I hope that no one expects to graduate as a physician in the next decade and retire in the same field. I only hope that the field is around long enough for you to pay off your school loans. If you are smart, I think you will have to look for a job developing wearable medical devices after practicing for a decade or two.
Humans are pretty healthy now compared with a thousand years ago, a century ago, or even fifty years ago. In general, if something ails us, we can go to a doctor who can tell us pretty much what it is. We prevent many ailments every day by taking showers, brushing our teeth, and washing our hands. In the future, we will be touching less and getting cleaned more. We will have devices that know our habits and can make healthy recommendations to go along with them. Those devices will know when we excrete and maybe what we have excreted and how much of what we've eaten our body has metabolized. If our devices don't know about a problem, we will be able to tell them about it and they will refer it to a doctor, and eventually make the medical diagnosis for themselves.
I'd trust a robot to know where to put a scalpel before I'd trust a human. So why do humans still operate? Because robots haven't been programmed to do the whole surgery and haven't been engineered to be as dexterous as a human hand stitching a wound. And the future will require less surgery and less stitches when surgery is required. And who controls the robots? Eventually no one. A doctor or technician may review the procedure afterwards to tell you that everything went 'ok', and eventually just to put a human face on a very traumatic process (why else would you be in surgery), and eventually you won't even see a human and just get a bill for a five minute heart transplant.
And you say you want another heart? Why wait for a donor to die so that you can get one organ that has already been used for 25 or 50 years or more when you can get one grown in minutes? And you like smoking, drinking, driving reckless - as long as your brain is intact, you'll be fine. In another century, why not just store a backup of your brain just in case?
Drugs - they only get better. What's the point of drugs: to alter your mental state or cure? Currently both. In time, they will get better, and then they will disappear. In fifty years, the need for drugs to cure medical ailments will be nonexistent. The only medical use for drugs in fifty years will be as prescribed by a psychologist - and even then, rarely. Recreational drugs will always be around. Lots of people enjoy drinking alcohol, this trend isn't going to die just because technology has improved. Furthermore, recreational drugs will improve - as more is learned about the brain and how certain chemicals effect certain parts of the brain, new drugs will be made to react with defined regions and cause real short - this allows for higher sails - and intense reactions of a desired effect.
After drugs are practically nonexistent, people may use controlled radiation or electricity to stimulate a certain part of the brain to cause the desired effect. This radiation or electricity may even come from your clothes (your wearable computer) as part of a computer program that you paid for.
Sunday, November 25, 2007
Save the planet
So, the earth is going to look like hell in 50 to 100 years? No. I think we will start making the earth cleaner in 50 years. We will start with air purification. We will get so good at cleaning out the stuff that we have put into the air that we will turn these massive machines from cleaning the atmosphere of buildings to cleaning the atmosphere of our planet Earth.
Clean water? This problem will be quite a bit harder to solve. Most will agree that the best state to revert earth back to would be somewhere around the year 1000. We will probably use sea shells to extract a decently accurate chemical content for ocean water and rocks to give us selenite data that we might not have gathered from ice today.
Ice caps? I'm sure that we will have melted most of the northern ice caps before we ever think about making them anew. This is shameful for geologists who would have been able to learn much about earth that will by this time been long ago melted into oblivion, but there's nothing we can do about this. The other downside of refreezing Arctic ice is that it will also revert coastlines and may destroy harbors, swamps, and other low waterways that will then be supporting life.
Animals? Darwin was right - creatures do evolve. Creatures have and will continue to evolve to adapt to humans and what we do to the planet. By reverting the planet, we will also need to revert animals via genetics and behavior. Will we be able to bring back extinct animals? Sure, but will we want to? Will it be a good thing to do to earth? Might animals that have been extinct for decades be more harmful than introducing a foreign creature into an ecosystem half way around the planet and that becomes an invasive species?
If we are to do it right, cleaning our planet might take as much as 200 to 300 years. What most, whose computers have simulated the worst prospects in their models of the earth have failed to realize is that it will be possible to undo most if not all of the hazards that we have created. Sure, we will have a generation of kids who might only see a sunset through a pane of glass and we might have to reintroduce as many as 50% of land mammals into their environment - but it'll be doable.
