Yes, they are here. I suppose this was inevitable. Parental discretion advised!
Yes, they are here. I suppose this was inevitable. Parental discretion advised!
Yes, they are here. I suppose this was inevitable. Parental discretion advised!
Most frightening stories:
Most hopeful stories:
Most interesting stories, that were not particularly frightening or hopeful, or perhaps were a mixture of both:
NPR had a review of this book recently (below is the Amazon description).
Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow
Yuval Noah Harari, author of the critically-acclaimed New York Times bestseller and international phenomenon Sapiens, returns with an equally original, compelling, and provocative book, turning his focus toward humanity’s future, and our quest to upgrade humans into gods.
Over the past century humankind has managed to do the impossible and rein in famine, plague, and war. This may seem hard to accept, but, as Harari explains in his trademark style—thorough, yet riveting—famine, plague and war have been transformed from incomprehensible and uncontrollable forces of nature into manageable challenges. For the first time ever, more people die from eating too much than from eating too little; more people die from old age than from infectious diseases; and more people commit suicide than are killed by soldiers, terrorists and criminals put together. The average American is a thousand times more likely to die from binging at McDonalds than from being blown up by Al Qaeda.
What then will replace famine, plague, and war at the top of the human agenda? As the self-made gods of planet earth, what destinies will we set ourselves, and which quests will we undertake? Homo Deus explores the projects, dreams and nightmares that will shape the twenty-first century—from overcoming death to creating artificial life. It asks the fundamental questions: Where do we go from here? And how will we protect this fragile world from our own destructive powers? This is the next stage of evolution. This is Homo Deus.
With the same insight and clarity that made Sapiens an international hit and a New York Times bestseller, Harari maps out our future.
Sometimes you look back on a month and feel like nothing very important happened. But November 2016 was obviously not one of those months! I am not going to make any attempt to be apolitical here. I was once a registered independent and still do not consider myself a strong partisan. However, I like to think of myself as being on the side of facts, logic, problem solving, morality and basic goodness. Besides, this blog is about the future of our human civilization and human race. I can’t pretend our chances didn’t just take a turn for the worse.
3 most frightening stories
3 most hopeful stories
3 most interesting stories
Here’s an interesting TED talk on self-driving cars. They are going to save a lot of lives. I think arguments against them like this one on NPR are ignorant at best and immoral at worst. If you can save a million lives a year and you choose not to do it, you are instantly one of history’s mass murderers. Even if there is some bizarre special case someone can cite where a computer might kill someone and a person might not, that’s going to be extremely rare.
Citi and Oxford have a long report called Technology at Work v2.0: The Future Is not What It Used to Be. Among the worrisome statistics and over-the-top infographics: 77% of jobs in China at risk due to automation, compared to 47% in the U.S. 77% seems like a recipe for serious unrest. 47% is still half. Still, maybe these are existing jobs and there will be new jobs created. Like robot repairman, for example. Being the guy who owns the robots seems like a very good option, if you can pull it off. Another eye opening statistic they show is the payback period for investments in robots at 1-2 years in China right now.
I’m going to try picking the three most frightening posts, three most hopeful posts, and three most interesting posts (that are not particularly frightening or hopeful) from January.
3 most frightening posts
3 most hopeful posts
3 most interesting posts
Here’s an article about “Strong AI“:
This is how computers interact with us. They don’t understand English or whatever language we speak, but they do understand binary code. A human programmer tells the computer how to respond to you based on your input. The same thing goes for chess. The computer does not at all understand that it’s playing chess or any other game – it doesn’t even know what a game is. It only knows that, if you make a move in chess, that equates to some machine code to which it should respond. It then references its giant chess book – put there by humans and written in machine code – to decide how to respond to you.
Over the years, these tomes have become enormous. Using the chess example again, it would take many years for a human to sift through one of these tomes, but a computer can do it in seconds. As a result, you now have computers that simulate the total sum of human knowledge with regards to chess and yet they don’t understand a lick of it. What they cando, however, is obey the instructions put there by a human to beat you, handily…
Once we have the technology to make an ambulatory, perceptive robot using pre-written instructions (i.e. the ‘tome’), the challenge will then be to ‘birth’ one that has no pre-written instructions and no prior knowledge of the world, forcing it to learn like a human child. This sort of self-learning robot is an example of what Searle calls ‘Strong AI’.
