With the upcoming 50th anniversary of the first Moon landing, I thought that it might be fun to look at a book that, first published in 1987, tried to imagine what it would be like on July 20th 2019.
It is a coffee table book, in a large format, that is meant to impress. I love the cover art, created by Tim White, which shows a huge aircraft flying towards the reader whilst flying over a road which has futuristic cars and lorries speeding along it and a city in the distance.
In his introduction, Sir Arthur (although just ‘Arthur’ when this was written) suggests that his book is not a prediction but an Inquiry into the limits of the possible:
“… such inquiries can be extremely useful whether they take the form of SF or think-tank computer studies. Although SF requires no justification (as long as it’s well written), it does have great social value as an early warning system – something none of us who have survived the year 1984 is likely to forget.” (page 5)
The book is divided into fifteen broad-ranging chapters with an Epilog, on topics such as ‘A Day in the Hospital’, ‘A Day in the Life of a Robot’, ‘A Day at the Office’, ‘A Night at the Cinema’, ‘A Night in the Bedroom’ and even simpler, ‘War’. There are sixteen contributors who have contributed the text and 32 pages of black and white and colour photographs.
There are elements that have developed even more than our optimists of the 1980’s have predicted. The future of computing is an aspect that is beyond what they expected. What would they make of today’s mini-computer communication devices? It is wryly amusing to read of the excitement that the potential of home computers could bring – remember that this was three or four years before most people had the Internet and a PC.
So too is the night of the cinema. What would a person of 1987, if not 1969, make of the streamed 4K television, home surround sound and mega-screens of 2019? According to Sir Arthur’s book CDs and DVDs are the next big thing – which they were, up to about 2015. We should however be grateful that the gloom suggested by the demise of the cinema in favour of home cinema seems to have been delayed. Cinemas have kept a smaller yet still important place in today’s society.
Much of the book’s chapters point out how important robotics will be in the world of 2019. From the perspective of 2019 robotics have perhaps exceeded beyond many of the suggestions here. Whilst walking robots and driverless cars are not quite part of everyday life in 2019 (close though!), the use of voice operated technology are (thank you Siri and Alexa!) This importance of future robotics even extends to our sex lives, where the “bionic penises” proposed here in Chapter 13 have perhaps been *cough* enhanced by electronics. Whilst robotic sex toys are not quite as commonplace as this book would suggest in 2019, they are out there, so I understand.
As to the idea that poly-amorous relationships would be accepted as commonplace in 2019, this seems more like the ideals of the 1960’s transposed to the 21st century. In terms of gender and sexual fluidity we are getting there – in SF as well as other areas of society! – but the situation is currently far from that suggested here.
In medical care the robotic revolution has surely exceeded what is suggested here. Robot surgery is not quite there, although robot-assisted surgery is to the point where brain surgery and heart transplants are becoming routine. Interestingly, what seems rather far-fetched in 1987 has also come to pass. Whilst we still need to improve mental health and well-being (both considered to be significantly important in the future) it is also envisaged that hospitals will be “corporate structures”. If I was reading this in 1987, I would have been amazed at some of these suggestions. As a child of Britain’s NHS. I would have found that idea of the hospital as a business asset silly and abhorrent. From the present 2019, I see that most of that proposed is (sadly) right.
The use of home computers and the role of computers in school (Chapter 5) and the office (Chapter 11) seem vastly underrated here. Whilst the book suggests that home learning will be commonplace, the emphasis is on computer occupations – coding and the like – rather than the pervasive presence it has become. In the office the robot secretary has stayed as an SF trope although the use of diaries on our laptops and mobile devices is common.
In terms of transport (Chapter 6) we are nearly at the point where automated driverless transport is possible, but there are missteps here. The suggestion that most sea transport will be by submarine seems sensible yet unlikely. Aeroplanes seem to have got to their maximum size potential whilst the opportunities offered by supersonic travel and the ram jet appear unrealised.
Where we haven’t made the expected progress most is in things like human space exploration. The first chapter is an imaginary letter written by Sir Arthur, now over one hundred years old but taking advantage of living with over 1000 other people on the Moon as a way of extending life. It is typically optimistic, and is echoed in the second chapter by an essay stating why humans should return to space, written by a historian in 2019 looking back. Interestingly, this chapter doesn’t just focus on the science and technology but makes the point that 1969 was a year of social and cultural change as well.
Whilst I enjoyed reading about how close and how far apart the projections are. So, what then of the future? How did people in 1987 see this world of 2019? And how much did they get right?
Well, the good news is that we’ve not managed to kill each other off through nuclear war, something that Sir Arthur would have been pleased about, even though Chapter 15 points out that we had World War III start in East Germany in 2018. The war of the future is (surprise surprise!) robotic, with tanks driven and major decisions made by a soldier miles away from the battlefield. There’s no mention of terrorism though, which may surprise today’s modern reader. As ever, it is surprising how good we are at inventing ways to kill each other.
In summary, this was an interesting read which, as the editor Arthur C. Clarke has said, is not an accurate predictor of the future but nevertheless an interesting excursion into the possibilities of what could have been. There is something comforting about reading such a book as this, to see where we have progressed – but, at the same time, to see where we haven’t. I enjoyed reading it a great deal, as a good effort to show us what the brave new world of 2019 will be like. 50 years beyond the first Moon landing, it’s an interesting place to visit.
Arthur C Clarke’s July 20, 2019: A Day in the Life of the 21st Century
Edited by Arthur C. Clarke
Published by Grafton Books, 1987.
ISBN: 0 246 12980 8
282 pages
Review by Mark Yon





Like I spent 2015 waiting for October 22 because of Back to the Future Part II, I spent the earlier days of 2019 waiting for July 20 because of this book.
So just how do the 2019s compare? How does the actual 2019 compare with the 2019 according to this book?
Well, from what I’ve seen of the crash tests, the latest vehicles seem to be better at retaining the original shapes than their 1987 counterparts. The BMW i3 seems to feature carbon fibre bodywork and carbon fibre body panels now seem to be available from certain specialists.
Some of the latest cars to be more egg shaped than those in production back in 1987. The shape of the roof should tell you this. What about the Audi A7, for example? The latest cars don’t seem to have wheel covers, however.
As for the aircraft, people may claim is resembles an Airbus A380.
I would like to see illustrated comparisons of the two 2019s. For example, an Airbus A380 would be shown in place of the aircraft in the artwork.
My BBC link is about Olympus Mons. You should be able to find both my BBC link and my Twitter page via Google just by searching for Keller BBC or BBC Keller.
Hi Jeremy. Yes, a comparison would be good, wouldn’t it? The publishers might have missed a trick there…
Missed what trick?
Publishers creating an updated version, showing the difference between the prediction and now would be interesting, I think.