Clean water? This problem will be quite a bit harder to solve. Most will agree that the best state to revert earth back to would be somewhere around the year 1000. We will probably use sea shells to extract a decently accurate chemical content for ocean water and rocks to give us selenite data that we might not have gathered from ice today.
Ice caps? I'm sure that we will have melted most of the northern ice caps before we ever think about making them anew. This is shameful for geologists who would have been able to learn much about earth that will by this time been long ago melted into oblivion, but there's nothing we can do about this. The other downside of refreezing Arctic ice is that it will also revert coastlines and may destroy harbors, swamps, and other low waterways that will then be supporting life.
Animals? Darwin was right - creatures do evolve. Creatures have and will continue to evolve to adapt to humans and what we do to the planet. By reverting the planet, we will also need to revert animals via genetics and behavior. Will we be able to bring back extinct animals? Sure, but will we want to? Will it be a good thing to do to earth? Might animals that have been extinct for decades be more harmful than introducing a foreign creature into an ecosystem half way around the planet and that becomes an invasive species?
If we are to do it right, cleaning our planet might take as much as 200 to 300 years. What most, whose computers have simulated the worst prospects in their models of the earth have failed to realize is that it will be possible to undo most if not all of the hazards that we have created. Sure, we will have a generation of kids who might only see a sunset through a pane of glass and we might have to reintroduce as many as 50% of land mammals into their environment - but it'll be doable.
Walk in the Park
In the not too distant future we will be breathing cleaner air in doors than we will have access to outside. This is attributed to pollution that will have been produced in the advancement of our technology.
When we think of taking a walk in the park, will it be on the ground? When we want to go to the beach, will it be at the coast line of some continent or island? When we go camping, will it be in a national forest? No, I think not.
As we build bigger buildings, we have noticed them heating the immediate area around them significantly. Some have started planting trees and other natural foliage to try to minimize the amount of heat these buildings will radiate. As the size of our buildings increase, so may the vastness of the forests on them. And as we realize the impacts of suburbs, small towns, and urban sprawl the value of untouched land will increase past any monetary value. We will build up in already industrial cities and we will eventually build over their parks, we will take out their side walks in favor of walking bridges higher and higher up that may span buildings. So, when you wake up tomorrow, you may be taking the elevator up to go walk the dog at the park.
There are currently fake beaches, ski slopes, and parks in buildings, but they are far and few between. What will change the number and vastness of these fake resorts? Filth. We are polluting, we will continue to pollute, but we don't want to choke on our own pollutants by going to the beach. As technology in air purification improves, we will find a better experience and more health reasons to stay indoors. We will build vast beaches, mountains, and forests on buildings to supplement the great out door experiences that earlier generations had and would have liked to share with the next generation.
Have you ever gone camping? Well, you've got about 50 years to try it, and about 25 years where you can still go places to be one with the wilderness. One might argue that since so many people enjoy hiking and camping, and since more and better air and water purification technology will exist, that people will still go camping in 75 and 100 years. I'd submit that; 1. though a good person might try to prevent it, camping still has some small environmental impact, 2. who wants to go camping with planes overhead, cell phones ringing, and the reoccurring noise of engines running, and 3. the impact of camping will cause laws to be made to inhibit it.
When we think of taking a walk in the park, will it be on the ground? When we want to go to the beach, will it be at the coast line of some continent or island? When we go camping, will it be in a national forest? No, I think not.
As we build bigger buildings, we have noticed them heating the immediate area around them significantly. Some have started planting trees and other natural foliage to try to minimize the amount of heat these buildings will radiate. As the size of our buildings increase, so may the vastness of the forests on them. And as we realize the impacts of suburbs, small towns, and urban sprawl the value of untouched land will increase past any monetary value. We will build up in already industrial cities and we will eventually build over their parks, we will take out their side walks in favor of walking bridges higher and higher up that may span buildings. So, when you wake up tomorrow, you may be taking the elevator up to go walk the dog at the park.
There are currently fake beaches, ski slopes, and parks in buildings, but they are far and few between. What will change the number and vastness of these fake resorts? Filth. We are polluting, we will continue to pollute, but we don't want to choke on our own pollutants by going to the beach. As technology in air purification improves, we will find a better experience and more health reasons to stay indoors. We will build vast beaches, mountains, and forests on buildings to supplement the great out door experiences that earlier generations had and would have liked to share with the next generation.
