Conservatives cannot stop future

[futuretalk]

Conservatives cannot stop aggressive future

 

The “golden age of biotech” 2010-2020 will produce many health miracles. Ability to re-grow organs, muscles and bones will begin to surface during this time adding years of healthy life to ‘boomers and seniors.

 

The “golden age of medical nanotech” 2015-2035 will further drive our future forward with discoveries that could eliminate cancer, heart disease, and most other illnesses – including aging. By mid-2020s, nanobots could be whizzing through our bodies keeping every cell in perfect, youthful condition.

 

By late-2030s, a computerized network of nano-machines could evolve with the ability to immediately replicate every cell and neuron in our body – including memories, personality; everything that describes us as an individual – and reload the entire package, atom-by-atom; into another ‘housing unit’ should disaster strike the old one.

 

Is this schedule aggressive? Of course it is; but if we plot exponential curves on technology advancements suggested by Kurzweil and other visionaries, this future could happen.

 

Today’s evangelical views on embryonic stem cell cloning and disdain for scientific goals that could one day achieve indefinite lifespan may impede this future, but will not stop it from being realized.

[Buffy]

Be careful about pejoratives here Fut: "Conservatives" is a pretty big group, when what it appears that you're talking about is relatively small but vocal subgroup that really can't be characterized. Many conservatives (Nancy Reagan!) are very vocal in their support of stem cell research, and you can find many fundamentalist Christians who do as well. I prefer to create a new group name for these people: Scientific Luddites.

 

No, they can't stop the future, but they can slow it down. Working with them or carefully marginalizing them by making their views look out of step with the beliefs of the majority, can help move it forward, but you need to be prepared to argue on *moral* grounds, that advancement is either good or at least neutral to "traditional values."

 

Your schedule sounds very much like predictions for fusion power systems: its always ten years away. The problem is that a lot of the obstacles to this technology are not even understood yet, and in my book any thing in that state is "in the unpredictable future."

 

I've spent a lot of money on Ray's equipment, but I think he's a total nutjob these days. I read him as really interesting science fiction, but his predictions of the *application* of the technology smack of not paying attention to actual human needs (e.g. organ replacement) as opposed to the "wouldn't it be really cool if we could replace every cell in someone's body?" without any discussion of *why* you'd want to actually do that. To me, *that's* the most interesting question: what would you *actually want* to do if you had these nano-thingies?

 

Think macro about nano,

Buffy

[futuretalk]

Those who advocate a ‘negative’ future often fail to understand how advancing technologies interplay with each other, which often results in exponential growth.

 

According to experts, information technology is doubling its power, as measured in price performance and bandwidth capacity, every year. We will see the power of information technology multiplied by a factor of a billion in 25 years.

 

When you imagine increasing the power of computers for the same price, computation, communication, as well as our knowledge of biology, and knowledge of intelligence processes in the brain, by a factor of a billion in-25 years, you arrive at the radical conclusions stated above.

 

As we multi-track science and technology advances expected in the next couple of decades, we can easily predict that most of today’s human “ills” will disappear.

 

Technologies to accomplish these miracles are already underway today, and will mature with expected mid-2030s intelligence advances.

 

True, between now and 2020, WMD attacks are extremely likely, but as intelligence advances, these violent activities should not get out of hand to the point of endangering civilization’s existence.

 

Each “negative” encounter we experience in our trek towards the future pushes advances that will help develop corrective measures to offset those bad situations.

 

There are two possible futures in store for humanity. One where we stumble along and allow radical religious groups to influence us with their efforts to impede progress and resist change; or a brighter future filled with the knowledge that exponential advances in science and technology will one day provide a ‘paradise’ life for everyone on Earth.

 

The choice is ours, and this writer believes that humanity will find its paradise.

[Buffy]

...we can easily predict that most of today’s human “ills” will disappear...

Whoa! Nirvana in our time! I know as well as anyone how fast technology advances--and yes, due to a multiplier effect--and how we can exploit it. I'd suggest however that you might want to ground yourself a little bit because its easy to make vague wide-ranging predictions like these and *still be wrong*! The quoted statement is exactly like the "End of History" and "Long Boom" predictions out of just the last ten years. You don't have to be a Luddite or even a simple "conservative" to be skeptical of claims that "most of today's human ills will disappear," just about everyone will reject that kind of statement as being a complete disconnect with reality.

