Artificial Intelligence: Curse or Blessing

In a previous post, see here, I presented robotics as one of the technological mega-trends that will shape our coming 100 years. what does that mean to us? Should we be scared? Should we be excited? Will street life change with humans and humanoid robots jointly moving around?

Is this what it will look like?

Answering these questions will take much more than one post, which is good, as it will give me more to write about, and us all more exciting technological questions to ponder. Here I will start to give a rough sketch of the relation between robotics, intelligence and artificial intelligence, shortly AI. Then I will evaluate the direction that AI will go: Will it become a menace, as in the movie The Matrix, or will it become a benign technology that will catapult humanity into the future, as e.g. Ray Kurzweil predicts in The Singularity Is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology?

One particularly well-thought through work regarding AI is Luke Muelhauser’s Facing the Intelligence Explosion (just €0.99 in Amazon’s Kindle store).

Intelligence is defined as the ability of an agent (human, animal, machine) to achieve goals in a wide range of environments. This definition of intelligence aims at achieving goals, i.e. instrumental rationality. Further this definition uses two dimensions: Firstly the degree in which goals are achieved, and secondly the width of the environments.

Already we have realized high levels of goal achievement in machines, think of IBM’s specialized Super-Computer Deep Blue’s success is beating Garry Kasparov in a 6-game match in 1997. There are many examples of highly specialized Expert Systems in the areas of medicine (diagnostics), finance and engineering. However, all these examples have a very high goal achievement rate in a very narrow environment. Deep Blue was very good at playing chess, but was utterly useless at recognizing animal pictures, just as an example.

Recently MIT AI system ConceptNet 4 has been tested on IQ, and tested comparable to a 4-year old child (see here). So on the combination of both goal achievement and width of environments AI still has a long way to go. But it is good to realize that we already have come a long way, thinking of how briefly we have been working on this technology.

Why do we develop AI? First of all because scientists try out things. So they try out if they can make an intelligent machine. But more important is that we need AI, we need robotics. As you read this, you are using AI systems: The operating system of your PC contains AI, your car’s electronics contains AI, most Internet Services that you use make extensively use of AI, your doctor does, and so does the mechanic who takes care of your car. AI supports us achieving goals. AI makes people more productive. And that will be badly needed in the coming 100 years, as population growth on Earth is rapidly declining, and the size of the productive population will decline. So we will need technology to take over from us. At least make each and every one of us very much more productive!

I have been using both terms robotics and AI. They are not the same, but are very closely related. AI is the logic governing the robot, which consists of the AI part (the “brain”) and the mechanical part (the “body”). I concentrate in this post on the AI dimension of this technology.

As pointed out, current AI systems match a 4-year old. We expect that the intelligence of these systems will increase, until, at one moment in time, it will surpass the human level of intelligence. Kurzweil expects this to happen around the year 2040, I think it will take a little longer, but the exact timing is irrelevant for this argument. At one moment in the coming 100 years computers will be more intelligent than human beings. What does this mean? It means that computers will be better able to achieve their goals in a broad environment than humans are.

This realization forces the following question on us: Will the goals aimed at by machines by compatible with the goals of humans, or will these goals be conflicting?

What if the goals are conflicting? E.g. computers are mainly consisting of metals. Metals have a tendency to oxidize in an oxygen-rich environment. Humans need oxygen. See here a clear conflict of interest. Some brainstorming will produce many potential conflicts of interest. Currently we, humans, are clearly superior to these machines in achieving our goals. But what happens when the machines surpass us?

We can view this potential conflict in terms of a Darwinian struggle of the fittest. In the past several thousand years humans have been the fittest on Earth, but that position is about to be taken over by machines.


When you talk with people who have been thinking about AI, robotics and the future, you will find optimists and pessimists. The optimists have faith that robots will be good for us, and will support humanity in its conquest of the cosmos. The pessimists paint a picture in which the stronger species will always eat, kill, destroy, obliterate etc the weaker species. Muelhauser makes a strong point that neither of these scenarios is pre-programmed. Different things can happen and do happen in the Universe, and on Earth. Some of these things we consider good, some of these things we consider bad. When an asteroid makes a close pass to the Earth, we consider that a good thing. When it hits the Earth we consider than bad, as it probably wipes out humanity. Both scenarios are possible. Our concept of Good and Bad has no influence on the probability of events!

In the same way, our preferences regarding the aims that robots and AI should pursue, have no impact on whether AI will be benign or evil by the time it surpasses humans in its IQ. That is, unless we drive the development of AI in a desirable direction, unless we start putting as much effort in AI safety as we are putting in AI capability. This is not an easy topic. Again I refer to Asimov who formulated the three universal laws of robotics (see e.g. Asimov’s I, Robot), reality will be much more complicated than this.