Have you ever gone camping? Well, you've got about 50 years to try it, and about 25 years where you can still go places to be one with the wilderness. One might argue that since so many people enjoy hiking and camping, and since more and better air and water purification technology will exist, that people will still go camping in 75 and 100 years. I'd submit that; 1. though a good person might try to prevent it, camping still has some small environmental impact, 2. who wants to go camping with planes overhead, cell phones ringing, and the reoccurring noise of engines running, and 3. the impact of camping will cause laws to be made to inhibit it.
God advances
Some people feel themselves so intellectually superior that they can't fathom how they might have evolved from chimps. Some (more educated) find quantum uncertainty a good way to fit a god into the universe. Still others believe their god as the cause for the big bang or for keeping the universe together in lieu of finding a "dark matter". Personally, I find my god at the center of human ignorance.
In the days of Jesus, the church ruled; earth was at the center of the universe, alchemists ran ramped, one might fall off the side of the earth if they were to sail too far, and a god might cure you of a terminal ailment if you were holey enough. Today, we know there is no center of the universe. Today, we know it is possible to create gold with the right heat and pressure. Today, we know of no possible way to fall off the edge of the earth. And today, we know that an immune system might fight off an ailment or one might die of that same ailment - no help from God.
Would it be wise for an atheist to think that science will rule out all places in the universe for a god? Not hardly. A believer will always have a reason to believe. There will always be a dark corner where wisdom and science hasn't pried for a god to lurk. And Raliens might one day have the technology to launch a ship to the far side of a commit - and if God wills it, may they return empty handed but safely to their worried loved ones.
I do see good in religion; both in present times and any future humanity might hold. Religion is a great unifier of different people. I believe that it is religion more than law that has kept civil unrest at bay in the past and may still assist in keeping the peace (and helping start wars) in the future.
In the days of Jesus, the church ruled; earth was at the center of the universe, alchemists ran ramped, one might fall off the side of the earth if they were to sail too far, and a god might cure you of a terminal ailment if you were holey enough. Today, we know there is no center of the universe. Today, we know it is possible to create gold with the right heat and pressure. Today, we know of no possible way to fall off the edge of the earth. And today, we know that an immune system might fight off an ailment or one might die of that same ailment - no help from God.
Would it be wise for an atheist to think that science will rule out all places in the universe for a god? Not hardly. A believer will always have a reason to believe. There will always be a dark corner where wisdom and science hasn't pried for a god to lurk. And Raliens might one day have the technology to launch a ship to the far side of a commit - and if God wills it, may they return empty handed but safely to their worried loved ones.
I do see good in religion; both in present times and any future humanity might hold. Religion is a great unifier of different people. I believe that it is religion more than law that has kept civil unrest at bay in the past and may still assist in keeping the peace (and helping start wars) in the future.
Free energy
Every living organism uses energy. This really means that every creature takes energy from something else and converts it. Humans (and all other mammals) eat and breath to sustain life. However, in order to power our machines we require more energy than just that needed to sustains human life. In our industrial civilizations, turbines must turn. In order to do this, a liquid is generally heated or something is burned. This process happens every day around most people that live in industrial countries who don't give the processes taking place a second thought. The electrical power we use, the automobiles we drive, and all other engines we use are powered by a spinning rod.
In the future, we will still use spinning rods as we do today to meet our energy needs. What will change is how we spin these turbines. Coal has been used for centuries for trains and later for electrical power plants. Then we came into the nuclear age and used radioactive decay to boil water to turn turbines. Now we use wind and water as they did a hundred years ago to spin wheels to grind sugar, but now we use this energy to feed our electronics. We have been damning up rivers for the last century for power and now we are creating large farms of wind mills. Tomorrow, we will be submerging even larger turbines deep into the ocean where there are consistently strong currents.
In fifty years or so, we will start to replace our turbines with solar power on a massive scale. We will have massive arrays of solar panels in orbit to provide massive amounts of energy. This will eventually provide the world with most of its energy, however since the arrays will be owned by one or two entities, communities will want to supplement their energy needs with underwater turbines, wind mills and lightning energy.
