Robert Anson Heinlein's science fiction, including such titles as “Starship Troopers” and “Stranger in a Strange Land”, earned him a place among the Golden Age greats; but he had a habit of writing his opinions into his stories (first as aphorisms, later as sermons). They may have been wittily expressed, but that's no evidence that his judgement was reliable! Fortunately his 1950 magazine article “Pandora's Box” contained a set of specific predictions for the year 2000, providing an opportunity to evaluate whether his “homespun common sense” was an accurate guide to how the real world works.

In each section below, the first paragraph of bold text is the prophecy as given in the original article. Next I have appended comments of my own arguing for and against the accuracy of the prediction, and a score, running in each case from 0, a total miss, up to 1, utterly perfect.

The first indented paragraph after this gives the postscripts from his amended version for 1966, “Where To?
Lastly come the afterthoughts for the 1980 version, as collected in “Expanded Universe.”

Most of the material here was first posted in 1997 (which was of course a bit hasty — see my Y2k page for an excuse), but updates have been added right up to the deadline.


Interplanetary travel is waiting at your front door — C.O.D. It's yours when you pay for it.
Pro: He may have meant only to deny the proposition “Space travel is and will remain unachievable at any price.”
Anti: He's already got an “impossibles” list (see number twenty), so I'm not sure he's entitled to score any extra for its converse. Besides, the way the prediction is phrased makes it more plausible he's saying “We have the technology for manned Mars shots,” which in 1950 was rubbish.
Score: Rather than award 0 points for expecting the space race to be a stroll, I'll interpret it as a non‐prediction and thus null and void.

And now we are paying for it and the cost is high. But, for reasons understandable only to bureaucrats, we have almost halted production of a nuclear‐powered spacecraft when success was in sight. Never mind; if we don't, another country will. By the end of this century space travel will be cheap.
Bureaucrats, Hiroshima survivors, and the general public (including Arthur C. Clarke). By the end of this century, nobody is likely to have the resources even for an impromptu moon shot.
And now the Apollo‐Saturn Man‐on‐the‐Moon program has come and gone. […] Is space travel dead? No, because the United States is not the only nation on this planet. […] By 2000 A.D. we could have O'Neill colonies, self‐supporting and exporting power to Earth, at both Lagrange‐4 and Lagrange‐5, transfer stations in orbit about Earth and around Luna, a permanent base on Luna equipped with an electric catapult — and a geriatrics retirement home. However, […] what is most likely to happen [is] that our space program will continue to dwindle. It would not surprise me (but would distress me mightily!) to see the Space Shuttle canceled. In the meantime some other nation or group will start exploiting space — industry, power, perhaps Lagrange‐point colonies — and suddenly we will wake up to the fact that we have been left at the post. […]
Who by? The Russians?


Contraception and control of diseases is revising relations between the sexes to an extent that will change our entire social and economic structure.
Pro: Not bad at all — in effect, he's predicting the Pill!
Anti: The Pill has affected marriage customs far less than (say) extended lifespans or the civil rights movement generally; and our “control of diseases” has proved less effective than we had hoped…
Score: Being as generous as I reasonably can, I'll give him 0.9 marks. That's a cumulative 0.9 out of 1, remember; so far so good.

[…] I am tempted to call it a fulfilled prophecy. […] But the end is not yet; this revolution will go much farther and is now barely started. […]
This amounts to a claim that there will be no backlash (AIDS panics, neo‐sexists etc.). Still, he's far less wrong than usual.
[…] The sexual revolution: it continues apace — Femlib, Gaylib, single women with progeny and never a lifted eyebrow […]. Prediction: by 2000 A.D. or soon thereafter extended families of several sorts will be more common than core families. The common characteristic of the various types will be increased security for children under legally enforceable contracts.
A desperate attempt to salvage his reputation as a bullshitter?

[1999 Update: No doubt Clinton should have gone for plain extramarital sex; a pregnant intern wouldn't have bothered anybody!]


The most important military fact of this century is that there is no way to repel an attack from outer space.
Pro: It could be argued that the S.D.I. fiasco proves the impossibility of a defence against ICBMs, which travel pretty high up, if not in “outer space.”
Anti: What he means is that extra‐atmospheric Star Wars missile bases are a good idea. Wrong, wrong, wrong. I'd guess the “most important military fact of this century” is one of the following:

  1. Technology is all very well, but it's no substitute for an attainable political objective.
  2. Marching on Moscow isn't the best way to defeat Russia (the most important military fact of several centuries).
  3. Ee equals em cee squared.

