“Things to Come: A Timeline of Future Technology” is a 2016 Futurism infographic, not a guaranteed schedule. It places speculative ideas—from eye-controlled devices and paper diagnostics to fusion, geoengineering and undersea settlements—against dates running from 2019 to about 2055. Its value today is as a snapshot of what futurists expected in that historical moment and as a lesson in why technical possibility does not equal widespread adoption.
What the timeline is—and is not
The infographic assembles predictions across medicine, biology, computing, interfaces, materials, manufacturing, energy, space and climate intervention. Because the examples come from unrelated fields, the graphic is better read as a portfolio of scenarios than as one integrated roadmap.
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
The dates are forecasts made in 2016. They should not be treated as deadlines, promises or evidence that a technology became commercially available in the named year. Peter Fisk’s June 30, 2018 discussion of the graphic begins with the warning that predicting the future is difficult. A later Malaysian National Fourth Industrial Revolution policy document cited Futurism among sources for selected future-technology examples; that reuse demonstrates circulation, not scientific validation.
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errors2Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitches3Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsThe technologies and dates Futurism imagined
| Area | Examples named on the timeline | Forecast window shown |
|---|---|---|
| Health and biology | Eye-controlled technology, paper diagnostics, designer antibiotics, ingestible robots, super antivirals and genetic advances | 2019–early 2030s |
| AI, computing and interfaces | Immersive interfaces, advanced AI, genetic computing and rapid screening | Later 2030s–2040s |
| Materials and manufacturing | Smart clothing, biomimetic materials and home 3D printing | 2026–mid-2030s |
| Energy | Photonics in space, carbon-breathing batteries, diamond batteries, space-based solar power and fusion | 2027–2055 |
| Space and resource extraction | Volcanic mining and other space-oriented infrastructure | 2028 onward |
| Climate intervention and settlement | Geoengineering, carbon sequestration, undersea cities and floating settlements | 2030s–2055 |
These entries are the infographic’s claims. They are not confirmations that a prototype, regulated product or mass market existed by each date.
#1 Best Overall
Why a technically feasible idea can miss its date
Joe Tankersley made the central distinction in his May 9, 2018 article “Where is my Flying Car?” He wrote: “The real problem with most technological based predictions is that they do a good job of assessing feasibility but don’t do a very good job of extrapolating the other factors – social, political, economic that really determine when and if a breakthrough goes mainstream.”
A laboratory demonstration answers whether something can work under defined conditions. Mainstream adoption also requires affordable production, reliable infrastructure, safety evidence, regulation, maintenance, compatible standards, willing users and institutions prepared to pay for it. Public opinion, elections, wars, supply chains and environmental constraints can alter that path. A technology can therefore be physically possible yet remain niche, delayed or abandoned.
Four different milestones
- Invention: a new method or design is proposed.
- Demonstration: researchers or engineers show it working in a controlled setting.
- Commercial availability: customers can obtain a product or service at a sustainable price.
- Widespread adoption: it becomes routine across the relevant population or industry.
A forecast dated for widespread use should not be marked successful merely because an experiment or startup appeared.
How to judge a prediction today
The available discussions of the infographic do not provide a technology-by-technology scorecard, so no complete “right or wrong” tally can be inferred from them. Each claim needs its own current evidence check. Use the following questions:
Rank #3
- What exactly was promised? Define the device, capability, user and scale rather than matching a vague modern equivalent.
- Which milestone was dated? Separate a research result from a purchasable system and from ordinary use.
- What conditions were assumed? Check cost, manufacturing capacity, energy supply, data, standards and physical infrastructure.
- What safety and governance hurdles apply? Medical, genetic, AI, climate and settlement projects face different approval and liability regimes.
- Who adopted it? A specialist, pilot project or government demonstration is not the same as broad public uptake.
| Assessment axis | Question to ask |
|---|---|
| Technical readiness | Has the core function worked reliably outside a laboratory? |
| Cost and infrastructure | Can it be produced, powered, delivered and maintained at the proposed scale? |
| Regulation and safety | Are testing, approval, liability and environmental safeguards in place? |
| Social demand | Do users, employers or governments have a reason to adopt it? |
| Date and scope | Does the evidence match the timeline’s year and implied level of adoption? |
What the examples reveal about forecasting
Health and genetic technology
Paper diagnostics, ingestible robots, designer antibiotics and genetic advances combine very different paths: clinical validation, manufacturing, physician workflow, patient safety and ethics. A promising instrument or therapy does not by itself establish routine care by the infographic’s date.
AI and interfaces
Eye control, immersive interfaces and advanced AI depend not only on algorithms but also on accessibility, hardware comfort, privacy, cybersecurity and social acceptance. Improvements can arrive incrementally rather than as one dated transformation.
Rank #4
Energy and materials
New batteries, biomimetic materials, fusion and space-based solar power face scale-up, durability, supply-chain and financing challenges. Their engineering timelines can diverge sharply from the time required to build an industry.
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →Climate intervention and new settlements
Geoengineering, carbon sequestration and undersea or floating cities carry unusually large governance and environmental questions. Tankersley discussed undersea cities by 2055 as an example of how feasibility forecasts can omit the political and economic conditions needed for mainstream use.
Best Value
How to read the timeline responsibly
- Keep the 2016 publication context attached to every date.
- Describe entries as proposals or predictions, not established facts.
- Check each technology against present evidence rather than awarding a blanket pass or fail.
- Report the stage reached—invention, demonstration, commercial availability or adoption.
- State uncertainty where costs, regulation, infrastructure or public demand remain decisive.
Seen this way, “Things to Come” remains useful. It maps the questions people were asking about future technology in 2016, while its dated promises show why a credible forecast must model institutions and society as carefully as it models engineering.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