Our transportation will continue to be hybrid and the Prius will be remembered as the first. However, future transportation won't rely on petroleum or diesel or any other type of liquid natural gas - that will get too expensive and be reserved solely for the manufacture plastics. Future transportation will rely on hydrogen fuel cells, electricity supplied from terrestrial roads and solar power.
Why not petroleum? There are numerous reasons: it pollutes our environment, costs energy to obtain, is used in the manufacture of synthetics and building material, it will become illegal to run an engine with it. There will come a time when the Middle East will be known not for how many barrels of crude oil they can provide, but for how many tons of prefabricated plastics they ship. Ton for ton, raw plastic sells for more than raw crude or even petroleum. Since we rely on plastics for much of our light weight equipment, burning the oil that would have been otherwise used in the manufacture of plastic will become illegal. Since it is cheaper to ship plastic and burning oil will be illegal, plastic will start to be manufactured on the site of the oil drilling platforms whenever possible.
Clean energy? Not exactly. There will still be drilling for liquid gas which has impact. Large solar arrays may block sunlight over earth for periods. Nuclear power will still be used. Large ocean turbines are sure to kill some sea creatures if they spin fast enough. Recycling plastic produces ozone gases. The disposal of chemicals used in printed circuit board etching process and integrated circuit chips are very hazardous.
In the future, we will still use spinning rods as we do today to meet our energy needs. What will change is how we spin these turbines. Coal has been used for centuries for trains and later for electrical power plants. Then we came into the nuclear age and used radioactive decay to boil water to turn turbines. Now we use wind and water as they did a hundred years ago to spin wheels to grind sugar, but now we use this energy to feed our electronics. We have been damning up rivers for the last century for power and now we are creating large farms of wind mills. Tomorrow, we will be submerging even larger turbines deep into the ocean where there are consistently strong currents.
In fifty years or so, we will start to replace our turbines with solar power on a massive scale. We will have massive arrays of solar panels in orbit to provide massive amounts of energy. This will eventually provide the world with most of its energy, however since the arrays will be owned by one or two entities, communities will want to supplement their energy needs with underwater turbines, wind mills and lightning energy.
Our transportation will continue to be hybrid and the Prius will be remembered as the first. However, future transportation won't rely on petroleum or diesel or any other type of liquid natural gas - that will get too expensive and be reserved solely for the manufacture plastics. Future transportation will rely on hydrogen fuel cells, electricity supplied from terrestrial roads and solar power.
Why not petroleum? There are numerous reasons: it pollutes our environment, costs energy to obtain, is used in the manufacture of synthetics and building material, it will become illegal to run an engine with it. There will come a time when the Middle East will be known not for how many barrels of crude oil they can provide, but for how many tons of prefabricated plastics they ship. Ton for ton, raw plastic sells for more than raw crude or even petroleum. Since we rely on plastics for much of our light weight equipment, burning the oil that would have been otherwise used in the manufacture of plastic will become illegal. Since it is cheaper to ship plastic and burning oil will be illegal, plastic will start to be manufactured on the site of the oil drilling platforms whenever possible.
Clean energy? Not exactly. There will still be drilling for liquid gas which has impact. Large solar arrays may block sunlight over earth for periods. Nuclear power will still be used. Large ocean turbines are sure to kill some sea creatures if they spin fast enough. Recycling plastic produces ozone gases. The disposal of chemicals used in printed circuit board etching process and integrated circuit chips are very hazardous.
Building for tech
Humans have reproduced with the speed of algae on a fish tank since the beginning of the 1900s to today. Though everyone has space on this Earth, there is a much better reason to build large metropolises than to deal with overpopulation. This is information exchange. If you work, eat, and live all in the same structure, you spend less time traveling from one place to another. You spend more time working, eating, and living. Your information has to travel a shorter distance, your food has to travel a shorter distance, and you have to travel a shorter distances to work, play, and sleep. All of this means more gets done with less energy.
How massive can we make a city building? In the next century we shall see, but i don't believe that we will meet any limitations until we reach about 50 or 60 thousand feet. We will no doubt have the materials to keep breathable air in, but what happens when our Sun increases the intensity of radiation that we know today can burn out whole power grids and take down satellites? At this height, we have much less atmosphere to slow these particles from our Sun so that they don't damage us.
