Also, I think this supports my point. There are all kinds of potential technologies lying around, but to anticipate what’s going to change society, you need to look at what society needs. Nobody needed steam driven cars in the 18th century; most people who survived infancy were needed on the farm, where they had plenty of horses and little need to go to the big city but once a year.
I’m also voting for nanotech.
I’m voting for longevity.
And weight-loss pills.
fabbing. Definitely fabbing. Have you seen the new flexible chips they’re producing now? Find a way to fab that at home/small shop and the game changes somewhat dramatically.
I think it is less a matter of people than resources. The Japanese demographics are even worse than others. Health care is a growing field here. Pay them enough and we will have plenty of people. However, that will bankrupt us. We have plenty of financial threads already, but having reached the tipping point where the general fund must start repaying Social Security, we need other solutions. Robots could be one. We must care for our elderly without beggaring the young.
We are expected to give the puppies we raise as varied experience as we can. Sheba got to watch soccer playing robodogs at Carnegie Melon. I was pleased how well she behaved.
While nearly all technologies build on the past, sometimes means and needs intersect resulting in rapid progress.
You mean fabricating small computer chips at home? I may turn out to be totally wrong about this, but I really find that unlikely. Semiconductor manufacturing today involves plants that cost billions of dollars. The resulting end products are cheap, but the plants are unbelievably expensive.
Yes. Well, not necessarily small chips, I mean the ancillary circuitry that makes up devices. The actual chips themselves will likely be premade, I guess.
They don’t have to be quite as expensive if you’re not as worried about e.g. clean rooms etc.
Robotics. It has to potential to turn the entire world into either a utopia or a distopia, and will definitely do one or the other.
Right now, every job that can be automated is being automated as soon as it is financially viable to do so. As soon as a machine is developed to do a task that costs less than a couple of years worth of human labor, that machine becomes the default.
The breakthrough is robotic vision, currently in process. One of the best examples of the potential transformative effect is the DARPA Grand Challenge and the Google Car. This technology is on the road today, just not yet in commercial applications. The US Army is deploying driverless jeeps in Afghanistan - imagine when this technology appears on American highways and city streets. Corporations will love to have trucking without truckers, UPS trucks without union drivers, etc.
Look at how much automated systems have already changed your daily life. ATMs instead of bank tellers. Voice mail systems instead of telephone receptionists. Self-scanning check-out systems in stores instead of a checkout clerk. Amazon.com instead Borders. iTunes instead of record stores. And in all those cases, it was low-skilled, low-pay jobs that were eliminated. There is no job so poorly paid that it will not be automated out of existence.
Society, as it is currently structured, cannot handle 50% unemployment.
It’s definitely not just poorly paid jobs that are being automated out of existence. Here is an article about software being used to examine large numbers of legal documents. This is work that, although it’s tedious, was formerly done by lawyers and paralegals.
I find it surprising that someone would think this. I can think of hundreds of ways life could be better, and my imagination has probably been limited by living in the 20-21st centuries for 32 years.
In fact, in terms of changes to our lives (not knowledge) it sometimes feels like nothing’s really changed at all.
Our maximum lifespan is the same, with much of that spent in decline. Our genetics and psychology remain basically the same as our prehistoric ancestors’. We’re as vulnerable as we ever were (though we’ve developed increasingly sophisticated weapons).
etc etc
15 years ago is pretty recent for the most recent civilization-transforming breakthrough.
(And I’ll personally define the ‘breakthrough’ moment as the one where it started making a difference in the lives of large numbers of people. I don’t care if ARPANET existed 40 years ago; how many people’s lives were enriched by it in its first decade or two of existence?)
What was the last big breakthrough before the Internet? Communication satellites, maybe, in the 1960s, putting the Vietnam War on the evening news. Before that, television. These things don’t happen every decade.
Self-driving cars would be a big breakthrough that would really change people’s lives. I’m hoping that one comes about within the next 25 years, so that by the time I’m in my early 80s and should give up my car keys, I can simply tell the car where to go, and let it take me there. Self-driving cars won’t just make it easier and safer to get from Point A to Point B; they’ll drastically the way we use cars (sometimes in predictable ways, sometimes not) and as a result, change the car itself in equally unpredictable ways. I’m personally betting that we’ll see a transition to one-person cars, cars designed only to transport stuff rather than people, and near-universal availability of cars that you rent for just the time you need them, along the lines of Zipcar.
