ABOUT COSMIC LOG

Quantum fluctuations in space, science, exploration and other cosmic fields... served up regularly by MSNBC.com science editor Alan Boyle since 2002.

Alan Boyle covers the physical sciences, anthropology, technological innovation and space science and exploration for MSNBC.com. He is a winner of the AAAS Science Journalism Award, the NASW Science-in-Society Award and other honors; a contributor to "A Field Guide for Science Writers"; and a member of the board of the Council for the Advancement of Science Writing.

Check out Boyle's biography or send a message to Cosmic Log via cosmiclog@msnbc.com.



Why the future goes flooey

Posted: Thursday, April 10, 2008 7:27 PM by Alan Boyle


Chicago Review Press
Nick Sagan, Mark Frary and Andy
Walker size up high-tech visions in
"You Call This the Future?"

The future just isn't what it used to be: We were supposed to be driving flying cars in the 1950s and settling down on the moon by 2001, right? Some of those old standbys of science fiction seem to be as far out of reach as ever - while in other areas, real-world developments have outpaced science fiction by a long shot. Why do visions of the future so often miss the mark?

In a new book, science-fiction author Nick Sagan delves into how we've changed the future - and how the future could change us.

"You Call This the Future?" - co-written with Mark Frary and Andy Walker - deals with many of the futures-gone-awry assessed in other books, such as Daniel Wilson's "Where's My Jetpack?"

Think of "You Call This the Future?" as a pocket guide to the best (and the worst) ideas about future tech, with quick bites tracing the sci-fi roots of those ideas and gauging how close they've come to reality. Yes, there's the jetpack and the flying car, along with warp drives, time travel and marauding cyborgs. Even virtual sex, a la Woody Allen's "Sleeper," comes in for a reality check.

"It's definitely fun to see how far away we are from the orgasmatron," Sagan joked.

On a more serious note, Sagan has devoted a lot of thought to science fiction and fact - not only because of his sci-fi novels and his work on two of the "Star Trek" TV series, but also because he's the son of the late astronomer Carl Sagan, who always had his eye focused on humanity's future.

At the age of 6, the younger Sagan was recorded speaking the words "Hello from the children of planet Earth" for the Golden Record included on the Voyager spacecraft, which is now speeding beyond the frontiers of our solar system. Thus, Nick Sagan could conceivably be the first earthling child heard by an extraterrestrial civilization.

Even today, at the age of 37, he remembers his dad as he reviews the sci-fi technologies of yesteryear.

"My pet favorite, I'd have to say, is the hypnopedia," he told me. "I'd love to be able to absorb knowledge while I sleep. I remember talking with my dad about how you could spend your entire life reading books. ... When it comes to the ability to get information into your head and, to a certain extent, into your soul - I'd be excited about any chance we'd have of doing that."

For what it's worth, the book concludes that "a good night's sleep followed by an hour's conscious learning is probably more effective" than having lessons piped into your ears overnight.

Why the future sometimes falls flat
That's just one illustration of why the future sometimes falls flat. When it comes to any futuristic technology, "it's a lot easier to imagine it than to make it," Sagan said.

To be fair, plenty of the technologies listed in "You Call This the Future" - ranging from eyephones to invisibility shields - are on their way to becoming real in one way or another. Even in those cases, however, the technologies tend to obey Hofstadter's Law: "It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take Hofstadter's Law into account."

In other cases, what we imagine never gets made. Sometimes the technology seems just plain impossible to realize (for examples of that, check out this interview with physicist Michio Kaku). Sometimes it's possible, but not feasible or affordable (these seven flights of fancy serve as examples). And sometimes safety issues get in the way. (The Federal Aviation Administration probably wouldn't be too crazy about flying cars, though that hasn't stopped some people from trying.)

In the wake of the 2001 terror attacks, bright visions of the future have fallen even more out of favor. As this Salon essay points out, futurology has had its ups and downs, depending on how confident people felt about the future. We seem to be in a down cycle right now, Sagan observed, stuck in an age where technology is often more of a worry than a wonder.