Engineering disasters will inevitably happen. Though these buildings will be on such a massive scale that disasters normally won't happen to the whole structure but to peaces. Like the Coliseum in Rome that was built by several builders and of which some parts have collapsed and others are left intact. So will these mass structures of metropolises be developed by multiple builders and may fall in parts.
How massive can we make a city building? In the next century we shall see, but i don't believe that we will meet any limitations until we reach about 50 or 60 thousand feet. We will no doubt have the materials to keep breathable air in, but what happens when our Sun increases the intensity of radiation that we know today can burn out whole power grids and take down satellites? At this height, we have much less atmosphere to slow these particles from our Sun so that they don't damage us.
Engineering disasters will inevitably happen. Though these buildings will be on such a massive scale that disasters normally won't happen to the whole structure but to peaces. Like the Coliseum in Rome that was built by several builders and of which some parts have collapsed and others are left intact. So will these mass structures of metropolises be developed by multiple builders and may fall in parts.
How fast can civilians go
We and our goods will continue to get from one point to another with much greater speed. We used animals that move quicker and heavier burdens than we humans do to help us in our conquests until the later part of the 1800s. At this point we used our own facilities in mechanics to move us as fast and sometimes just a little bit faster than we could with other animals. But it wasn't until the 1920s and later that we built machines to carry us much faster than other animals could.
With the introduction of air planes we have really started to move. Most modern commercial air craft carry us at mach .3 or more. The trouble with our current long range transportation is boarding and deboarding - it's time consuming and uncomfortable. Personal transportation is generally preferred for its comfort and personalization. But most of us only have automobiles that travel along man made roads at mach .1 and have difficulty going much faster.
The NASA Space Shuttle travels at 18,000 miles per hour around the Earth when it achieves its low earth orbit (LEO). That's a pretty decent speed to travel even if I spend an hour or so boarding and another hour deboarding. So, why not use the Shuttle to travel from Florida to Hong Kong? Reasons: 1. three large tanks of highly volatile liquids, 2. most astronauts get sick when they get into orbit, 3. 2% of NASA Shuttle missions have ended in loss of life and vehicle. If the FAA had to report 2% of airplane flights ended in total loss of life and loss of the vehicle, I think the air lines would be in a lot of financial and legal trouble.
So, can civilians travel at 18,000 miles per hour to another country? Can I get something shipped to Sidney in an hour? Sure. The majority of the resistance (Earth's atmosphere) that those three large tanks on the Shuttle are there to get past is within 30,000 feet of sea level. So, if we can get cargo to 30,000 feet without expending much fuel, the rest of the flight shouldn't require much fuel at all.
And reentering to 30,000 feet? Well, we don't want to send space planes from the ground to 30,000 feet every time they make a run, so we'll have to keep them up there. I think we'll end up having bunches of bags of gas hovering where our space crafts may dock to them and send their cargo to and from Earth's surface by other means. Though, I know of no technology that can stop a couple of tons traveling more than 10,00 miles per hour in mid air - we'll have to wait for that one.
With the introduction of air planes we have really started to move. Most modern commercial air craft carry us at mach .3 or more. The trouble with our current long range transportation is boarding and deboarding - it's time consuming and uncomfortable. Personal transportation is generally preferred for its comfort and personalization. But most of us only have automobiles that travel along man made roads at mach .1 and have difficulty going much faster.
The NASA Space Shuttle travels at 18,000 miles per hour around the Earth when it achieves its low earth orbit (LEO). That's a pretty decent speed to travel even if I spend an hour or so boarding and another hour deboarding. So, why not use the Shuttle to travel from Florida to Hong Kong? Reasons: 1. three large tanks of highly volatile liquids, 2. most astronauts get sick when they get into orbit, 3. 2% of NASA Shuttle missions have ended in loss of life and vehicle. If the FAA had to report 2% of airplane flights ended in total loss of life and loss of the vehicle, I think the air lines would be in a lot of financial and legal trouble.
So, can civilians travel at 18,000 miles per hour to another country? Can I get something shipped to Sidney in an hour? Sure. The majority of the resistance (Earth's atmosphere) that those three large tanks on the Shuttle are there to get past is within 30,000 feet of sea level. So, if we can get cargo to 30,000 feet without expending much fuel, the rest of the flight shouldn't require much fuel at all.
