I need to get myself a DNR.

I also thought the gridlock plausible - oh, wait! That's what's happening now! I don't like the unmanned jets or the robotic operations, but see how they are already coming to pass. I agree that the scariest part of this is the lack of personal freedom in determining when we can die. I would rather shoot myself than be on life support to infinity. It is wrong. There are already discussions about brain dead vs. body dead going on now. In Brooks world, I see people losing their individual rights to determine their own outcome in lots of ways. Think about paying exorbitant medical bills long after a person dies. Look at Kathy's father. It was clear the way Brooks wrote it that the hospital was at fault for his death and yet there was no investigation into it. There seemed to be a complete lack of responsibility on the government or corporations side.

Izabel - I'm so glad you brought up this point. My husband and I already have DNRs and our children know where to find them but I want to be able to go a step further and be able to sign something that says that if I am suffering from a degenerative condition such as Alzheimers and reach the point that doctors confirm that I no longer know myself or my family and my quality of life is minimal, to please extend the same courtesy you would to the family dog and put me to sleep.

Assisted suicide laws are beginning to gain traction in some places but all, to the best of my knowledge, require the person to be both of right mind and physically able to take the steps to end their own life (e.g. at Dignitas in Switzerland, a person has to clearly state repeatedly that they know the drink they are taking will kill them and then they have to be able to drink it themselves). Many people have now gone to Dignitas to end their lives with dignity but I am sure that many of those have had to take that action sooner than they might otherwise have wanted to in order to pass the physical and mental requirements.

Izabel - When Kathy's dad was injured, my first thought was 'where is worker's compensation?!' That is so clearly a work-related injury, so that bill should have been covered by his employer. Which means he would have gotten better care and maybe survived. I assumed that Brooks was implying that worker's comp would go away under the heavy costs of health-care or continued relaxation of employee's rights to a safe and healthy workplace.

bevula - I wondered the same thing! I assumed that workers comp went the window the same way as workers rights, employer sponsored health care, and just about every other social safety net except for what served the "olds". Was Brooks trying to make us hate old people? It seemed like the only people being cared for by the government in this story were the olds.

I think this made me hate the corporations who had taken over the government more than the olds. Its correlations between today's political climate is downright scary.

All of the predictions had a thread of truth to them. That is why the book was scarey! It sounds great to cure cancer, but then what happens? Everybody lives and lives.....Do other diseases pop up that are terminal? Do we then all live forever?

Is cancer the only disease that would be wiped out? It seemed that Brooks' world embraced cancer as the leading cause of death. Is it? What if we wiped out gun violence or pneumonia or heart disease?

Izabel, that's a great point. More people die from behavioral issues - diabetes, alcoholism, even some of the cancers are clearly diet-related - that it is not necessarily true that a cure for cancer (and obesity, so I guess that would help with diabetes) will result in that large of an increase in surviving older people. Heart disease (which is mostly diet-related) kills more people than cancer does.

And auto accidents kill more people than just about anything else, don't they? I'm currently resisting a joke about older people behind the wheel - forgive me =)

The storyline here makes it seem like everything got worse for 20 years, and then boom - the youngsters started reacting. I'm guessing it would be something more gradual. How long would it take them to transfer the impulse/copycatting of school violence to senior citizen homes? Brad lived in a secure building, but it seemed like they hadn't really been experiencing violence against seniors.

Finding the cure for cancer would be such a big relief. At least research efforts could then be moved elsewhere.

I found the polarization between the age groups extremely disturbing, as I am guessing was the author's intent. While we see some of this now with the increase in senior communities for "young-olds" and the refusal of inability of adult children to take care of "old-olds", the resentment and/or insensitivity among family members was chilling.

The cure for cancer would be great! But thinking about it, that's only 18 years from now and not that far away! Could it really happen? I do not agree with Bevula, the no pilot jets scare me. Too many things go wrong when we have real pilots, but then there wouldn't be any pilot melt-downs in the cockpit!