Score: 0 points. Total so far: 0.9 out of 2.

I flatly stand by this one. […] This prediction is as safe as predicting tomorrow's sunrise. Anti‐aircraft fire never stopped air attacks; it simply made them expensive. The disadvantage in being at the bottom of a deep “gravity well” is very great; gravity gauge will be as crucial in the coming years as wind gauge was in the days when sailing ships controlled empires. The nation that controls the Moon will control the Earth — but no one seems willing these days to speak that nasty fact out loud.
An extra layer of daftness. Once you've climbed out of our gravity well, why would you want to crawl back down into the Moon's?
I have just heard a convincing report that the USSR has developed lasers far better than ours that can blind our eyes‐in‐the‐sky satellites and, presumably, destroy our ICBMs in flight. Stipulate that this rumor is true: It does not change my 1950 assertion one iota. Missiles tossed from the Moon […] arrive at approximately seven miles per second. A laser capable of blinding a satellite and of disabling an ICBM to the point where it can't explode would need to be orders of magnitude more powerful in order to volatilize a chunk of Luna. […]
Imagine what would have happened if the USA had believed all this piffle and started building lunar missile silos in 1980. Long before the moonbase was ready, it would have escalated the Cold War to a probably terminal level.

[1999 Update: Am I being too harsh here? He wrote this before the first ICBMs appeared, after all… But if they were this unstoppable, why was Heinlein so keen on missile defence?]


It is utterly impossible that the United States will start a “preventive war.” We will fight when attacked, either directly or in a territory we have guaranteed to defend.
Pro: Well, it's true that the USA has been doing its best to depict its wars as defensive police actions…
Anti: Laos, Libya, Nicaragua, Grenada, Kuwait etc. I might grant him Panama, though; it was Noriega who declared war!
Score: 0 points. Total so far: 0.9 out of 3.

Since 1950 we have done so in several theaters and are doing so in Viet Nam as this is written. “Preventive” or “pre‐emptive” war seems as unlikely as ever, no matter who is in the White House. Here is a new prediction: World War III (as a major, all‐out war) will not take place at least until 1980 and could easily hold off until 2000. […]
If this new stuff means anything, it's a weakened form of prediction number nineteen.
I am forced to revise the 1950 prediction to this extent: It is no longer certain that we will fight to repel attack on territory we have guaranteed to defend; our behavior both with respect to Viet Nam and to Taiwan is a clear warning to our NATO allies. The question is not whether we should ever have been in Viet Nam or whether we should ever have allied ourselves to the Nationalist Chinese. I do not know of any professional military man who favored ever getting into conflict on the continent of Asia; such war for us is a logistic and strategic disaster. But to break a commitment to an ally once it has been made is to destroy our credibility.
Feeble efforts to turn his prediction inside‐out.

[1999 Update: Last year's missile attack on a Sudanese pharmaceutical factory was presumably justifiable as part of the USA's “War On Drugs”…]


In fifteen years the housing shortage will be solved by a “breakthrough” into new technology which will make every house now standing as obsolete as privies.
Pro: The post‐war housing shortage didn't last very long.
Anti: Houses are much the same as they were.
Score: 0 points. Total so far: 0.9 out of 4.

Here I fell flat on my face. There has been no breakthrough in housing, nor is any now in prospect. […]
At least he realised he was talking rubbish, although admittedly it did take him sixteen years.
I'm still flat on my face with my nose rubbed in the mud; the situation is worse than ever. […]
Waffle, waffle, whinge.


We'll all be getting a little hungry by and by.
Pro: African famines.
Anti: These are a geopolitical problem, not an agrarian one. “We” in the First World are not detectably at risk, unless there's a proper Death‐Of‐Grass style eco‐catastrophe within the next few months.
Score: 0 points. Total so far: 0.9 out of 5.

(No 1966 postscript.)
Not necessarily. In 1950 I was too pessimistic concerning population. Now I suspect that the controlling parameter is oil. In modern agriculture oil is the prime factor — as power for farm machinery (obviously) but also for insecticides and fertilizers. Since our oil policies in Washington are about as boneheaded — counterproductive — as they can be, I have no way to guess how much food we can raise in 2000 A.D. But no one in the United States should be hungry in 2000 A.D. — unless we are conquered and occupied.
No one? At least, no one worth speaking of…


The cult of the phony in art will disappear. So‐called “modern art” will be discussed only by psychiatrists.
Pro: I suppose the phrase “modern art” must be pretty unhip by now.
Anti: He's completely wrong.
Score: 0 points. Total so far: stuck at 0.9 out of 6.