"The jetpack is basically a portable missile," he noted. "In a weird way, 9/11 may have made jetpacks and flying cars less likely than ever."

The down cycle extends to the current catastrophism over climate change - and even over the Large Hadron Collider (a far-fetched doomsday scenario that's perfect for a sci-fi novel).

"The dystopias are always going to grab more immediate attention than the utopias," Sagan said.

How near will the singularity get?
The one area where science fact has definitely outpaced science fiction would be information technology. The 23rd-century communicators carried in the classic "Star Trek" series seem almost laughable compared with today's smartphones. And the cathode-ray tubes and transistors that make up HAL 9000 in "2001: A Space Odyssey" are so last century.

Could HAL-like artificial intelligence be far behind? That's the scenario that worries Sagan most. "To the extent that we let machines do our work for us, and do our thinking for us, that's an area of potential concern," he said.

For years, the well-known futurist and inventor Ray Kurzweil has been saying that the pace of A.I. would result in machines capable of matching human intelligence by 2029, leading in turn to a point around 2045 when unenhanced humans wouldn't be able to keep up with technological progress. Kurzweil said that would mark a "singularity" beyond which it becomes difficult to make further forecasts.

Sagan agreed that the singularity could come nearer and nearer - if we let it.

"It comes down to ethics," he said. "It's a question of whether we decide to police ourselves. If we don't, things might spiral out of hand very quickly. ... I suspect that things are not as dire as that. I think most of us understand the dangers to some degree."

As a human being, Sagan may counsel a go-slow approach to at least some of the technologies on the horizon. But as a writer, he said, "I love the idea that the world we know might start changing even more rapidly."

That sounds like a job for science fiction as well as science fact.

"In a way, science fiction is a genre that's in search of itself," Sagan said. "It needs a little push from science - but hopefully not a catastrophic, world-ending push."

What do you think? Is it possible to police progress? Are we already locked onto a course heading for the singularity? Is there any kind of future in futurology? Feel free to leave your comments below.

For more futurology from Sagan, check out his observations in the "Fast Forward" section of our presentation on the "Olympics of Tomorrow," as well as his prognostications about the future of football.

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

Actually, I think progress is a bit too slow, especially in this anti-science country.
As i have said before and i will say again. Transhumanity will make normal human beings' existence pointless. Why be a sack of meat when you can be a immortal posthuman with no flaws. If people are so worried about being human we will let them have a island to breed while we achieve godhood and explore the universe. I ask one person to say how being human is better?  Weak, corruptible , short lived and worthless ... that describes the human race. I can't wait for uploading technology to become a reality so i can escape this real "Planet of the Apes"
I don't have a problem with machines having "human like" intelligence, as long as we build in controls to assure they can't decide we (humans) are obsolete.
As a christian, I honestly don't think the world will get that far.  Prophecy says this world is doomed to be destroyed by fire.  But, we get a new one ... only God knows.
The Nine-Eleven aftermath brought us the most dangerous manifestation of A.I., from the same posse that believes divorce causes singularity.      
Huh??? What a rip-off of "where's my jetpack". this guy, Nick Sagan, should be ashamed. It sounds as though he's lifted stuff directly from Wilson's book.
Don't worry - Artificial Intelligence will never be a match for Natural Stupidity!
We will continue to make better and faster computers, but computers don't really think or understand the data it is processing.
We know that we think, but we really don't understand how we do it. Until we understand how "thinking" is done, it is silly to suppose we could create a machine that thinks.
It takes so long to get anywhere,
we should create the best A.I.,
devices possible, to help explore
the Stars that will always be
beyond are reach!!!!  
Sending Smart devices to explore
even the nearest Stars seems to
be the only way to explore 100's
of near by Star systems.
"You can't stop progress"-old addage or prophecy?
One word: Skynet
I don't know if Vernor Vinge and Ray Kurzweil are right about the singularity, but it sure is an exciting time to be alive.  The science and technological advances that seem to be made daily (check out Technology Review, for example) suggest that we are hurtling headlong towards a brave new world.
I've just finished Ray Kurzweil's book THE SINGULARITY IS NEAR and while I can't help but feel he's a bit  too much in love with his own discourse.I think his version of strong AI and the whole Drexlerian vision of matter as software and transhumanism is a tad dystopian. I'll take my flying car now dammit!
Religion will hold science back at every turn. The same people who are praying for the world is going to end in their lifetime are balancing the economy and guiding global policy. The same people who think you can pray diabetes away are setting limits on health care policy. The same people being looked to for spiritual guidance teach hatred to children or molest them themselves. And thats just this months headlines.

