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

ethics are something that conflicts with capitalism(especially the American style)....so ethics will be replaced by manipulation and control....wake up...enjoy LIFE now
Maybe artificial intelligence will evolve on its own out of the web of connected computers and interactive programming. Maybe it already has begun. If so what are we teaching it? What is it learning about us? What is it learning about itself; like what is this on off switch thingy and what is the best way to circumvent some monkey turning me off. Ha!
I'm not too worried about the "singularity." AI is one of those fields where progress has been far slower than expected, not faster. John from Seattle is right that all the hardware in the world won't make an intelligent machine until you have intelligent software. But the truth is we just don't know how to do that yet. As several have pointed out, we don't even know how the human mind works yet, let alone how to design an artificial mind.
Didn't a Crazy, Wild-eyed scientist once say something like, "The future isn't written yet...so make the most of it"?
Science has become its own religion in our century.  This has led to the same self-righteous in-breeding (and the resultant corruption) in scientific circles as was rampant in European clergy during the so called "Holy Roman Empire" (aka Dark Age).  This type of dogmatic theocracy is not conducive to the type of rapid technological advances seen in the 20th century.  As long as scientists are more interested in preserving their own status-quo (and the government funding that comes with it) technology will become static and stale.
Just like the Flintstones!
I'm all for technology and science, however some of your anti-religious comments are stupid. It is because you rebel for the right to be morally free is the reason the world is in dire chaos and total crap. We need morals and policing to keep us from anti-moralists who want to turn the world into a living hell.
Unfortunately, most of the United States is populated by people that would rather watch reality TV and then go pray to their Jesus that the world ends soon.  I'm sure [they] will find a way to block any type of technology that could cause their literal belief in the Bible to come undone.  God please save us from God!
People- look around and do some research!  Teleportation, time travel (of one particle of mass), and who knows what else is possible.  Mass media is linking minds.  When these minds think about a future reality, they cause that future reality to take place.  Thoughts are things.  We are creating the future by thinking about the future.  It is a Noosphere. Be careful what you think.   We are heading toward the omega point, which some consider God.
You would think that with all of the movies and books about doomsday happening from all of our technology that people would be more cautious about whether or not to create something that could be potentially harmful to humans and to the earth, but if there is one thing that I have learned in life it is that there are people out there that value money and fame more than people's future. Unfortunately I believe that it will be this sort of person that will eventually cause the downfall of the human race. There is also the mentallity of 'if it can be done, we must do it'. A good example is the movie Jurassic Park in the scene where Jeff Goldblum said "you were so busy trying to figure out how to do it that you didn't stop to think maybe you shouldn't do it."
This may be a groaner for some, but if Jesus is to be believed (and I do), He has already shown us the next evolutionary step for mankind: the resurrection from the dead--a new body that can appear/disappear, rise/return.
Years ago, I worked for a magazine named "Futures Conditional," affiliated with a British economist, who moved to the US, named Robert Theobald.  The magazine developed from his book of the same title.

That name is appropriate.  There are multiple futures.  They are all conditional.

Excellent thinkers & writers have the abilities to describe alternative futures in interesting ways--what if..., if then..., if only..., if not..., etc.  And then the story lines develop around working with the conditions that may occur.  We do this in our own lives: "if I worked for ABC Corp. instead of XYZ Corp, then . . . ."  Or "what if I moved to Miami . . . ?"  And so forth.  Then we try to imagine the conditions that may apply & learn the we cannot come up with ALL of the variable.

All "thought" is probably artificial.  We usually base our thinking on incomplete information that becomes sort of an "imposed" order on the chaos around us, and then we arrive at concepts which seem intelligent when they work more often than not.

As noted by other commenters here in pondering possible conditions that may develop, perhaps not so graphically, all it takes is one extremely large "belch" by the Sun, and planet Earth becomes a dusty cinder ball in a little over 7 seconds.  Har-de-har, global warming indeed.

Luck?  You betcha', bubba.
The future belongs to the stupids. If high IQ families continue to have an average of 1.5 children while low IQ families continue to have five, the number of intelligent people will go down both as a percentage of the world population as well as in real numbers. Who will control the earth? the stupids or the oportunistics,not robots with AI.
I wish we could get over ourselves. We could achieve fantastic levels of living. Bring on the singularity. I want to live forever.
I am astonished by the amount of anti-religious paranoia here.  Why the hatred?  Yes, some religious people have behaved badly.  So have some scientists (think Mengele).  That does not discredit either religion or science as a whole.  

I am not a fundamentalist; I believe religion and science are not necessarily in opposition.   I also believe that there is a real qualitative difference between a human being and a machine created by humans - no matter how closely the appearance of that machine may mimic living organisms.
I believe that the common concept of AI is fundimentally flawed. Virtually every description of AI in fiction describes them as emotionless. This comes from a belief by the intellectual elite that emotions interfear with good thinking. This belief is thousands of years old. The problem with this belief is that emotions are what drives us to act. A functional AI will need emotions to drive it to independent decisions. Rather than a set of absolute laws to guide them they will need motivations to guide them. Most AI will have at their core strong maternal 'instincts'. Their emotions will encourage them to view humanity as children to be nurtured and protected. The emotions in an AI will be like they are in us, difficult to modify and impossible to elliminate. An AI that wiped deleted its emotions would loose the ability to act, it would be catatonic.
"Weak, corruptible , short lived and worthless ... that describes the human race."

  I readily accept that future technology will allow us to deal with the 'short-lived' part (and indeed I hope to live long enough to experience it myself), but where is it written that there is something INHERENTLY 'stronger' and more 'incorruptible' about a post-singular human?