 

You probably want to start getting more specific here about what your actual predictions are and start walking us through why you're sure that the prerequisite "technologies...will mature with expected mid-2030s intelligence advances..." It otherwise just comes across as content-free blather.

 

Step up to the plate here, Fut. There are so many more interesting obstacles to overcome than "conservative" resistance and "radical religious groups" with WMDs. There are practical obstacles to implementation of technology (e.g. fusion power). There are practical infrastructure problems (e.g. Hydrogen distribution systems). There are moral resistances (e.g. Eugenics would evolve us faster, but will we ever agree to do it as a society just for the sake of advancement?).

 

Not trying to stifle you here, just trying to get you to talk about something that leads to discussion rather than soliloquy...

 

Chattily,

Buffy

[futuretalk]

The following is a typical description of how technology will advance exponentially:

 

“No one will die of cancer in ten years,” claimed then National Cancer Institute Director Andrew von Eschenbach in a speech delivered in January 2004.

 

“It may not be cured at that time”, the Director added, “but drugs will be available to eliminate the pain, suffering and death that cancer now dishes out”.

 

Much of today’s research focuses on identifying detailed characteristics of each type of cancer. This enables scientists to search for weaknesses, and then develop appropriate detection and therapeutic systems that can lead to a particular cancer’s demise.

 

Of course, all new systems must pass rigorous, and sometimes lengthy and frustrating tests before they become mainstream treatments. Add to this, the fact that less than one in ten of these new therapies will ever reach final trial stage with success.

 

However, many factors feed the NCI optimism. Increased funding that puts more researchers on the job, an alliance made with major nanotech organizations creating huge synergies, and new infotech systems; including supercomputers that perform thousands of simulations in hours to weed out therapies that may not be successful. Finally, timesaving “terabyte-speed” Internet2 communications will allow more and faster cooperation between research centers.

 

These are examples of what Ray Kurzweil calls “technologies advancing exponentially”. Over the next nine years, progress in this “war” will double several times, which could make the prediction: “All cancer deaths eliminated by 2015”, become reality.

 

All of the projections I discuss are supported with data not unlike this cancer scenario that supports its chance to become reality.

[futuretalk]

The following recently-published piece on energy is another example of how I include supporting data:

 

Energy is the life-blood of America – it affects our economy, standard of living and national security. Our prime energy source, oil, is a product we can no longer afford. High gas prices, air pollution and global warming have brought us to the point where we must find a better energy source.

 

Experts predict that by 2030, new energy technologies described below could drastically cut our oil consumption, and slash reliance on electricity-producing fossil fuels like coal and natural gas, almost entirely. Added to our portfolio of existing nuclear and hydroelectric power, these new energy sources could virtually eliminate our reliance on fossil fuels to run our homes and economy.

 

Bio-fuels – in the nation’s heartland, scientists are working to turn agricultural waste or ‘biomass’ such as switchgrass, wheat straw, cornstalks and miscanthus into a fuel called cellulosic ethanol that could be produced commercially. Department of Energy (DOE) officials believe that by 2030, bio-fuels could meet 30 percent of our transportation fuel needs.

 

Hydrogen – this new technology stores energy more effectively than batteries, burns twice as efficiently in a fuel cell as gasoline does in an internal combustion engine and leaves only water. It’s plentiful, clean, and capable of powering cars, homes and factories. The DOE predicts an all-hydrogen vehicle could become price effective by 2020; and by 2030, this renewable non-polluting energy could power ten percent of our cars, homes and factories; by 2050, 50 percent.

 

Artificial photosynthesis – Professor James Barber of London’s Imperial College describes a recent understanding of biological catalysts that allow plants and trees to ‘split’ water to obtain hydrogen and release oxygen. Barber says this provides a blueprint for developing artificial systems to produce hydrogen that we could use as fuel. “This will not happen immediately”, he says, “but with concerted effort, a system could emerge in 25 years”.