(No 1966 postscript.)
One may hope. But art reflects culture and the world is even nuttier now than it was in 1950; these are the Crazy Years. But, while “fine” art continues to look like the work of retarded monkeys, commercial art grows steadily better.
Well, I see what he means, but it doesn't make his prediction any less pathetic.


Freud will be classed as a pre‐scientific, intuitive pioneer and psychoanalysis will be replaced by a growing, changing “operational psychology” based on measurement and prediction.
Pro: Yes, most psychologists now classify Freudianism as a mythos. Come to that, they did in 1950, didn't they?
Anti: Business is still booming for the Freudian psychoanalysts, while “operational” (i.e. Behaviourist) psychology is as dead as a dodo.
Score: Let's be ridiculously generous and give him 0.3 points. Total so far: 1.2 out of 7.

(No 1966 postscript.)
This prediction is beginning to come true. Freud is no longer taken seriously by informed people. More and more professional psychologists are skilled in appropriate mathematics; most of the younger ones understand inductive methodology and the nature of scientific confirmation and are trying hard to put rigor into their extremely difficult, still inchoate subject. […]
But if anything, psychotherapy is getting less like a science and more like a religion.


Cancer, the common cold, and tooth decay will all be conquered; the revolutionary new problem in medical research will be to accomplish “regeneration,” i.e., to enable a man to grow a new leg, rather than fit him with an artificial limb.
Pro: They've come up with some new treatments for cancer (and even tooth decay).
Anti: But we're nowhere near “conquering” any of them, and no one's seriously trying to develop “regeneration.”
Score: Another 0.1 points. Total so far: 1.3 out of 8.

In the meantime spectacular progress has been made in organ transplants — and the problem of regeneration is related to this one. Biochemistry and genetics have made a spectacular breakthrough in “cracking the genetic code.” It is a tiny crack, however, with a long way to go before we will have the human chromosomes charted and still longer before we will be able to “tailor” human beings by gene manipulation. The possibility is there — but not by year 2000. This is probably just as well. If we aren't bright enough to build decent houses, are we bright enough to play God with the architecture of human beings?
Transplants don't lead to regeneration; they replace the whole idea! And while wholesale germline DNA tinkering on humans is unlikely for a long time yet, this is largely a matter of ethical qualms rather than of technological limitations. The Human Genome Project will be all but complete by the end of the century (but not by year 2000!).
I see no reason to change this prediction if you will let me elaborate (weasel) a little. “The common cold” is a portmanteau expression for upper respiratory infections which appear to be caused by a very large number of different viruses. […] Good news: Oncology (cancer), immunology, hematology and “the common cold” turn out to be strongly interrelated subjects: research in all these is moving fast — and a real breakthrough in any one of them might mean a breakthrough in all.
Just what did Heinlein eventually die of, anyway?


By the end of this century mankind will have explored this solar system, and the first ship intended to reach the nearest star will be abuilding.
Pro: Well, we've sent unmanned flyby probes past most planets, and even made soft landings on a couple!
Anti: What Heinlein meant was that we'd see human footprints on Pluto, which may well never happen. And as for interstellar exploration… (Abuilding? Is this a James Blish “Cities in Flight” reference?)
Score: Another charitable donation of 0.1 points. Half‐time score: 1.4 out of 9.

Our editor suggested that I had been too optimistic on this one — but I stand by it. […]
Clarke's forecasts are similar in sentiment but add some twenty to fifty years.
My dollar is still on the table at twenty years and counting. Senator Proxmire can't live forever. In the last 10½; years men have been to the Moon several times; much of the Solar system has been most thoroughly explored within the limits of “black box” technology and more will be visited before this year is out. Ah, but not explored by men — and the distances are so great. Surely they are… by free‐fall orbits, which is all that we have been using. But […] if your ship could boost at one‐tenth gee [then a mere seven pages of elementary Newtonian maths is adequate to show that it could manage round‐trips to Mars in 14½ days, or to Pluto in as many weeks]. Most of you who read this will live to see constant boost ships of 1 ⁄ 10 gee or better — and will be able to afford vacations in space — soon, soon! […]
NASA hasn't announced any plans for manned Mars shots yet, so they're still unlikely before 2020 at the earliest; and this mythical constant boost fuel‐guzzler drive is hardly likely to make things any cheaper. Personally, I don't expect recreational space travel to become economically viable until we've got self‐replicating mining and manufacturing robots (i.e., unlimited resources).