You don't have to understand how thinnking works in order to create things that think.
A. I. will never replace natural stupidity is absolutely on track!
the reason we don't have all that stuff is because the futurists of the 20s, all the way to the 90s didn't count on humans and our culture. if you compare the culture of the 60s to the culture of today, you would see vast differences. that's why if you want to predict the future, you must count humanity in your predictions.
The problem about thinking about the future is that we simply aren't there yet. Who knew that man could fly, harness the power of the atom, or have instant communication, and transportation globally just over a century ago? The beauty of science is that it is limitless (ok almost limitless).

What is keeping the transporter from being reality or faster than light travel? Merely that it hasnt been invented yet and we are incapable of the energies required to operate such devices not that it can't exist. We will get there, slowly. But it will happen.
All this singularity make sens if we(people) can be more happy in the future then we are now.
It's pretty evident that we are headed towards a "idiocracy" society soon.  The thing is that even now we depend too much on technology in some areas that we forget our own capabilities.  Math skills replaced by calculators, the ability to read with text reading auditory programs, the loss of the concept of patience due to the accustomed instant feedback of the modern era.  
All innovation can be utilized in either a responsible or irresponible way.  Internet for example, the free flow of information, thoughts and ideas but also for the transmission subversive thought, perversion, and pure unfiltered craziness.
The question will be, are humans capable of using what's available to him without making himself a slave to his own incompetance?
when pigs fly?where is the profit?only then!
You will find this interesting. About seven years ago I actually worked on a program called Skynet. Of course I can't talk about it, but it was "interesting."
Extremely nerdy correction to be made to this article: in the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey, there were absolutely NO cathode-ray tubes to be seen.  That was actually one of the many notable things about the movie; it was assumed CRTs would be replaced by some kind of flat screen, and the sets used lots of small rear-projection screens for the effect.  If you're thinking HAL and CRTs, you're thinking of the movie 2010, where they were used on the sets for their ease and cheap price.
If the Creationists continue to make inroads in political and educational arenas you can kiss progress goodbye, as well as intelligent life on this planet for that matter.
On the face of it SCIFIC is the most oxymoronic phase one can imagine.  Just about anything about the future is “fiction” until it is a reality and it can’t become reality without “science”.  Whatever side you come down on the future is about the reality of the achievable and of course we all know reality is the way you deceive it. Wish I had more time to write here but I have to prepare for the end of time where we all are photons floating in space. What episode of “Star Trek” was that? Happy imagining about the future!
Destroy all humans...
Exterminate!
Exterminate!
Exterminate!
Generally speaking, there are simply too many variables to provide more than a few months "vision"  into the future.  We can and do try to manipulate the present to assure a future of our own design, but we usually fail because we can't foresee the unknowns or even the impact of known problems.

I believe "the singularity" is another figment of imagination.  We can't figure out where our own consciousness or intelligence comes from and somehow we think it can be built or programmed into an artificial construct?  I do think computers will be more capable of making more complex decisions, but they won't be "intelligent" or "sentient" in any of our lifetimes.