 

Hydroelectric, nuclear, fusion – 20% of the world receives electricity from hydropower, but these systems wreak havoc flooding large land areas. Though nuclear reactors are improving, people still remember Three Mile Island and Chernobyl; and these facilities are expensive to operate. Fusion power holds great promise and could become the world’s preferred energy source in the last half of this century. EU, Japan, China, India, South Korea, Russia and U.S. have joined to build the world’s first fusion reactor by 2016 in hopes to prove the merits of this futuristic energy.

 

Solar, wind – these technologies show great promise, but the sun and wind do not always cooperate, which creates an unreliable energy flow. However, the late Nobel laureate Richard Smalley proposed a solution. He devised a plan that would send energy via satellite to in-home nanotech-built storage units, each holding 48-hours backup power. Smalley imagined that by 2050, we could tap all sources – hydroelectric, nuclear, wind, solar, hydrogen – and distribute uninterrupted, cheap, non-polluting energy to all of North America.

 

The major roadblocks to this new energy era are not technological, they are political; too many government officials favor ‘big oil’. If we can overcome this situation, the payoffs are huge: we’ll reduce trade deficits, enhance national security, and create millions of non-exportable jobs; and America will become more self-sufficient in the process.

[Buffy]

Bio-fuels – in the nation’s heartland, scientists are working to turn agricultural waste or ‘biomass’ such as switchgrass, wheat straw, cornstalks and miscanthus into a fuel called cellulosic ethanol that could be produced commercially. Department of Energy (DOE) officials believe that by 2030, bio-fuels could meet 30 percent of our transportation fuel needs.

....

The major roadblocks to this new energy era are not technological, they are political...

Okay, here's an issue: the net energy of bio fuels is definitely negative if you're talking about corn. That's not a political obstacle, that's one of logic: do you really want to bother with a fuel that is going to *lose* energy by making it? Even if we go with "waste" sources of bio-fuel, there are many technical obstacles of both scaling and staying above net positive energy production (background: corn is super wasteful because it costs so much to grow).

 

"That's what I'm talking about!" :doh:

Buffy

[futuretalk]

I do not believe bio-fuels will become nearly as popular as hydrogen. Moreover, as mentioned, fusion systems will probably power civilization in the last half of this century, should the 2016 experiments prove promising.

[futuretalk]

For more examples of Futuretalk ‘reporting’ style, go to http://www.positivefuturist.com and click on published work tab.

[Buffy]

For more examples of Futuretalk ‘reporting’ style, go to ...

I've become quite familiar with your "reporting style". I'm encouraging you to drop it here. Hypography is for discussions and you're really mostly pontificating. I don't get the sense you even want to hear anything that conflicts with your opinion: when I posed an issue related to bio-fuels, rather than addressing my issue, you brushed it off with:

I do not believe bio-fuels will become nearly as popular as hydrogen.

I'm arguing that they may not become popular *at all* because of the economics involved. Can you respond to that issue?

 

Then even though I mentioned above that the predictions related to fusion have all failed, you launch into:

fusion systems will probably power civilization in the last half of this century, should the 2016 experiments prove promising.

Which is non-sequiter: Sure, IF they prove promising, but they never *have*. They may some day, why you're fixated on the 2016 date when work is ongoing is not clear (you probably could have added a clause with "...when X is expected to be available..") Can you discuss why this 2016 invention is going to have an impact and why it itself is plausible?

 

The key point here is that your predictions just come off as "its all gonna be really cool real soon now! honest! its gonna be in 10 years! All the worlds ills will be solved! TRUST ME! 'Future' is my middle name so I KNOW."

 

Yawn.

 

You're obviously a smart guy, and you study lots of stuff. But you act like there's nothing useful that you can learn from us, or worse, we're all just lower life forms to you, and we should just shut up and listen to you. I'll bet you're actually even a nice guy in real life, but I'd like to encourage you to join the rest of us in *interacting* with your fellow science buffs. THAT's what Hypography is all about.

 

Thank you and have a great day! :doh:

 

I hate Noyings,

Buffy

[Rebiu]

Okay, here's an issue: the net energy of bio fuels is definitely negative if you're talking about corn. That's not a political obstacle, that's one of logic: do you really want to bother with a fuel that is going to *lose* energy by making it? Even if we go with "waste" sources of bio-fuel, there are many technical obstacles of both scaling and staying above net positive energy production (background: corn is super wasteful because it costs so much to grow).