[1999 Update: Like they say, There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Launch! (Sorry.)]


Your personal telephone will be small enough to carry in your handbag. Your house telephone will record messages, answer simple inquiries, and transmit vision.
Pro: Portable phones do exist, and many house phones have recording facilities. By 2000 some households — even outside Tokyo — may also have videophones. Heinlein deserves some credit for this one.
Anti: “Your” telephone is a prediction of universal availability, which is unlikely as yet — does the British Telecom Customer Enquiries phoneline have any of these facilities? Think of the computing power needed to answer enquiries like “Oi, wotcha myte, hah's fings?”!
Score: Call it 0.7 points. Total so far: 2.1 out of 10.

(No 1966 postscript. Arthur C. Clarke meanwhile makes some fairly good general and specific predictions here.)
This prediction is trivial and timid. Most of it has already come true and the telephone system will hand you the rest on a custom basis if you'll pay for it. In the year 2000, with modern telephones tied into home computers (as common then as flush toilets are today) you'll be able to have 3‑dimensional holovision along with stereo speech. Arthur C. Clarke says that this will do away with most personal contact in business. I agree with all of Mr. Clarke's arguments and disagree with his conclusion […].
I'd back the inventor of the telecommunications satellite, if only in the long term. And if B.T. puts an affordable receptionist AI in the shops this Christmas I'll eat my entire wardrobe!

[1999 Update: Instead my Christmas menu happened to include both beef and lamb… cf. prediction eighteen.]


Intelligent life will be found on Mars.
Pro: I suppose there might yet be deranged Martians hiding under a rock somewhere doing their damnedest to disguise their biosphere…
Score: Generously not a negative score. Total so far: 2.1 out of 11.

Predicting intelligent life on Mars looks pretty silly after those dismal photographs. I shan't withdraw it until Mars has been thoroughly explored. […]
Compare Clarke: “We are now at the point of discovering whether there is vegetation on Mars; the Mariner and Viking missions should settle this matter one way or the other”!
The photographs made by the Martian landers of 1976 and the orbiting companions make the prediction of intelligent Martian life look even sillier. But the new pictures and the new data make Mars even more mysterious. I'm a diehard because I suspect that life is ubiquitous — call that a religious opinion if you wish. […]
I call it a fatheaded opinion. At present even extinct microbes look pretty unlikely.


A thousand miles an hour at a cent a mile will be commonplace; short hauls will be made in evacuated subways at extreme speeds.
Pro: There have been supersonic passenger transports for decades, though they're still the exception rather than the rule. And evacuated subways rings a few bells — remember the Aum Shinrikyo cult?
Anti: $10 an hour at Mach 1.3? Round the world in a day for 160 quid?
Score: 0.1 points. Total so far: 2.2 out of 12.

I must hedge number thirteen; the “cent” I meant was scaled by the 1950 dollar. But our currency has been going through a long steady inflation, and no nation in history has ever gone as far as we have along this route without reaching the explosive phase of inflation. Ten‐dollar hamburgers? Brother, we are headed for the hundred‐dollar hamburger — for the barter‐only hamburger. But this is only an inconvenience rather than a disaster as long as there is plenty of hamburger.
An extra false prediction.
[Further painful exchange‐rate weaselling in terms of the gold standard, as if this system hadn't fallen apart…] About those subways: possible, even probable, by 2000 A.D. But I see little chance that they will be financed until the dollar is stabilized — a most painful process our government hates to tackle.
The investment isn't the problem. It's just a stupid idea.


A major objective of applied physics will be to control gravity.
Pro: Well, a major objective of S.F. writers is explaining antigravity away via quasiscientific patter…
Anti: There are good reasons to suspect that gravity control, F.T.L. travel, and time machines come as a package, and are equivalent in terms of feasibility (see my guide to S.F. Chronophysics); gravitationally repulsive “exotic matter” is, in theory, the vital ingredient required for holding open a space–time wormhole. But for now at least, antigravity is fantasy, not science.
Score: 0 points. Total so far: 2.2 out of 13.

