There is a significant danger threatening all of these advances. Yes, I'm talking about that old Libertarian canard of government regulation and, even more importantly, the temptation to have the government "pick the winner" in each area. This is dangerous not only because it violates basic freedoms, but also because the picking is done based on the current knowledge and "state of the art" — and I am assuming the sincerely best intentions of everyone involved — and suppresses "disruptive" innovation.
For example, when FDR granted AT&T its monopoly to advance the fine-sounding goal of connecting every American to the phone network, the company was happy to run wires to each house — billing the taxpayers for it. Facing no competition, they did not have to consider wireless telephony... No, I'm not talking about mobile phones of today — or even of the nineties. But the "last mile" problem in remote locales could have been solved by stationary cellular phones in houses with the 1940-ies levels of technology (fixed large antennas, no need for batteries).
Similarly, had we not been forced to dump quite so many billions every year into maintaining surface roads and highways, maybe, the personal flying vehicles would've been here already — while, in the mean time, the intercity traffic (of both people and goods) would've been handled by the rail-roads much more than it is today.