Computer-based translation. We already have a lot of tools that allow us to interact with people very far away on a level we simply couldn’t before. (Blogs, youtube, facebook, etc.) One of the last great barriers between peoples is langauge - but mechanical translation is already very good, and getting better all the time.
OK, but let’s not assume that automating a job has the net effect of removing 1 job from the world’s static job pool.
Contrary to many depictions in american media, jobs are not a commodity. The number of jobs is essentially unlimited, and the reason for high unemployment in the US right now is not because we’ve run out of things for people to productively do.
I’ll go on record as saying that Nanotech is a dead end.
If you want tiny little machines that do something useful - use bacteria.
NanoTechnology reminds me of how the Victorian’s viewed the future - huge machines powered by steam and full of gears. The same way we think the future will be tiny machines full of software…
Blah, blah, blah…Adam Smith…blah, blah, blah…widgets…
Way to set up that straw man and not deal with what I was talking about.
Since man could first be called “man”, all innovation has had the goal of minimizing human labor. Planting crops required less labor than foraging. Herding animals required less labor than hunting. For the life of me, I can’t think of a single human activity that employs more, rather than fewer, people than it has in the past. That is the definition of “productivity” - producing more goods or performing more services with less human labor. In Saint Adam Smith’s time, roughly 70% of the population was involved in food - farming, shipping, processing, selling, etc. Less than 7% is now. That is a basic human need that is accomplished with a tenth of the human labor previously, and the amount is shrinking. Every other need, vital or frivolous, will be accomplished in a way that minimizes human labor. The evidence is clear. What do you have, other than something that sounds suspiciously like a religious affirmation, to support your claim?
Do you travel much? Because I find it pretty major that I can drive into a strange town at night and go directly to my destination, or find the nearest motel, or look up a phone number without first having to find a phone booth with a phone book in it. Instead of planning in advance and buying a map, I can find things far better on the spur of the moment by pulling up maps and satellite photography on my phone.
If I’m in a town I’ve never visited before, I can find a brand-new business (which wouldn’t be in a phone book yet) in my cellphone’s web browser, pull up their address (in a new development that’s not on the map yet), and then see how to get there, with turn-by-turn driving directions that include taking into account traffic flow and one-way streets.
Not only that, I can determine about how long it will take to get there, find the nearest pizza place that delivers and have a pizza arrive nice and hot right after I check in – all with one pocket-sized device.
I consider that a pretty major change in the way I travel.
Oh, yes! If I’m traveling in Mexico and don’t speak Spanish, I can do all of the above, plus point my phone at a Spanish sign to see what it says in English.
Yeah, so the point at which your understanding of the labour market is telling you an increase in productivity is bad is the point where alarm bells should ring.
Rather than accusing others of believing dogma I would think through what you’re saying.
I’m going to explain what I think is your fundamental misunderstanding in a separate post.
An increase in “productivity” is good if I own a business producing things. Not so good if I am a person formerly employed at that company.
Show how my statements are dogma. I’d be surprised if you can, simply because it is drawn from personal observation.
I can hardly wait.
Two things are coming up quick: Efficient fuel cells and cancer treatments. In the past week, there have been reports of a major improvement on these things.
Here’s a new technique to split water into hydrogen and oxygen, which is so costly that it’s a (the?) major factor holding back fuel cells. If the price comes down, then we won’t need oil anymore.
Here’s a promising new breakthrough in leukemia treatments.
And here’s a new breakthrough in fighting all virses- from HIV to influenza. It’s been able to kill 15 viruses so far!
Yep I know. The media made it sound like “so we’ve done it with microwaves, it’s just a slight frequency change for visible light”. When the reality is microwaves have wavelengths of several cm (IIRC), compared to a few hundred nanometres for visible light. It’s a very different situation.
However, I still think there’s a good chance of a significant breakthrough soon as so many teams are working on this, and confidence seems quite high.