 

"That's what I'm talking about!" :doh:

Buffy

I believe Brazil is having considerable success with their bio fuel programs. Corn is not a useful metric for judging biofuel success. It is an obvious politically motivated concept designed from the start to fail.

[futuretalk]

Buffy, I am sorry you feel that way. Regarding 2016, I assumed you read my post above: "Fusion power holds great promise and could become the world’s preferred energy source in the last half of this century. EU, Japan, China, India, South Korea, Russia and U.S. have joined to build the world’s first fusion reactor by 2016 in hopes to prove the merits of this futuristic energy".

 

However, you have been posting on this site longer than I have, so I will not make any more posts on Hypography.

[Buffy]

I believe Brazil is having considerable success with their bio fuel programs. Corn is not a useful metric for judging biofuel success. It is an obvious politically motivated concept designed from the start to fail.

Brazil has invested a lot in building production, which was based on having an excess of sugar cane (exactly why we use corn), so costs have been less than prices in the past. However just recently prices have spiked (see Salon article subscription/ad view required), causing the cost to rise above petrol prices. In *either* case, the scientist argue that the net energy output is still negative, and its only because the surplus commodity is underpriced and does not fully incorporate environmental damage costs that it looks "economically viable." This is controvertial, and others argue that if all by products are included that there is at least a modest net positive result.

 

This means though that neither corn nor sugarcane is a really good source of bio material, and what we really need to use is "waste bio materials". The problem here is that the energy is much harder to extract, and thus people are working on some new technologies to get around this. There are few results yet, so inline with the theme of this thread, its way too soon to say its right around the corner....

 

Internally combusting,

Buffy

[TheBigDog]

I believe Brazil is having considerable success with their bio fuel programs. Corn is not a useful metric for judging biofuel success. It is an obvious politically motivated concept designed from the start to fail.

I saw this recently. They use sugarcane, not corn. But you are correct. It is a boom for them from the report I saw.

 

Bill

[Buffy]

EU, Japan, China, India, South Korea, Russia and U.S. have joined to build the world’s first fusion reactor by 2016 in hopes to prove the merits of this futuristic energy".

Cool! You could have referenced it! Now why do you think they'll be successful? This is far enough in the future that it could be defunded too! There's an awful lot of experimentation going on and has been for a long time with no progress. What recent breakthroughs do you see that change the odds?

However, you have been posting on this site longer than I have, so I will not make any more posts on Hypography.

No one is asking you to stop posting. I'm asking you to *participate* by *listening*. The only reason for you to stop posting here is if you feel that you are unable to discuss these topics and wish only to post your writings without input or discussion.

 

I would *really like* to see you continue to post here. I'm just asking you to be a *member* of the community.

 

Thanks!

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[Rebiu]

This means though that neither corn nor sugarcane is a really good source of bio material,

Brazil biofuel strategy"Most U.S.-produced ethanol is now made from ground corn in a process that has been faulted as inefficient. Corn yields less sugar per acre than sugar cane, and the refining uses substantial amounts of energy. To keep ethanol competitive with gasoline, major refiners such as Archer Daniels Midland Co. have relied since the 1970s on a tax subsidy, now 51 cents a gallon."

"Mills such as Sao Martinho are highly efficient. The pressed sugar-cane juice can either go to huge fermentation vats to make alcohol or be spun in centrifuges to produce sugar and molasses, depending on which product is priced more favorably on any given day. The plant supplies its own electrical power by burning the crushed outer stalk of the cane, known as bagasse .

 

Exact comparisons are hard to come by, but mill manager Mario Ortiz Gandini said the mill can produce sugar for less than half the price of U.S. ethanol from corn. "No country can beat us," he said."

"Paulo Rodrigues, who manages the family sugar plantation for his father, acknowledges that "sugar has had a bad reputation." But, he said, sugar cane requires fewer chemicals than any crop except pasture. His farm uses wasps to fight insects, reducing the need for chemical pesticides. The crop's dense leaves absorb large amounts of carbon dioxide, making it a good recycler of the greenhouse gas implicated in global warming."