And reentering to 30,000 feet? Well, we don't want to send space planes from the ground to 30,000 feet every time they make a run, so we'll have to keep them up there. I think we'll end up having bunches of bags of gas hovering where our space crafts may dock to them and send their cargo to and from Earth's surface by other means. Though, I know of no technology that can stop a couple of tons traveling more than 10,00 miles per hour in mid air - we'll have to wait for that one.
Devices everywhere
The first wearable computer was first designed in the shape of a phone by Mororola in the mid '70s and was just a radio transceiver until recently. As of recent however, these phones have organizer features, web, email, and freeze ups. Next, they will have speech processors, voice recognition, and face recognition. In the next decade, these "phones" will change physical shape into collar tags, necklaces, hats, glasses, shoes, shirts and so on. But these "phones" or lets call them computers as that will continue to become their primary use - to compute data and not to help you transmit your to other people. So, these 'computers', will not only be delegated to your head and be able to notify your doctor when you have a cold, but will also communicate from your belt and tell you when you need to eat - how fat you are, and maybe what to eat. Your shoes will tell you (and your shoe manufacturer) how much you walk, how you walk, when you walk, when you should get another pair of shoes.
All of these computing devices are going to require one hell of a battery, but don't worry you're good at supplying energy to your devices. You probably plug in your cell phone at least once a day and change out the batteries in your tv remote, wall clocks and other devices once a year or so. So why not remembering to plug in a couple dozen more devices - especially if they remind you? Because they shouldn't have to remind you. Your shoes are moving as you walk, your belt is flexing as you bend, and your glasses are shielding your eyes from the rays from the sun, and if you have a cold that's just more energy for your hat. So, you will be charging your devices, just not necessarily plugging them in.
Now, what about communications? Well, besides communicating to your computer/phone and updating your itinerary and emailing your boss to cancel your appointment when the road notifies your phone that it is too congested for you to possibly make it using your form of transportation or because your belt notifies your phone that you really really need food now. Your shoes are also communicating how you walk - which foot you prefer, how much pressure parts of your foot prefer, and reporting how the shoe itself it holding up to the shoe manufacturer and your doctor.
What happens when your belt says it's time to eat or excrete? Do you really want a computer telling you these things? And do you really want a computer telling others these things about you? I think the more appropriate question would be whether you will have a choice. And the very succinct answer is NO.
I once told someone that I thought that in less than 50 years we'd be tapped into the internet on a much more personal level. With glasses that have a camera and come with face recognition software and will identify people to you and previously stored thoughts/notes about them, their phone number, etc. He commented that he wouldn't wear them, that he wouldn't want the possibility of others knowing who he'd seen and how he thought of them - I agree. But I asked him if he really thought he'd have a choice. He thought he would. I asked if he thought he might still be working in 50 years - maybe. So, I asked if he thought he could still be competitive in a workplace where everyone knew everyone else's name and their contact information immediately at site and he didn't? The discussion ended pretty swiftly there after.
We are currently surrounded by computers - some even wear them now. So what happens when we are constantly looking through them? Now much more will we accomplish by being able to communicate our ideas to everyone in our every conscious moment? Only time can tell that for certain, but given the history of our technology and communications I see the magnitude of our inventiveness increasing to a staggering event - by today's standard.
In the future, the only disconnect will be with those in space. Those of us who decide to colonize the moon will have 3 seconds of delay between us and the majority of the information that we hope to access - which will be on Earth for some time to come. Those on Mars will have over a minute of disconnect. This might not seem like much, but when compared with the milliseconds and nanoseconds of information disconnect experienced by those of us still living on Earth, it will become staggeringly debilitating.
All of these computing devices are going to require one hell of a battery, but don't worry you're good at supplying energy to your devices. You probably plug in your cell phone at least once a day and change out the batteries in your tv remote, wall clocks and other devices once a year or so. So why not remembering to plug in a couple dozen more devices - especially if they remind you? Because they shouldn't have to remind you. Your shoes are moving as you walk, your belt is flexing as you bend, and your glasses are shielding your eyes from the rays from the sun, and if you have a cold that's just more energy for your hat. So, you will be charging your devices, just not necessarily plugging them in.