This prediction stands. But today's physics is in a tremendous state of flux with new data piling up faster than it can be digested; it is anybody's guess as to where we are headed […]. This is the Golden Age of physics — and it's an anarchy.
Or to summarise: “No one understands modern physics” (translation: “R.A.H. doesn't grok Q.C.D.”). Clarke devotes a full chapter of Profiles of the Future to speculations about gravity‐control, but admits that this is what they are: “No competent scientist, at this stage of our ignorance, would deliberately set out to look for a way of overcoming gravity.”
I stand by the basic prediction. There is so much work going on both by mathematical physicists and experimental physicists as to the nature of gravity that it seems inevitable that twenty years from now applied physicists will be trying to control it. But note that I said “trying” — succeeding may take a long time. If and when they do succeed, a spin off is likely to be a spaceship that is in no way a rocket ship — and the Galaxy is ours! (Unless we meet that smarter, meaner, tougher race that kills us or enslaves us or eats us — or all three.)
What, they might eat us without killing us? And did it not occur to him that these hypothetical aliens, even if they're dumber, softer, and nicer than us, could have a billion‐year technological head start and a perfectly reasonable prior claim to the territory in question?


We will not achieve a “World State” in the predictable future. Nevertheless, Communism will vanish from this planet.
Pro: Yes! The United Nations shows little sign of metamorphosing into a World State, and the USSR (which is essentially what he meant by “Communism”) has indeed collapsed! A high‐scoring prediction!
Anti: There's still China, Cuba and so on (there are communists in the current French government!); and Marxism shows no sign of vanishing — which would after all involve burning a lot of books.
Score: Give him 0.8 points. Total so far: 3.0 out of 14.

I stand flatly behind prediction number fifteen.
“Flatly” again? I knew his characters are two‐dimensional, but…
[…] I shan't weasel as I am utterly dismayed by the political events of the past 15–20 years. At least two thirds of the globe now calls itself Marxist. Another large number of countries are military dictatorships. Another large group (including the United States) are constitutional democratic republics but so tinged with socialism (“welfare state”) that all of them are tottering on the brink of bankruptcy and collapse. So far as I can see today the only thing that could cause the soi‐disant Marxist countries to collapse in as little as twenty years would be for the United States to be conquered and occupied by the USSR […].
I gather this is the kind of politically colour‐blind drivel that passes for ideological debate in the Land of the Great Satan. Note that Heinlein is back‐pedalling frantically here on one of the few predictions he has ended up scoring any points on!

[1999 Update: Guess what party's still the biggest in the Russian Duma!]


Increasing mobility will disenfranchise a majority of the population. About 1990 a constitutional amendment will do away with state lines while retaining the semblance.
Pro: Er…
Anti: No.
Score: 0 points. Total so far: 3.0 out of 15.

(No 1966 postscript.)
I goofed. I will be much surprised if either half of this double prediction comes to pass by 2000 — at least in the form described and for the reasons I had in mind. The franchise now extends to any warm body over eighteen and that franchise can be transferred to another state in less time than it takes the citizen to find housing in his/her new state. Thus no constitutional amendment is needed. But the state lines are fading year by year anyhow as power continues to move from the states to the Federal government and especially into the hands of non‐elected bureaucrats.
Gosh — he realised he was wrong before 1990!


All aircraft will be controlled by a giant radar net run on a continent‐wide basis by a multiple electronic “brain.”
Pro: Well, most aircraft will be guided by air traffic controllers with a load of clapped‐out computers…
Anti: But what Heinlein has got in mind is direct remote‐control by huge mainframes, which seems an unlikely prospect now or ever. Could he not imagine a plane's onboard autopilot being any use for this?
Score: 0 points. Total so far: 3.0 out of 16.

(No 1966 postscript.)
This prediction still stands — although it may be my wishful thinking. Such a system was designed over thirty years ago; Congress wouldn't buy it. […]
Compare prediction number nine; Heinlein is willing to trust computer programmers much further than he does genetic engineers!

[1999 Update: If you're planning to be airborne at midnight this new year, pray that the guidance software wasn't designed in 1950.]


Fish and yeast will become our principle sources of proteins. Beef will be a luxury; lamb and mutton will disappear.
Pro: Umm, well, vegetarianism is getting more popular, partly on ecological grounds.
Anti: Here in Britain at least, the availability of beef is so secure that its price actually dropped during the recent major cull of cattle. This prediction is astonishingly full of interesting false assumptions, such as:

  1. There are Plenty More Fish in the Sea.
  2. Yeast can be farmed more practically than cereals.
  3. Famines are due to a shortage of resources, rather than an unequal distribution of resources.
  4. Pork and chicken don't exist.

