In 1975, When I was born, someone in an editorial office was drawing pictures of submerged cities. Glass domes, pressurized habitats, humanity escaping overpopulation by taking refuge under the sea. The image was fascinating, the kind of future that ends up on glossy covers. But in that same 70s magazine, a few pages earlier, a far less spectacular article talked about personal computers and a global network for exchanging information. No fantastical illustrations, just technical predictions.
Fifty years later, we know what happened: the submerged cities remained in dreams, the internet is everywhere. Yet that editorial team had almost everything figured out.
Computers at home: in the 70s it seemed absurd, yet
The 70s were a time when computers took up entire rooms. Teams of technicians were needed to operate them, they cost as much as buildings, and they consumed as much energy as small cities. Yet right in those years someone wrote that within a few decades every family would have a computer at home. The idea sounded absurd. Personal computers actually arrived: the first Apple in 1976, the IBM PC in 1981Today we have one in our pocket, we call it a smartphone and we don't think about it anymore.
The prediction worked because it didn't just look at current technology, but at the direction. Transistors were getting smaller, costs were falling. All it took was a few calculations and a simple line: sooner or later those machines would become affordable. The real surprise was the speed. No one imagined the process would be so rapid.
The Network that Connected the World
In those same years, as computers became more personal, some imagined connecting them all together. A global network for exchanging data, information, and ideas. Popular Mechanics He published articles on this possibility as early as the early 70s. The concept was simple: if telephones could connect people, why couldn't computers do the same?
The Internet officially launched in 1983, but its roots lay in ARPANET, a military project from the 60s. What the 70s forecasters captured was its social impact: they didn't just imagine the technology, they foresaw what it would mean for people. Instant communication, access to information, remote work. All predicted. All verified.
Autonomous vehicles: an idea that comes from afar
Self-driving cars were already making the pages of scientific journals in the 70s. Fifty years ago, they weren't yet called "autonomous," but the concept was the same: vehicles capable of navigating traffic without human intervention. Sensors, radar, on-board computers that make decisions in real time. All written decades before Google and Tesla put their first cars on the road.
Here, too, the prediction worked because it looked at principles, not details. Scientists in the 70s didn't know how it would be done technically, but they understood that it would have been doneSensors would improve, computers would become faster, algorithms more sophisticated. Physics allowed all of this. The rest was just a matter of time.
Genetic Medicine: Rewriting the Code
In 1975, the year of the Asilomar Conference on Recombinant DNAScientists were already discussing gene editing to cure diseases. The technology was primitive, the risks enormous, the applications theoretical. But the idea was clear: if we can read the genetic code, sooner or later we will also be able to correct it.
Fifty years later, gene therapy is a reality. CRISPR allows us to modify DNA with a precision that was unthinkable in the 70s (in addition to producing more banal things, like bananas that don't turn black). Genetic diseases once thought to be incurable are finding treatments, and we're going to see some exciting things in the coming years.
The prediction was spot on, but even here, no one imagined how rapid (well, not that rapid) the leap from theory to practice would be.
Climate: The 70s models were right
The most striking prediction of the 70s, however, concerned climate. Early computer models predicted that increasing atmospheric CO₂ would lead to global warming. The Charney Report of 1979 He calculated an increase of about 3°C for a doubling of CO₂. Incredible, considering that there were no connected sensors and the data was all collected manually.
A study published in Science They analyzed 17 climate models developed between 1970 and 2007: 14 of them were surprisingly accurate in predicting rising global temperatures. The researchers used computers less powerful than a modern smartphone, yet their calculations still hold up today.
Today we know that the analysts of the time were right. ExxonMobil's internal models, developed between 1977 and 2003, also predicted with “astonishing skill and accuracy” rising temperatures. The problem wasn't science: it was those who chose to ignore it.
Submerged cities: total failure
And then there were the underwater cities. Glass domes, pressurized habitats, and underwater colonies to solve the housing crisis. Popular Science and Popular Mechanics were talking about it with certaintyBy the end of the century, we'd be living under the sea. It was the most spectacular prediction, the one that ended up on the covers. I remember those beautiful reconstructions in the Little Ones' encyclopedia.
But it didn't come true.
Not for technical reasons: the technology for building underwater habitats has existed for decades. The problem is that no one actually wants to live there. They're too expensive, uncomfortable, and isolated. Overpopulation has been solved differently: denser cities, taller skyscrapers, more efficient urbanization. The sea has remained a place to visit, not to inhabit.
70s, long eye
Fifty years of scientific predictions: four out of five accurate. Personal computers, the internet, autonomous cars, genetic medicine, global warming. All spot on. Only submerged cities remained on paper. And perhaps that's for the best.
The final assessment of the 70s says one simple thing: often, almost always in fact, science can predict. Not in the details, not in the exact timing, but in the directions, yes. When physical principles allow something, sooner or later someone will make it happen. Predictions work when they look at physics, not current trends.
And this is why the only failed prediction is also the most significant: the submerged cities had no solid foundations. They were spectacular, fascinating, perfect for magazine covers. But they didn't solve real problems.
Because the future, today as in the 70s, makes news when it sparks dreams, but it is built on needs.