The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation has awarded the 2015 Luddite awards, Congratulations to the following winners:
In #1 and #2, they argue that any risks from artificial intelligence are so far off that we shouldn’t worry about them now, and that the spillover effects from military AI research will be beneficial overall. In #8, they come out against net neutrality (at least, the recent U.S. legislation with that name). And in #9, they make some claims in favor of genetically modified food organisms that I hadn’t heard before:
Biotechnology is playing an increasing role delivering innovations in agriculture that the world desperately needs to meet rising demands for food, feed, and fiber, as the world’s population continues to grow. The most comprehensive meta-analysis to date shows biotech innovations in crop improvement have increased agricultural yields on average by 22 percent, reduced pesticide use by 37 percent, and increased farmer income by 68 percent. Improvements in animal husbandry have lagged, however, despite numerous needs and opportunities. That changed this year when the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the sale of fast-growing AquAdvantage bioengineered salmon. In their ongoing attempt to ban all genetically improved foods, an organization called Center for Food Safety announced plans to sue the FDA to block the approval.
The salmon represents a real innovation that will improve people’s health while reducing the price of food. It has been improved to reach market size in half the usual time (16-18 months, rather than the usual 32-36) on 20 percent less feed, meaning that for the first time salmon could be a low-cost substitute for meat in American diets. The salmon is intended to be grown in concrete tanks in warehouses close to major markets, like Chicago. The fish are sterile, so they cannot breed with wild salmon in the unlikely event they escape from their concrete tanks and get to an open ocean. They also have been designed to eliminate the potential downsides sometimes associated with conventionally farmed Atlantic salmon, which have been observed to escape from their sea pens and carry parasites or diseases into wild populations.
The FDA took more than a decade to review data on the salmon to ensure it would be safe for humans to eat. At the end of an exhaustive review process that examined thousands of pages of data and scientific literature, the FDA concluded the AquAdvantage salmon is, in all respects relevant to health, safety, and nutrition, indistinguishable from any other Atlantic salmon. Thus it is safe for consumers to eat and requires no special labels. These findings elicited an entirely predictable response from the neo-Luddite enemies of innovation.
I am not necessarily against all bioengineering of food, but I am concerned about biodiversity generally and the resilience of our food-growing system. Even if genetically modified (or hybridized or plain old inbred) organisms are deemed safe for consumption, you don’t want your entire food supply to come from a very narrow gene pool or to be controlled by a very narrow range of interests. With any new technology, you can pursue it while actively taking steps to mitigate the risks, and constantly asking yourself the hard questions about the ethics – identifying that line between right and wrong and choosing not to cross it.
I’m going to try picking the most frightening, most hopeful, and most interesting post from each month. If the most interesting is also the most frightening or most hopeful, I’ll pick the next most interesting. Then I’ll have 12 nominees in each category and I’ll try to pick the most frightening, hopeful, and interesting posts of the year.
Most frightening: Johan Rockstrom and company have updated their 2009 planetary boundaries work. The news is not getting any better. 4 of the 9 boundaries are not in the “safe operating space”: climate change, loss of biosphere integrity, land-system change, altered biogeochemical cycles (phosphorus and nitrogen).
Most hopeful: It is starting to seem politically possible for the U.S. to strengthen regulation of risk-taking by huge financial firms.
Most interesting: Taxi medallions have been called the “best investment in America”, but now ride-sharing services may destroy them.
Most frightening: There are some depressing new books out there about all the bad things that could happen to the world, from nuclear terrorism to pandemics. Also a “financial black hole”, a “major breakdown of the Internet”, “the underpopulation bomb”, the “death of death”, and more!
Most hopeful: A new study suggests a sudden, catastrophic climate tipping point may not be too likely.
Most interesting: Government fragmentation explains at least part of suburban sprawl and urban decline in U.S. states, with Pennsylvania among the worst.