Score: 0 points. Total so far: 3.0 out of 17.

I'll hedge number eighteen just a little. Hunger is not now a problem in the USA, and need not be in the year 2000 — but hunger is a world problem and would at once become an acute problem for us if we were conquered… a distinct possibility by 2000. Between our present status and that of subjugation lies a whole spectrum of political and economic possible shapes to the future under which we would share the worldwide hunger to a greater or lesser extent. And the problem grows. We can expect to have to feed around half a billion Americans circa year 2000 — our present huge surpluses would then represent acute shortages even if we never shipped a ton of wheat to India.
Hedge it “just a little”? This is more like adding “or maybe not” on the end; after all, predictions four and nineteen say that there will be no major war!
It would now appear that the USA population in 2000 A.D. will be about 270,000,000 instead of 500,000,000. I have been collecting clippings on demography for forty years; all that the projections have in common is that all of them are wrong. Even that figure of 270,000,000 may be too high; today the only reason our population continues to increase is that we oldsters are living longer; our current birthrate is not sufficient even to replace the parent generation.
Why is this a separate prediction from number six, anyway?


Mankind will not destroy itself, nor will “civilization” be destroyed.
Pro: Probably true. Come to that, the sun probably won't go nova.
Anti: But it hardly counts as a prediction, since it is incapable of being falsified.
Score: Not counted (as for “prediction” number one). Total so far: still 3.0 out of 17.

I stand by prediction number nineteen.
And I stand by my claim that it doesn't score; who'd be reading this critique if he'd been wrong? (Womankind?)
I will stand by prediction number nineteen. There will be wars and we will be in some of them — and some may involve atomic weapons. But there will not be that all‐destroying nuclear holocaust that forms the background of so many S.F. stories. There are three reasons for this: The United States, the Soviet Union, and the People's Republic of China. Why? Because the three strongest countries in the world (while mutually detesting each the other two) have nothing to gain and everything to lose in an all‐out swapping of H‑bombs. Because Kremlin bosses are not idiots and neither are those in Beijing (Peiping) (Peking). If another country — say Israel, India or the South African Republic — gets desperate and tosses an A‐ or H‑bomb, that country is likely to receive three phone calls simultaneously, one from each of the Big Three: “You have exactly three minutes to back down. Then we destroy you.” After World War II I never expected that our safety would ever depend on a massive split in Communist International — but that is exactly what has happened.
Eh? What is so magical about there being three blocs? Besides which, nowadays there aren't three any more!

[unnumbered in the original, but included here to boost his average]

Things we won't get soon, if ever:

  1. Travel through time.
  2. Travel faster than the speed of light.
  3. “Radio” transmission of matter.
  4. Manlike robots with manlike reactions.
  5. Laboratory creation of life.
  6. Real understanding of what “thought” is and how it is related to matter.
  7. Scientific proof of personal survival after death.
  8. Nor a permanent end to war. (I don't like that prediction any better than you do.)

Pro: Time machines, F.T.L. drives, and scientific proof of the existence of fairies are pretty guaranteeably non‐imminent. I also tend to agree with him on the improbability of World Peace (barring global apocalypse), Star Trek transporters (see rant), and androids (if only because they're pointless). That's six out of the eight.
Anti: Predictions (a) and (b) are equivalent (see number fourteen), (c) is gibberish, and (d) through to (g) I despise as symptoms of irrational mysticism. I for one have already achieved (f).
Score: Let's say 0.6 points. Final total: 3.6 out of 18, or 20 percent. Even assuming penalties for “no‐change” predictions, he'd have got a better score if he had reversed all his prophecies — saying for instance “PREDICTION TWELVE: There are no Martians!”

I see no reason to change any of the negative predictions which follow the numbered affirmative ones. They are all conceivably possible; they are all wildly unlikely by year 2000. Some of them are debatable if the terms are defined to suit the affirmative side — definitions of “life” and “manlike,” for example. Let it stand that I am not talking about an amino acid in one case, or a machine that plays chess in the other.
The old game of If Scientists Can Do It Then It Can't Be What I Meant, popular ever since the first organics were synthesised (urea, in 1828). I suspect we'll have humanlike AI and synthetic lifeforms — by any definition — within decades rather than centuries.
I see no point in saying more.
In which case the last words go to these two: