I thought that the prediction regarding how housewives would clean using only water, made in 1950, was incredibly interesting. The prediction states that to clean the house, one would only need to turn on the hose. Everything in the house would be made out of materials that were made of synthetic materials. A drain in the middle of the floor would collect the detergent-containing water, and a blow drier (essentially) would be used to dry up the room. Table linens are made of paper fibers so fine that it looks like real fabric, but can be disposed of instead of washed. Bed sheets also get hosed off with everything else.
This reminds me of a story my mom told me about her coworkers daughter who realized the value of having an all vinyl interior to her car. Her drunk friend threw up in her backseat, and essentially, all she really had to do was hose it out. If only everything were this simple.
Because of rationing during World War II, the development and widespread use of synthetic fibers was growing. It was only natural to assume that they would replace natural fibers in the future, since they were a more "futuristic" development. If only they could have predicted our obsession with organic Egyptian ring-spun 1000 thread count cotton bedding (this is exaggeration, by the way)!
Most women in the 1950s were housewives, and there was a large market created by these women. Thus, people were always trying to come up with the next big thing for these housewives to buy, partly driving the economic prosperity of the 1950s.
I can see why this hasn't exactly caught on. Making EVERYTHING out of plastics would consume a lot of petroleum which is already consumed on such a large scale, and it would be obnoxious to sleep surrounded by plastic. I'm not rich enough to maintain such high standards for my sheets as Egyptian cotton, but I do stay away from polyester/cotton blends. Being able to "breathe" while I sleep is a feature I don't plan on giving up any time soon.
Sunday, September 30, 2012
Tuesday, September 25, 2012
World's Fair & Science Fiction
The 1939 New York World's Fair (hence abbreviated NYWF) provided both entertainment and inspiration to its visitors. In addition to that, the NYWF provided a large amount of optimism about the future to those who had just survived the Great Depression. Arguably, the optimism found in the NYWF stems from the hope that carried many through the Great Depression. I think a lot of this optimism can also be found in science fiction. I mean, yes, there are many distopian novels written about the future, but overall, especially pre-WWII, I think many wanted to be optimistic about their future considering the strife experienced in the Great Depression.
The influence of science fiction can be seen in many aspects of the NYWF. First, the architecture of the buildings gives off the distinct "science fiction-y" vibe that we've come to expect in science fiction shows. One does not connect science fiction with cottages or suburban ranch houses (though maybe barns, depending upon the science fiction) and that sleek, streamlined look we've all come to appreciate as "modern" and "futuristic" is the root of science fiction's credibility. Even Disney has incorporated it in Epcot. The focus on modern architecture and planning both in the buildings themselves and the models they contained were influenced highly by the works of science fiction.
Second, the NYWF was decidedly imprecise in its predictions. While no one can accurately predict what the future will be like, the ideas to completely rebuilt cities from the ground up was ridiculous. It is impossible to move the entire population of a city out to a new city just because you designed it better. Building more efficient cities and towns does not eliminate poverty or homelessness or pollution or other things which "plague" city dwellers. I think that the idea that these can be eliminated by simply building better cities is preposterous.
On a more personal note, I wish we would bring back the World's Fair. It looks like fun.
The influence of science fiction can be seen in many aspects of the NYWF. First, the architecture of the buildings gives off the distinct "science fiction-y" vibe that we've come to expect in science fiction shows. One does not connect science fiction with cottages or suburban ranch houses (though maybe barns, depending upon the science fiction) and that sleek, streamlined look we've all come to appreciate as "modern" and "futuristic" is the root of science fiction's credibility. Even Disney has incorporated it in Epcot. The focus on modern architecture and planning both in the buildings themselves and the models they contained were influenced highly by the works of science fiction.
Second, the NYWF was decidedly imprecise in its predictions. While no one can accurately predict what the future will be like, the ideas to completely rebuilt cities from the ground up was ridiculous. It is impossible to move the entire population of a city out to a new city just because you designed it better. Building more efficient cities and towns does not eliminate poverty or homelessness or pollution or other things which "plague" city dwellers. I think that the idea that these can be eliminated by simply building better cities is preposterous.
On a more personal note, I wish we would bring back the World's Fair. It looks like fun.
Sunday, September 9, 2012
Wrongosaurs
I found the dinosaurs of Crystal Palace to be incredibly fascinating because of their obvious incorrectness. The people of the mid 19th centuries were fascinated with these alien looking beings and because of the scientific revolution surrounding the idea of evolution (rhyme not intended). I think that their attempts to recreate these beings from their skeletons alone were incredible considering their lack of knowledge of these creatures. I think the idea of popularity of dinosaurs with children originates from this time period when most people were fascinated by these creatures. Eventually, this was beat into children so much (not literally of course!!) that, of course, they started to turn away towards more revolutionary things like space travel.
I personally always found dinosaurs to be very interesting (my favorite being the brontosaurus), but I always felt like dinosaurs were targeted more towards the boys in the class than the girls. This probably goes back to the idea that dinosaurs aren't "girly," so it isn't expected that girls will like them. I still find dinosaurs rather fascinating, but I'm much more interested in the much older, decidedly smaller and (sometimes) more deadly kingdom of bacteria.
I personally always found dinosaurs to be very interesting (my favorite being the brontosaurus), but I always felt like dinosaurs were targeted more towards the boys in the class than the girls. This probably goes back to the idea that dinosaurs aren't "girly," so it isn't expected that girls will like them. I still find dinosaurs rather fascinating, but I'm much more interested in the much older, decidedly smaller and (sometimes) more deadly kingdom of bacteria.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)