Most frightening: The drought in California and the U.S. Southwest is the worst ever, including one that wiped out an earlier civilization in the same spot. At least it is being taken seriously and some policies are being put in place. Meanwhile Sao Paulo, Brazil is emerging as a cautionary tale of what happens when the political and professional leadership in a major urban area fail to take drought seriously. Some people are predicting that water shortages could spark serious social unrest in developing countries.
Most hopeful: If we want to design ecosystems or just do some wildlife-friendly gardening, there is plenty of information on plants, butterflies, and pollinators out there. There is also an emerging literature on spatial habitat fragmentation and how it can be purposely designed and controlled for maximum benefit.
Most interesting (I just couldn’t choose between these):
Most frightening: A group of well-known economists is concerned that the entire world has entered a period of persistently low economic growth, or “secular stagnation“.
Most hopeful: Donald Shoup, author of The High Cost of Free Parking, is retiring. That might sound bad, but his ground-breaking ideas are continuing on and actually seem to be going mainstream.
Most frightening: We’ve hit 400 ppm carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not just some places sometimes but pretty much everywhere, all the time.
Most hopeful: The rhetoric on renewable energy is really changing as it starts to seriously challenge fossil fuels on economic grounds. Following the Fukushima disaster, when all Japan’s nuclear reactors were shut down, the gap was made up largely with liquid natural gas and with almost no disruption of consumer service. But renewables also grew explosively. Some are suggesting Saudi Arabia is supporting lower oil prices in part to stay competitive with renewables. Wind and solar capacity are growing quickly in many parts of the world.Lester Brown says the tide has turned and renewables are now unstoppable.
Most interesting: Human chemical use to combat diseases, bugs, and weeds is causing the diseases, bugs and weeds to evolve fast.
Most frightening: One estimate says that climate change may reduce global economic growth by 3% in 2050 and 7-8% by 2100. Climate change may also double the frequency of El Nino. The DICE model is available to look at climate-economy linkages. Dennis Meadows and Jorgen Randers describe what a coming long, slow decline might look like. Rising temperatures in the Arctic are drying things out, leading to more fires, which burns more carbon, which raises temperatures, in an accelerating feedback loop.
Most hopeful: Stock values of U.S. coal companies have collapsed.
Most interesting: According to Paul Romer, academic economics has lost its way and is bogged down in “mathiness”.
Most frightening: James Hansen is warning of much faster and greater sea level rise than current mainstream expectations.
Most hopeful: Edible Forest Gardens is a great two book set that lays out an agenda for productive and low-input ecological garden design in eastern North America. You can turn your lawn into a food forest today.
Most frightening: Steven Hawking is worried about an artificial intelligence arms race starting “within years, not decades”.
Most hopeful: It may be possible to capture atmospheric carbon and turn it into high-strength, valuable carbon fiber. This sounds like a potential game-changer to me, because if carbon fiber were cheap it could be substituted for a lot of heavy, toxic and energy-intensive materials we use now, and open up possibilities for entirely new types of structures and vehicles.
Most frightening: Climate may be playing a role in the current refugee crisis, and the future may hold much more of this.
Most hopeful: The right mix of variety and repetition might be the key to learning.
Most interesting: Edward Tufte does not like Infographics.
Most frightening: Corrupt Russian officials appear to be selling nuclear materials in Moldova.
Most hopeful: Elephants seem to have very low rates of cancer. Maybe we could learn their secrets.
Most interesting: Stephen Hawking is worried about inequality and technological unemployment.
Most frightening: I noticed that Robert Costanza in 2014 issued an update to his seminal 1997 paper on ecosystem services. He now estimates their value at $125 trillion per year, compared to a world economy of $77 trillion per year. Each year we are using up about $4-20 trillion in value more than the Earth is able to replenish. The correct conclusion here is that we can’t live without ecosystem services any time soon with our current level of knowledge and wealth, and yet we are depleting the natural capital that produces them. We were all lucky enough to inherit an enormous trust fund of natural capital at birth, and we are spending it down like the spoiled trust fund babies we are. We are living it up, and we measure our wealth based on that lifestyle, but we don’t have a bank statement so we don’t actually know when that nest egg is going to run out.
Most hopeful: There are plenty of ways to store intermittent solar and wind power so they can provide a constant, reliable electricity source.
Most interesting: Asimov’s yeast vats are finally here. This is good because it allows us to produce food without photosynthesis, but bad because it allows us to produce food without photosynthesis.
Most frightening: Cyberattacks or superflares could destroy the U.S. electric grid.
Most hopeful: We had the Paris agreement. It is possible to be cynical about this agreement but it is the best agreement we have had so far.
Most interesting: I mused about whether it is really possible the U.S. could go down a fascist path. I reviewed Robert Paxton’s five stages of fascism. I am a little worried, but some knowledgeable people say not to worry. After reading Alice Goffman’s book On the Runthough, one could conclude that a certain segment of our population is living in a fascist police state right now. There is some fairly strong evidence that financial crises have tended to favor the rise of the right wing in Europe.
Well, one thing that certainly jumps out on the technology front is biotechnology. We have a couple articles about the possibility of drastic increases in the human lifespan, and what that would mean. “Germ-line engineering”, “gene drive”, and “CRISPR” are all ways of monkeying with DNA directly, even in ways that get passed along to offspring. To produce more food, we may be able to monkey with the fundamentals of photosynthesis, and if that doesn’t work we can use genetically engineered yeast to bypass photosythesis entirely.
At the risk of copyright infringement, I am reproducing the “Gartner hype cycle” below, which was mentioned in one of the posts from August.
Government and corporate labs have been making huge advances in biotechnology in the last decade or so, so it is well beyond the “innovation trigger”. It has not yet reached the “peak of inflated expectations” where it would explode onto the commercial and media scene with a lot of fanfare. I expect that will happen. We will probably see a biotech boom, a biotech bubble, and a biotech bust similar to what we saw with the computers and the internet. And then it will quietly pervade every aspect of our daily lives similar to computers and the internet, and our children will shrug and assume it has always been that way.
Obviously there are dangers. A generation of people that refuse to die on time would be one. Bioterrorism is obviously one. Then there is the more subtle matter that as we raise the limit on the size our population and consumption level can attain, the footprint of our civilization will just grow to meet the new limit. When and how we come up against these limits, and what to do about it, is the subject of the updates to two seminal papers on these issues, by Rockstrom and Costanza. We have entered an “unsafe operating space” (Rockstrom), where we are depleting much more natural capital each year than the planet can replenish (Costanza), and there will be consequences. The Paris agreement is one hopeful sign that our civilization might be able to deal with these problems, but even if we deal with the carbon emission problem, it might be too late to prevent the worst consequences, and there are going to be “layers of limits” as the authors of Limits to Growth put it all those decades ago. If we take care of the global warming problem and figure out a way to grow food for 50 billion people, eventually we will grow to 50 billion people and have to think of something else.
So without further ado:
Most frightening: I can’t pick just one. In the relatively near term, it’s the stalling out of the world economy; the convergence of climate change, drought, and the challenge of feeding so many people; and the ongoing risks from nuclear and biological weapons.
Most hopeful: I see some hope on energy and land use issues. The Paris agreement, combined with renewable energy and energy storage breakthroughs, the potential for much more efficient use of space in cities rather than letting cars take up most of the space, are all hopeful. The possibility of making carbon fiber out of carbon emissions is a particularly intriguing one. At my personal scale, I am excited to do some sustainable gardening of native species that can feed both people and wildlife. I don’t expect my tiny garden to make a major difference in the world, but if we all had sustainable gardens, they were all connected, and we weren’t wasting so much space on roads and parking, it could start adding up to a much more sustainable land use pattern.
Most interesting: I’ve already mentioned a lot of stuff, so I will just pick something I haven’t already mentioned in the discussion above: the rise of synthetic drugs. It’s just an interesting article and makes you think about what it will mean to have advanced chemical, information, and biological technologies in the hands of the little guy, actually many, many little guys. It is a brave, new, dangerous, exciting world indeed. Happy new year!