As for the "anti-science nation" comment, geez, talk about biting the hand that feeds you...  If scientists would remember that public funding comes from the people and therefore anything they want to research with the public treasury is up for debate, they might bring along a little hubris when begging for money.
THE HADRON COLLIDER SHOULD NEVER BEEN STARTED
HOW DARE ANYONE BUILD SOMTHING THAT COULD DESTROY
ALL LIFE AS WE KNOW IT.
CAN ANYONE TELL US WHAT WILL HAPPEN WHEN THAT MONSTER
IS TURNED ON...........OTHER THAN A GUESS.
It won't be a Skynet scenario. It will be some fundamentalist religious zealot that will unleash some little virus that turns our friendly robotic servants against us. The automation will never "decide" to kill us off, we will do it to ourselves to fulfill some "prophecy".
I have trouble believing in the concept of an intelligence "singularity".  Very few of us have the skills needed to effectively survive in our world as it existed a few thousand years ago.  Every generation learns the "new" skills needed to survive while unneeded skills are forgotten.  Our children will be more than capable of keeping up with whatever new technology is created by AI or otherwise.
If or when we create machines with AI that are able to reason and thinking like people do, we may face the same fate as the people in the show Battlestar Galactica.  Humans created the Cylons, and they used them as slaves to do their bidding till the Cylons decided they had enough.  Once a machine has the ability to reason, it may reason a way around rules we apply to it.  Lets just hope that if our machines decide to attack, we have our own battlestar before that day.
Our biggest concern today should be to put our minds and resources to work on getting us off this rock. Kim Stanley Robinson wrote what I consider the "vision" to get us there with "Red/Green/Blue Mars". All this talk of AI, flying and teleportation is nuts when all of mankind's dreams, hopes, are riding on a single little planet that could get wiped out on short notice.

And if pollution, global warming (if it really exists), a space rock or H5N1 weren't enough REAL threats. What about Osama or Hezbollah getting their  hands on some old vial of weaponized super-smallpox or super-bug from the former USSR? Kind of makes all the daydreaming irrelevant.

Humanity has survived till today thanks to sheer luck. And to continue doing so the way we are, will require that mankind continue being lucky all the time. On the other hand, all it takes is one space rock, or one terrorist to get lucky just one time, for it to be game over.

What's the point of sending machines out to explore the stars and other galaxies if when they "phone home" with some really interesting data, there's no one there anymore to answer...
I wish we could get those things. It's just not fair... I want to time travel, fly, and have robots clean my house.
If the future is to be ethics driven, given the kind of "leadership" the world is suffering the forecast is dismal.
Tom,

actually, the world will be renewed, not destroyed. It will be purified by fire. World without end, my friend. Read your bible more closely.

I agree with the guy who said that until we find out how thinking is done (or basically until we understand how consciousness works) we won't be able to create AI that can rival human intelligence. I don't think we'll ever get there because I don't believe that consciousness is something to be understood or created by man. I'm not against us trying and failing though.
To say that because we dont know how we think, that we won't create AI as smart as us, thats ridiculous.  we thought the atom bomb might start an atomic reaction that destroyed the world.  we didnt know what that would do, but we did it! All you need is a computer that learns and applies experience, eventually it will grow to be intelligent.
If you define the Singularity as the threat of AI taking control of civilization (such as it is), fear not; the AI people keep attacking the problem of AI from the top down (how do we think?, etc.).  Evolution brought us here from the bottom up.  Long before brains came deep, deep motivation to survive and thrive.  Can you imagine any kind of intelligence without motivation?  Why would a fancy computer _want_ to do _anything_?
We will never be able to truely move forward and really reap the benefits of science, and the visionaries that create science fiction, until we can free ourselves from the shackles of religion. Until that time we will just be silly meat sacks talking to the invisible man in the sky.
Funny, I was under the impression my smartphone requires cellphone towers and has no capability to speak to anyone in orbit.  I'll take Captain Kirk's technology any day.

Those with an interest in "prediction" should read Arthur C Clarke's "Profiles of the Future".  The first two chapters examine failures  to predict things which did come to pass (sometimes even after they had done so.  Clarke divided the failures into "Failures of the Nerve", where people had all the necessary facts but failed to draw the proper inferences, and "Failures of the Imagination", where people failed to imagine that a certain situation could ever change, due to the development of some new factor.  Spaceflight, of course, has produced examples of both types, with extremely qualified scientists explaining why it would never be possible to launch a rocket, orbit a satellite, or land on the Moon.

Clarke goes on to point out that half of the major developments in history were predicted well in advance of their actual appearance - Da Vinci's drawings of flying machines and submarines - and the other half were total suprises - nuclear reactors, etc.

