Is “Future Shock” Already Upon Us ?

In 1970, Alvin Toffler’s book “Future Shock” predicted a world in which technology evolved so quickly society was stunned, unable to adjust, succumbing to “shattering stress and disorientation”. A decade later, John Naisbitt took a less cataclysmic look, focused on the next decade, with “Megatrends – Ten New Directions Transforming Our Lives”; he updated that in 1990 with “Megatrends 2000″.

Toffler proved to be both right and wrong. “Future Shock” did attack millions of people, but primarily those in the newly freed nations of the former Soviet Bloc, especially Russia itself. Hundreds of immigrants pouring out of those nations to the United States in the 1990s reportedly returned complaining about “too much choice”.

Even a worldly British author and high tech consultant who spent the 1990s living and working in Southern California and Washington, DC, will soon publish a book about his American experience that includes a chapter on how even Western Europeans can be overwhelmed by American-style consumerism. The working title? “A Cornucopia of Confusing Consumer Choices: Forty-Five Types of Shredded Wheat?”

What Toffler failed to foresee was the ease with which Americans, Canadians and, within the dominion of their own societies, the rest of the “developed” world not only would accept but often demand faster implementation of new technologies. Generations raised on Star Trek and Star Wars did not merely anticipate desktop computers, instant global information access, hand-held global “communicators” and robots, they built them.

Some of Naisbitt’s predictions, such as a rise in home-based “networking”, were amazingly on target, especially considering he never used the words Internet, e-mail, global positioning system (GPS) – none of which as yet existed – nor terrorism, arguably four of the most important factors driving late 20th and early 21st Century society.

Perhaps the most astounding – and controversial – look at our technology-based future came in 2001, when Ray Kurzweil, one of the world’s most honored inventors, authors and futurists, published his “Law of Accelerating Returns”.

“An analysis of the history of technology shows that technological change is exponential, contrary to the common-sense ‘intuitive linear’ view. So we won’t experience 100 years of progress in the 21st Century – it will be more like 20,000 years of progress (at today’s rate). The ‘returns’, such as chip speed and cost-effectiveness, also increase exponentially. There’s even exponential growth in the rate of exponential growth. Within a few decades, machine intelligence will surpass human intelligence, leading to The Singularity – technological change so rapid and profound it represents a rupture in the fabric of human history. The implications include the merger of biological and non-biological intelligence, immortal software-based humans and ultra-high levels of intelligence that expand outward in the universe at the speed of light.”

And that is only the opening paragraph! (The entire piece is available at http://www.kurzweilai.net/articles/art0134.html?printable=1).

Kurzweil’s “law” helps explain what Toffler feared and Naisbitt sought to analyze. As to whether Kurzweil is qualified to make such bold statements, consider his remarkable biography at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Kurzweil. Or simply Microsoft chairman Bill Gates’ 2005 description of him as “the best at predicting the future of artificial intelligence”.

Given Kurzweil’s Law, Naisbitt’s “Megatrends” and Toffler’s “Future Shock” already are being dwarfed by the speed of technological advance. Any new version of either book would have to be electronically published to avoid being comically out-of-date before ever reaching a bookstore.

Consider a few examples of where we are headed in the next 20 years or so:

Military doctors already are looking to field, within a decade, an early version of Star Trek’s medical tricorder – not hoping, not expecting, but planning.

The US Army’s Future Warrior, the combat infantry ensemble circa 2020, has been called everything from a futuristic medieval knight’s suit of armor to a Star Wars’ Imperial Trooper. But Future Warrior is an evolutionary process, with the first elements now on their way to US troops in Southwest Asia, for whom small robots that perform dangerous tasks such as checking for explosives at roadblocks already are considered honored and invaluable teammates.

Hydrogen fuel cells the size of soda cans have been powering TV field cameras for the past two years; people all over the globe can flip open their own “communicators” and not only talk to anyone anywhere, but take and send photos and movies, listen to music, download information, send and receive text messages, obtain precise GPS locations – even Mr. Spock would be likely to raise an eyebrow and mutter, “Fascinating”.

Kurzweil’s Singularity foresees a time – perhaps within the next two decades – when it will be possible to download a human being’s memories and personality into a computer. Add an advanced and highly realistic avatar based on that individual’s actual appearance (at any age) and an equally accurate voice synthesizer and it will be possible to have a real-time, original conversation with a dead relative or teacher. Imagine Einstein or Mozart or da Vinci preserved for all time.

The religious implications, of course, are obvious, as are the legal and societal: With AI Grandpa still own his house? Will flesh-and-blood Grandma be able to remarry? Is erasing an AI personality disk murder? And for writers and publishers, if copyrights continue for 70 years after the author’s death, is an AI author dead – or immortal?

Nanotechnology – microscopic machines – and microbiology are expected to combine to enable the repair of almost anything that goes wrong with any part of the body. No chemotherapy, no contact lenses, no open heart surgery, just an injection of thousands of tiny robotic surgeons programmed to deal with the problem.

Experiments already have been performed to enable two people to share sensory perceptions. In others, robotic limbs have been activated by subjects thinking about moving their own arms or legs. Such bioelectronic advances are expected to enable quadriplegics to walk away from their wheelchairs, possibly within a generation.

Consider:

- In 1906 we had just witnessed the first flight of a heavier-than-air manned aircraft, a flight that lasted less than the wingspan of a Boeing 747. Six decades later, we were walking on the Moon.

- In 1906, few people had access to a very cumbersome, expensive and unreliable telephone system and radio was still an experiment; today, you can watch television on your cellphone.

- In 1906, the average life expectancy in the US was 46.9 for men, 50.8 for women; today, it is 74.5 for men and 79.9 for women, according to US government tables. But many futurists say for those of us now living, the trick will simply be to live long enough . . to live forever – which they believe the merger of biology and technology will make possible, in one form or another, within a generation.

“Future Shock” and “Megatrends” were products of the late 20th Century, when Kurzweil’s Law of Accelerating Returns was just beginning to reach the Tipping Point — “that dramatic moment when something unique becomes common”. In contrast, the 21st Century will require entirely new legal, sociological, philosophical, religious, political, moral and personal concepts.

Perhaps it is – 250 years earlier than claimed by the 1990s TV show “Babylon 5″ – truly the “dawn of the Third Age of Mankind”.

Can We Live Forever

 

Can We Live Forever

by Carol Forsloff

 

Ray Kurzweil thinks we can. He’s a research scientist who has won many awards that include the 1999 Medal of Technology and 12 honorary doctorates in science, engineering, music and humane letters, written many books, and is known as the father of voice to text technology. He believes that with the use of computers a perfect replica of any object can be made and that through virtual reality you can exist in several places at once–at home, at work or on the beach in Hawaii, and feel completely real. He observes that this can happen because of technology and that we can incorporate computer-based functions into our biological processes and therefore become immortal.

 

The idea that we can create anything and that we can live forever certainly provokes philosophical, religious, moral and ethical concerns. If we can create anything, will it ever be valuable again? How does responsibility, discipline and human values relate to issues of immortality? If we can have anything we want, what impact would that have on ordinary human behavior? If we are able to live forever, would we plan right, treat our brothers with more love or greater disdain? How would that impact our natural world?

 

Scientists who deal with and plan for the future tell us that we are on the verge of such vast technological changes that human existence will eventually be dramatically altered in ways we can only imagine. They tell us that through gene research and what is called nanotechnology that we will be able to go beyond our frail and limited bodies and that illness and disability will someday be eliminated.

 

Hans Moravec of Carnegie Mellon has said that biology won’t be able to come up to what can be accomplished by the nanotechnology revolution. Kurzweil tells us that the robotic revolution will give us artificial intelligence in a number of different forms. Nanomedicine will eliminate 50% of conditions that can be prevented medically. These scientists maintain that we will eventually be able to have our bodies and our brains rebuilt by technology.

 

The implications of all of this are astounding. If this all becomes possible, do we look at these happenings as a gift from God or a curse for mankind? Throughout the centuries as our scientists have tested, there have been those who fought against them and declared that the world was indeed flat, that pharmaceuticals were poison, and that those who worked with the unknown were in concert with the devil and were burned at the stake. If it is true that we will eventually have the resources to cure diseases and live longer and longer lives, for centuries perhaps, we need to start examining how we will interact with each other and our planet and whether or not we can accept these changes if they come.

 

References: Fantastic Voyage: The Science Behind Radical Life Extension by Terry Grossmand Ray Kurzweil, Singulairity is Near by Ray Kurzweil, and Nanofuture: What’s Next for Nanotechnology by J. Storrs Hall.

Keynote speaker and Scientist Ray Kurzweil says we are only 20 years away from human immortality

Keynote speaker Ray Kurzweil claims humans could become immortal in as little as 20 years’ time through nanotechnology and an increased understanding of how the body works. The American inventor and Keynote speaker has made the claim that we could all be cyborgs in 20 years. The 61-year-old Keynote speaker, who has predicted new technologies arriving before, says our understanding of genes and computer technology is accelerating at an incredible rate. Theoretically, he says, that at the rate our understanding is increasing, nanotechnologies capable of replacing many of our vital organs could be available in 20 years time. Although his claims seem far fetched, he reminds us that artificial pancreases and neural implants are already available Ray calls his theory the Law of Accelerating Returns. Writing in The Sun, he said: “I and many other scientists now believe that in around 20 years we will have the means to reprogramme our bodies’ stone-age software so we can halt, then reverse, ageing. Then nanotechnology will let us live for ever. “Ultimately, nanobots will replace blood cells and do their work thousands of times more effectively. “Within 25 years we will be able to do an Olympic sprint for 15 minutes without taking a breath, or go scuba-diving for four hours without oxygen. “Heart-attack victims – who haven’t taken advantage of widely available bionic hearts – will calmly drive to the doctors for a minor operation as their blood bots keep them alive. “Nanotechnology will extend our mental capacities to such an extent we will be able to write books within minutes. “If we want to go into virtual-reality mode, nanobots will shut down brain signals and take us wherever we want to go. Virtual sex will become commonplace. And in our daily lives, hologram like figures will pop in our brain to explain what is happening. “So we can look forward to a world where humans become cyborgs, with artificial limbs and organs.”

