(That should be read "just because something is impractical or conceptual doesn't mean it's not important/'real'")
I think about this when I hear the argument that devices/concepts/whatever need to have popular appeal before they can be considered "the future." There's this small part of my that boils slightly over when people get defensively passionate about how important the here and now is, praising 'doing stuff that's practical and real.' This is part of a larger "which is more important, strategy or tactics" conversation, but on the technology front generally the case goes like this: "x/y/z technology isn't the future, because it's not cheap/understandable/simple enough for the mass market." (see: Why Computers Should Be More Like Toasters)
My response is that of course what's popular/accessible right now isn't the future. That's the whole point. Technology becomes pervasive when it's boring, true - but not because it's inherently boring, only because by the time popular culture finally adopts it there's another set of more future-thinking concepts that make it seem boring by comparison.
(How very validating that as I was finishing this article up, cyborg anthropologist Amber Case tweeted this Wired article: Neanderthals Not Dumb, But Made Dull Gadgets)
Saying that future-forward/concept designs are irrelevant bc they aren't "real" is like saying art isn't important because it doesn't move science forward.
In fact, precisely what art does is move scientific thinking forward. I was saying this just yesterday, in Artists Change The World, Not Technology.
In a phrase: practical science solves the questions that impractical artists and philosophers ask. (indeed, this is why the best scientists are also artists/philosophers)