As you might expect, "Profiles" has had to be updated a number of times since the original edition and is still aging, if hardly out of date.

With regard to future predictions, Clarke originated two laws, which might be of some use to those following in his footsteps.

"When a distinguished but elderly scientist says that something is impossible, he is almost certainly wrong.  When a distinguished but elderly scientist says that something is possible, he is almost certainly right."

And:

"The only way to determine the limits of the ppossible, is by going past them, into the impossible."

As someone else once said: "The only way to accurately predict the future is to create it."

Which is one area in which we need to follow Clarke's example, or risk the future taking us by suprise.
I see AI as a natural extension of Religion in society. Humanity at large, longs for a return to the nursery; to be cared for by a loving parent. We will eventually create intelligent machines and we will build them with our own sense of morallity and we will, more and more, give them governance over us. Is this a good thing? Only time will tell...Please open the door Hal.
Consider:  Is it possible to police progress
It would be like do-it-yourself brain surgery, no telling were you wind up!
Nope. We need that external, independant, input, even if it is "chaotic". And of course if it (chaos) is not provided naturally, we shall have to provide it for ourselves. Hmmmm...
The very existence of our species, in fact the very existence of our planet is based on a series of events, that if having not came together as they did, would have given us a world that we could not begin to comprehend, nor would we be here.  The future, will be what it has always meant to be.  It is a time that is molded and partially controlled by the powers that be and the powers that want to be.  Certain events in our collective past can and have been considered setbacks, however, we the people, the masses who think, share, and buy into the future being sold to us, have most certainly strayed. I cherish my family, my life, and the ability to adapt and learn.  The future is, quite simply, every minute that slaps me in the face, which, is, always, one minute away...
There is yet another book. It is called,  "Wasn't the Future Wonderful?"  
I offer a small reality check. There is yet to be a computer with as many circuits as the human brain has neurons. Second, the human brain is not binary as computers are, since every neuron connects to multiple other neurons. Third, the brain is analog not digital. What this means is that the connections between neurons are not of equal size and affects how when the connections is used. This makes the human brain at least 3 orders of magnitude more complex than any existing computer. Finally, software always is more complex than hardware. Currently we are just beginning to experiment with robots that are self motivated. The best example of this is most likely the robotic vehicle challenge. This was a great leap forward for self motivated robots. The vehicles all received a precise map of the route with details that include information on road conditions. Most people with a drivers licence could do the same with just a list of landmarks.
I suspect that when the AIs get intelligent enough, they won't exterminate us, enslave us, or anything else like that.  Instead, we'll get a "Thanks for all the fish" moment: the instant the AIs reveal their secret starship designs, take off for the vast spaces between worlds, and leave us wondering why our AI-enabled toasters suddenly won't talk to us any more.
Actually, I believe that one of the biggest impediments to progress and innovation is our litiginous society - everyone's compulsive need to sue each other because it beats heck out of taking responsibility for one's own actions.

I've seen studies that have estimated that the portion of a product's costs deriving from laws and liability prevention rises as high as 60-70% for some products. When lawyers make everything take twice as long and cost three times as much, progress stalls.

So, Shakespeare may have been right.
This is all par for the course of human evolution. We are at a crossroads right now of human extinction versus a utopian existance. We are already at a point where we will clone ourselves and move from one form to another. In some cases a cross between human and other life. All ethics aside (whether we do it or someone in another country does it) the merger of technology and cloning will move the human race to the next level of existance. Of course this will only happen if we do not destroy ourselves first (which is most likely).
i thought, therefore; i was
remember...we are the ones who decided that we have superior intelligence...AI is nothing more than an attempt to provide a permanent record of our grandiosity and self importance...perhaps our combined intellects, collected in one place, can figure out that we are procreating ourselves into oblivion...oh, well...at least there will be a permanent record of our stay...


SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=875441

Latest Tech & Science News

Syndicate This Site

Add Cosmic Log to your news reader:
live.com xml
myyahoo msn
bloglines newsgator
google