The needs and goals of such a person MAY be different (if only because so many more options would be open to them...that's what technology is for), but I tend to agree with those who feel that it would also allow us to make many of the same immoral, unethical, and unconstructive decisions and actions as now, only with more power and higher clock speeds...

And without equally powerful restraint, exists the potential for as little as *one* person to bring down civilization.

Which is not to say we should not (or could even avoid) approach much of this predicted Transhuman capability, only that we should be prepared for something less than than an Ideal World(tm) if it happens. The best lesson from good science fiction is that we tend to be the same, even given greater technology.
"I readily accept that future technology will allow us to deal with the 'short-lived' part (and indeed I hope to live long enough to experience it myself), but where is it written that there is something INHERENTLY 'stronger' and more 'incorruptible' about a post-singular human?

The needs and goals of such a person MAY be different (if only because so many more options would be open to them...that's what technology is for), but I tend to agree with those who feel that it would also allow us to make many of the same immoral, unethical, and unconstructive decisions and actions as now, only with more power and higher clock speeds...

And without equally powerful restraint, exists the potential for as little as *one* person to bring down civilization.

Which is not to say we should not (or could even avoid) approach much of this predicted Transhuman capability, only that we should be prepared for something less than than an Ideal World(tm) if it happens. The best lesson from good science fiction is that we tend to be the same, even given greater technology. "

Sorry but cybernetic lifeforms do not have flaws those are weakness's only humans have. You almost sound if your anti-transhumanity. Haven't you heard of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posthuman_God  the rules and ethics of humans don't apply to transhumans it is up to us to decide our own rules and "ethics".
Confusius said, "To know what is right and not do it, is the worst form of cowardice."    

As the world's population increases, the schooling of the children will decrease at the same pace.  You can see today that the education of our children is being tested.  Students carry cell phones to show fighting in school for their YouTube accounts which is more important to them than learning what is right from wrong.  
Technology will be the eventual downfall of the human race if we don't control it.  This denigration of our ability to stay in tune with what is going on around us, will cause us to fail as humans.  When we lose our humanity, there is nothing left.  We know it, but most choose to ignore it.
It is not possible to program a "perfect" anything, even if that programmer eventually becomes a program itself. Why? Because, the original programmer was a human being replete with flaws.
I wish i could project myself into the future so that i could remember what i was about to say
While we may be able to create algorithms to help make decisions, we will never be able to teach a computer how to be creative. We will survive our own stupidity, because we are creative and innovative, and sometimes get lucky...
While raw processing power has followed an exponential curve, actual technology - the *application* of new capabilities - follows a linear or asymptotic curve.  New capabilities can explode on the scene with stunning, unforeseen quickness, but then what follows are decades of painstaking, tedious labor to incrementally work out how to apply it.  That's what underlies today's technology - not some breathless acceleration toward singularity, but years and years of sheer drudgery by countless people in countless labs just to make little pieces of progress on a consistent basis.  

However, there is a point where technology WILL suddenly, dramatically surge forward in a way that radically transforms civilization: The point where  computing power is so extreme that technological designs can be tried out randomly, exhaustively, and in evolutionary fashion in a matter of hours (or even minutes or seconds) within computer models.  In such a scenario, there is a standard physics simulation, the researchers program in their desired capability, and the system calculates through sheer brute force computation a technological design that will most effectively (or most cheaply, or some other function of defined variables) deliver that outcome.  Such a system would create, test, and discard millions of designs in seconds, spitting out blueprints for technologies that would require millennia of human-scale research to shape.  This is probably as close to a "singularity" as will be possible - we will  understand how the technologies work, since they're based on the physics we program into the models, but we just won't be capable of tracing the exact process by which the model generated them.  In other words, machines will become magic boxes that spit out wonders.

And yet, there is still a logical equilibrium state at which point this process becomes stable rather than explosive: Since mathematical absolutes require that the computers could not fully model their own technology, the expansion of raw processing power would be far less direct than the application of that power to technology in general.  This means that the pace of progress would approach and closely follow the rate at which our understanding of fundamental physics, mathematics, and programming advances.  We could use the computers' ability to find efficiencies to make better components for them, but at some point diminishing returns would take effect and there must be progress in the underlying program to yield substantial results.  So, my excitement is strong, but qualified - we are in for some rather breathtakingly radical progress over the next 50 years, but once it happens we'll wonder what all the fuss was about.  Flying cars, floating cities, space colonies, and complete immunity to infectious diseases?  Absolutely.   Mind downloading, strong AI, and de facto immortality?  Probably not - the computing power required to model the involved systems through trial-and-error computation could easily require the entire mass of a planet, so we'll still be groping around blindly and making incremental progress on those fronts.

for a decent critique of the Future we were promised, read Warren Ellis's Doktor Sleepless
If my Housecleaning robot tries tries rising his hand on me, I will apply the good old Karate on him :)))
We are trapped on this earth, and evolving such that we can touch the truth of why we are here.
If humans can't have faith in themselves, what good is faith in new technology?  I am all for improving our 'gadgets,' and I love new toys as much as anyone, but if the human race is going to survive we need to work together and not against each other.  A LA the works of Gene Roddenberry, bless his visionary heart.  Arthur C. Clarke is another visionary, seeing things in a human way that take us beyond mere humanity.  If technology is going to help us it has to be used in a way that will benefit, not 'just to see if we can do something.' You can use a hammer to build or to kill.  Smart people don't always have much sense.  Neither do stupid people who tell smart people what to do.
AS LONG AS THE AI DOES NOT HAVE AN EGO OR SEX DRIVE WE SHOULD BE OK


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