Now, what about communications? Well, besides communicating to your computer/phone and updating your itinerary and emailing your boss to cancel your appointment when the road notifies your phone that it is too congested for you to possibly make it using your form of transportation or because your belt notifies your phone that you really really need food now. Your shoes are also communicating how you walk - which foot you prefer, how much pressure parts of your foot prefer, and reporting how the shoe itself it holding up to the shoe manufacturer and your doctor.
What happens when your belt says it's time to eat or excrete? Do you really want a computer telling you these things? And do you really want a computer telling others these things about you? I think the more appropriate question would be whether you will have a choice. And the very succinct answer is NO.
I once told someone that I thought that in less than 50 years we'd be tapped into the internet on a much more personal level. With glasses that have a camera and come with face recognition software and will identify people to you and previously stored thoughts/notes about them, their phone number, etc. He commented that he wouldn't wear them, that he wouldn't want the possibility of others knowing who he'd seen and how he thought of them - I agree. But I asked him if he really thought he'd have a choice. He thought he would. I asked if he thought he might still be working in 50 years - maybe. So, I asked if he thought he could still be competitive in a workplace where everyone knew everyone else's name and their contact information immediately at site and he didn't? The discussion ended pretty swiftly there after.
We are currently surrounded by computers - some even wear them now. So what happens when we are constantly looking through them? Now much more will we accomplish by being able to communicate our ideas to everyone in our every conscious moment? Only time can tell that for certain, but given the history of our technology and communications I see the magnitude of our inventiveness increasing to a staggering event - by today's standard.
In the future, the only disconnect will be with those in space. Those of us who decide to colonize the moon will have 3 seconds of delay between us and the majority of the information that we hope to access - which will be on Earth for some time to come. Those on Mars will have over a minute of disconnect. This might not seem like much, but when compared with the milliseconds and nanoseconds of information disconnect experienced by those of us still living on Earth, it will become staggeringly debilitating.
Informed Isolation
I am a native Hawaiian living on my volcano with my family and friends in the Christian calendar year of 1500 AD, ruled by my King and Queen. What do I know? I can look up at the sky and measure those changes, I can measure crop growth on different volcanoes, I can go fishing, lay on the beach and I am content. I have my gods, I do what my religious leaders tell me, and the gods stay happy and as content as I am. I know only of the volcanoes I live on, the ocean that surrounds me, the night sky, and legends. No one around me is any the wiser.
On the other hand, if I were born on the opposite side of Earth, say in Rome Itily in the same year of 1500 AD, ruled by my King and Queen and Pope and God. What do I know? Well, if my family has money, I can read, travel, and I have access to scholars. I might not know anymore as a rich Italian than a rich Hawaiian, but I have access to information and I know that there is a whole wide world out there that may be round.
As time passes and there are more and more people around me, I start to wonder how much they are helping me? Do I want to be the Hawaiian or the Roman. Or can I have the best of both worlds and be the Hawaiian with a data connection?
Since all that we will need in order to progress is communication (though we need other humans to survive) what will the next century bring in development?
On the other hand, if I were born on the opposite side of Earth, say in Rome Itily in the same year of 1500 AD, ruled by my King and Queen and Pope and God. What do I know? Well, if my family has money, I can read, travel, and I have access to scholars. I might not know anymore as a rich Italian than a rich Hawaiian, but I have access to information and I know that there is a whole wide world out there that may be round.
As time passes and there are more and more people around me, I start to wonder how much they are helping me? Do I want to be the Hawaiian or the Roman. Or can I have the best of both worlds and be the Hawaiian with a data connection?
Since all that we will need in order to progress is communication (though we need other humans to survive) what will the next century bring in development?
History allows us to contemplate the future.
I don't believe in many things. I do however believe that man will be one of the species in the universe to travel beyond their planet of origin and conquer other regions of the universe. I believe that in some evolutionary form, our species (human or super human) may outlast the Sun. Though I find it more probable that instead of outlasting the Sun in 6 billion years, we will be the means of its destruction much sooner.
On one planet orbiting a star, there are millions of different life forms. Humans are the only one of all of the different species on Earth that has left this planet. Humans are the only species on this planet that has changed what Earth looks like from outer space and the climate on Earth. If we had serious competition from another species for planetary supremacy would we have developed technology quicker to fend off the forces of our foe like we do in wars with other humans? Or, would we never get to this evolutionary point because we would be more concerned with getting food for ourselves in new regions of less competition from extreme climates or other creatures and never be able to call one place home?
