No one can foretell the future of technology exactly, because no one can see the future. However, there are reasonable arguments     1    (base) on the advances and trends in technology in the past. For example, it is reasonable to predict that computers     2    (continue) to become more powerful, numerous and     3    (cheap). Areas with huge potential that are just beginning to be made use of today, like biotechnology, will continue to bear fruit.

Technology in general will probably continue to improve,     4    (create) both promises and risks. In the area of computers, someone might interact with hundreds of embedded microchips (嵌入式微芯片) throughout the home and the office. In     5     future, it will be many thousands. Increasing bandwidth and decreasing costs will lead to     6    some have called “ubiquitous computing”—computers everywhere helping us with everything. Some viewers, especially Bill Gates, believe the next few     7    (decade) will be characterized by long-awaited revolutions in robotic technology. Other futurists see trends in automation technology leading to desktop factories that allow users     8    (make) objects from simple original parts.

Apart from above areas, there are dozens if not hundreds of areas that will continue to advance technologically. One thing is     9    sure: the future will have better technology than the past did. But will we put     10     to better use? Only time and effort will tell.

4 . Not long after my daughter was born in early 2013, I had a serious thought about the life that lay ahead for her. With health and luck, she will live long enough to see the dawn of the 22nd century.

As a journalist, I often encounter the date 2100. It’s a milestone year frequently mentioned in climate change news reports, stories about future technologies and science fiction. But it’s so far ahead that the route we will take to get there is difficult to see. I rarely consider that, like my daughter, millions of people alive today will be there as 2100 arrives, inheriting the century my generation will leave behind.

For many of us, how often can we truly say we are thinking about the well-being of these future generations? How often do we think about the impact of our decisions on the decades and centuries ahead?

Part of the problem is that the “‘now’commands so much more attention,” the sociologist Elise Boulding once said. “If one is mentally out of breath all the time from dealing with the present, there is no energy left for imagining the future.” No wonder problems like climate change or inequality feel so hard to handle right now.

That’s why researchers are coming to the same conclusion that short-termism (短期主义) may be the greatest threat our species is facing this century. Despite our natural ability to look and plan ahead, we have a weakness in our thinking called “present bias.” For example, people are more likely to accept an offer of£10 today, rather than a guarantee of £12 in a week. They also tend to spend on pleasures, not save for rainy days.

I understand the dangers of short-termism. I can both justify the argument and feel the need to care more about future generations. But I admit I still struggle with how to translate that into clear action as an individual. To realize that we are just one in a chain of generations, we owe an obligation (义务) to our future generations to leave a better world than the one we inherited ourselves.

5 . Some talk of building settlements on the moon or mars to help make sure humanity survives long into the future. Others have their sights set closer to home: on future cities under the ocean.

“Technologically speaking, it is absolutely possible to colonize the bottom of the sea,” says Fabien Cousteau, a well-known ocean explorer who once spent 31 days living in what is now the world’s only functioning undersea habitat, Aquarius. It’s about the size of a school bus and located 62 feet below the ocean surface off the Florida Keys.

Just as astronauts test what it would be like to live in space, aquanauts try out undersea living with an eye on the future. Escaping from disasters such as climate change, wars, or pandemics is one reason to live under the sea. Others include studying, exploring, or appreciating the ocean. It’s costly and expensive to constantly keep up an ocean habitat which must pump in or make its own air, electricity, and fresh water. Inhabitants have to deal with high pressure. And infections can develop rapidly due to high humidity.

Despite the challenges, several new ocean habitats and cities are under construction. A series of space station-like undersea living quarters for aquanauts called Proteus are scheduled to be completed by 2025 off Curacao, an island north of Venezuela in South America. An undersea colony called Ven Base Alpha will be built near a hydrothermal vent, which would supply it with energy. Meanwhile, an undersea city called Ocean Spiral in Japan would link its surface to the deep sea, using the difference in pressure to generate energy and produce fresh water. This sounds amazing, but it would be extremely expensive and remains just a design.

Not everyone agrees that building homes in the ocean is a good idea. This type of development could place even more strain on ecosystems that are already struggling with pollution and climate change. It’s important to make sure that any construction is done carefully, says Susanne Menden-Deuer, an oceanographer at the University of Rhode Island. Wild undersea habitats should be treated as “the precious, irreplaceable resource that they are,” she says.

10 . When almost everyone has a mobile phone, why are more than half of Australian homes still paying for a landline (座机)?

These days you’d be hard pressed to find anyone in Australia over the age of 15 who doesn’t own a mobile phone. In fact plenty of younger kids have one in their pocket. Practically everyone can make and receive calls anywhere, anytime.

Still, 55 percent of Australians have a landline phone at home and only just over a quarter (29%) rely only on their smartphones according to a survey (调查). Of those Australians who still have a landline, a third concede that it’s not really necessary and they’re keeping it as a security blanket — 19 percent say they never use it while a further 13 percent keep it in case of emergencies. I think my home falls into that category.

More than half of Australian homes are still choosing to stick with their home phone. Age is naturally a factor (因素)— only 58 percent of Generation Ys still use landlines now and then, compared to 84 percent of Baby Boomers who’ve perhaps had the same home number for 50 years. Age isn’t the only factor; I’d say it’s also to do with the makeup of your household.

Generation Xers with young families, like my wife and I, can still find it convenient to have a home phone rather than providing a mobile phone for every family member. That said, to be honest the only people who ever ring our home phone are our Baby Boomers parents, to the point where we play a game and guess who is calling before we pick up the phone (using Caller ID would take the fun out of it).

How attached are you to your landline? How long until they go the way of gas street lamps and morning milk deliveries?