Keynote speaker Ray Kurzweil claims humans could become immortal in as little as 20 years’ time through nanotechnology and an increased

understanding of how the body works.

The American inventor and Keynote speaker has made the claim that we could all be cyborgs in 20 years. The 61-year-old Keynote speaker, who has predicted new

technologies arriving before, says our understanding of genes and computer technology is accelerating at an incredible rate.

Theoretically, he says, that at the rate our understanding is increasing, nanotechnologies capable of replacing many of our vital

organs could be available in 20 years time. Although his claims seem far fetched, he reminds us that artificial pancreases and neural

implants are already available

Ray calls his theory the Law of Accelerating Returns. Writing in The Sun, he said: “I and many other scientists now believe that in

around 20 years we will have the means to reprogramme our bodies’ stone-age software so we can halt, then reverse, ageing. Then

nanotechnology will let us live for ever.

“Ultimately, nanobots will replace blood cells and do their work thousands of times more effectively.

“Within 25 years we will be able to do an Olympic sprint for 15 minutes without taking a breath, or go scuba-diving for four hours

without oxygen.

“Heart-attack victims – who haven’t taken advantage of widely available bionic hearts – will calmly drive to the doctors for a minor

operation as their blood bots keep them alive.

“Nanotechnology will extend our mental capacities to such an extent we will be able to write books within minutes.

“If we want to go into virtual-reality mode, nanobots will shut down brain signals and take us wherever we want to go. Virtual sex

will become commonplace. And in our daily lives, hologram like figures will pop in our brain to explain what is happening.

“So we can look forward to a world where humans become cyborgs, with artificial limbs and organs.”

Is Kalocin real?

In Michael Chrichton’s novel on Nanotechnology, Prey, the Antibiotic/Antiviral Kalocin is mentioned. At first I assumed it was fake, but in the back of the book I’m pretty sure it actually mentions the journal Nature as a reference on it!! Kalocin is supposedly able to kill almost all known pathogenic organisms, but completely and irreversibly eradicates the patient’s immune system as a side-effect. Apparently discovered by Jensen pharmaceuticals (a REAL company) in 1965, and no-one uses (and therefore knows) about it because it’s side-effect, a non-existent immune system, killed all the people in the clinical trials. Is it actually real? TY!
But couldn’t the drug only attack cells that don’t have the ability to do cell-to-cell communication? This would obviously target all single-celled organisms, while all of our cells have would be safe because, for example, they can all interact with the immune system. Cancer would also be targeted. I’m guessing it could be a toxin that is inactivated by the metabolic pathways that create/govern the proteins involved in cell-to-cell communication.

Are students really getting an “education” from educational institutions?

If you’ve ever listened to Pink Floyd’s Another Brick in the Wall (“We don’t need no education/We don’t need no thought control) then you already have a gist of what I am talking about.

As an undergraduate student I feel like I am a memorization machine. I read the book, I pass the test. Read, pass. Take in, spit out. Essentially that’s all I do. I’ve taken honors classes and I still come out in the top of my class. But for what? To work my way up in society? To get a “good-paying job” where I’ll be taking in a buffet of information and spitting it up in chunks? I feel highly pressured (at least at Georgia Tech) due to the grades I need to obtain in order to get a specific degree. And not only the university, but also corporate America makes me feel like I’ll be a degree-less, jobless (or low-paid) “lower class citizen” (with undertones implying I’ll be unimportant/ incompetent or something) if I don’t graduate I know I can make the grades, but I’m tired of the take in/spit out technique.

This strict, structured “educational” regime in not what living is about. Living is being, and you can’t “be” when you are what your mother, father, teacher, or degree tells you to be. Since I am open to learning and exploring, does my education have to revolve around one specific subject? Do I actually need a degree? What is wrong with being jobless? Is money really what will bring me happiness? I’m in a conundrum from which I am trying to break free. In the meantime, I have decided that being an artist or English major would at least give me more versatility in these modern times than a biologist or doctor would (this means switching schools).

I understand the need for jobs such as farming, clothes-making, housebuilding, etc. I know these jobs sound “prehistoric” compared to nanotechnology, radiology, genetic engineering, microbiology, etc, but that’s because they were; they have been around since the dawn of human civilization because they are essential to living.

So, back to my question. Why are so many children/young adults pressured by society and government to believe that getting a specific degree in college is what education and life is all about? Why do we have to work in one field of general knowledge? Why do we need to train our brains extensively in order to be successful as a “master” or “doctor” in that field? Why do we need to have these high-paying, specific jobs? Is it for the money? The power? The recognition in society? Are any of these truly necessarily to being who you want to be and living happily? What about self-learning or learning from those around you? Can’t we all be students/teachers to each other? Or does everything have to revolve around how much money we can get from our jobs?

« Previous Page — Next Page »