I believe that in order for a species to develop as we have, and be able to leave their home planet, control the climate of a planet, and control the destiny of other species - there has to be a dominant species. One organism has to be allowed to develop both in knowledge and in physical evolution to grasp certain concepts (like language, writing, math, and agriculture) in order to thrive as we have.
Is there life on other planets? All sorts. More than we can imagine. Earth has life, Europa may have life, Mars had life. May it be possible for life to exist in pockets of ice if not solid ice on planets or flying around space? Do our giant planets have the right chemicals to support life? I think that the answer is that it is most probably, yes. I also think that it is highly probable that we are the most advanced species in our solar system - but only by 7 to 10 thousand years of evolutionary progress. That's not all that much time. If we get past our stint into global warming and into a new generation of actually learning how to control our climate at whim instead of just warming and cooling a whole planet, I think we will witness other species in our solar system attain technological tools of their own design.
We learned to harness fire about 100,000 years ago. Then from discovering iron and copper to making bronze and steel about 2,000 years ago; before this time we used slate - rock. For thousands of year the highest man made structure was the Great Pyramid in Egypt. Then, for almost a millennium the Leaning Tower of Pisa, stood as the tallest sky scraper. And the Great Wall of China was the only man made object that the unaided eye of a human could see from an orbiting space craft.
And now? In the last hundred years we have stunted all of these achievements. Plastics have the strength of steel. Towers are built in a couple of years that would tower over the structures that Egyptians took decades to build. And when man goes into space, he can still see the Great Wall of China, but what he can see most are the lights from big cities.
There were 1 billion humans on earth in the year 1900 and 6 billion in the year 2000 - does our rapid technological development have anything to do with this? I think that better communication and transportation is playing biggest factor in this growth in population, as well as the exponential growth of our technology.
On one planet orbiting a star, there are millions of different life forms. Humans are the only one of all of the different species on Earth that has left this planet. Humans are the only species on this planet that has changed what Earth looks like from outer space and the climate on Earth. If we had serious competition from another species for planetary supremacy would we have developed technology quicker to fend off the forces of our foe like we do in wars with other humans? Or, would we never get to this evolutionary point because we would be more concerned with getting food for ourselves in new regions of less competition from extreme climates or other creatures and never be able to call one place home?
I believe that in order for a species to develop as we have, and be able to leave their home planet, control the climate of a planet, and control the destiny of other species - there has to be a dominant species. One organism has to be allowed to develop both in knowledge and in physical evolution to grasp certain concepts (like language, writing, math, and agriculture) in order to thrive as we have.
Is there life on other planets? All sorts. More than we can imagine. Earth has life, Europa may have life, Mars had life. May it be possible for life to exist in pockets of ice if not solid ice on planets or flying around space? Do our giant planets have the right chemicals to support life? I think that the answer is that it is most probably, yes. I also think that it is highly probable that we are the most advanced species in our solar system - but only by 7 to 10 thousand years of evolutionary progress. That's not all that much time. If we get past our stint into global warming and into a new generation of actually learning how to control our climate at whim instead of just warming and cooling a whole planet, I think we will witness other species in our solar system attain technological tools of their own design.
We learned to harness fire about 100,000 years ago. Then from discovering iron and copper to making bronze and steel about 2,000 years ago; before this time we used slate - rock. For thousands of year the highest man made structure was the Great Pyramid in Egypt. Then, for almost a millennium the Leaning Tower of Pisa, stood as the tallest sky scraper. And the Great Wall of China was the only man made object that the unaided eye of a human could see from an orbiting space craft.
And now? In the last hundred years we have stunted all of these achievements. Plastics have the strength of steel. Towers are built in a couple of years that would tower over the structures that Egyptians took decades to build. And when man goes into space, he can still see the Great Wall of China, but what he can see most are the lights from big cities.
There were 1 billion humans on earth in the year 1900 and 6 billion in the year 2000 - does our rapid technological development have anything to do with this? I think that better communication and transportation is playing biggest factor in this growth in population, as well as the exponential growth of our technology.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)