But, as Muelhauser argues, whether AI becomes a blessing or the end of humanity depends on the research and engineering effort that we start putting into this issue as of today.

Good Guys?


The Human Measure


The Wink of an Eye

I remember this Star Trek episode: Wink of an Eye. It was the first series, with the real Kirk and the real Spock. Aliens who live on a different time speed take over the ship. The Enterprise crew does not see the aliens, just hear an insect-like buzzing. And the camera switches to the time speed of the invaders, now they move at normal speed and the Enterprise crew does not seem to move at all. I was very excited about the concept of different speeds, with beings in the one system not being able to comprehend the other system. A great theme that is too!

As a child I was fascinated by things that go slower than the eye can see: I would take multiple timed pictures of growing plants and then compare them, one after the other. I would plant a young oak tree in our garden and measure it every year. These were processes I could not see with my bare eye. But these were all still processes I could observe in my lifetime. They are of human measure. And I could, and can, grasp them.

Watching Trees Grow

More difficult it became to understand the teacher’s story about how oil develops. How can rests of plans and animals get many thousands of meters below the surface? I can go on and on listing things that are of measures that are beyond our capability to imagine: Try to imagine the Planck-length (1.6 x 10-35 m), a lightyear (9.5 x 1015 m), the age of the Universe (13.7 x 109 yr). Try imagining phenomena from Einstein’s theories of special and general relativity (I have tried that many, many times!). And worst of all: Try imagining quantum phenomena. As Bohr once stated: If you believe you understand quantum theory, you clearly have not understood it.

As humans we can imagine measures that have been relevant for our survival through the millennia of our existence, that is, before the era of technology. So for time we have a pretty good grasp of periods of seconds all the way up to tens of years. For distances we are able to think of millimeters all the way up to a few kilometers, probably as far as the eye can see on Earth. Weight: Grams up to maybe 100 kilograms. These are the sizes we are able to get our mind around, and even determine, with a pretty good accuracy, without any instruments.

Go beyond these measures, and we must switch off our imagination and switch on our abstract thinking, scientific mind. I am able to calculate with very large and very small numbers, without truly grasping these numbers. It is as with money: I have no clue how much 1 billion dollars is. Do you? Does anyone?

One Billion Dollars

The point is that we live in a world that has expanded into realms that we cannot imagine, we can only calculate them. Doing calculations with these unimaginable numbers (not to say: imaginary numbers…) requires education, and the ability and willingness to think abstractly, i.e. think in categories for which we do not possess a clear mental concept.

This inability to imagine these very small and very large quantities is outside of our comfort zone and drives many people to either ignore them or, and this is much worse, deny them. And this denial leads to anti-science movements, denial of climate change, denial of evolution, and in the end a denial of taking responsibility for what we are doing with our world.

In our daily lives we are also governed by short time spans: Business are focused on the next quarter, politicians on the next election, families on the next pay check. I know, there are companies who do some long term scenarios. There are now and then discussions about the costs of health care 30 years from now. And many people have a pension plan. But these are typically not the driving forces behind our day to day activities, be it in business, in politics or in our family lives. Even Scientific research seems to be going from publication to publication, from grant to grant.

With the size of the human population, and our technical ability to really make a difference, for better or for worse, it is mandatory that we start thinking and acting based on a longer term perspective. Not by a select elite, but by the drivers of where we go. By business leaders, by political leaders, and that means by all people. This requires teaching the longer perspective at school, discussing it on TV, study the longer perspective of human society seriously through long-term studies using simulation and scenarios. We need to expand the psychological comfort zone of human beings to the sizes of things: Times, distances, weights, energy levels, etc. that are now crucial for the survival of humanity.

Seeing far

Review: Raymond Kurzweil’s “The Singularity is Near”

Human life as we know it is about to change dramatically in the coming 30 years. At least that is what inventor and future author Ray Kurzweil claims in his volume The Singularity Is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology, published in 2010.

First of all I would like to recommend to read this book (you can use the link above to order it at Amazon, either in hard-copy or for your Kindle). But be ready to take some time: The volume is thick and the material sometimes a little chewy. Furthermore, not wanting to be too harsh, but Kurzweil’s writing style is quite dry and requires a certain level of endurance. But like endurance sports: The race is not always easy, but you are happy you did it once you crossed the finish line!

The book forces the reader to think out of the box. Actually, by reading the book I started to realize how much more out-of-the-box I will need to think in order to be able to seriously evaluate the possible scenarios for the future of mankind! This effect makes the book by itself a very valuable read, and completely overshadows any further critical comments I will give in the remainder of this review.

For those who hate spoilers: Stop reading here, and come back after you read the book!

The book presents three main mega-trends and claims that these trends show a long-term exponential growth curve. The trends are Genetics, Nanotechnology and Robotics (GNR). The exponential growth curve for each of these three mega-trends is about to reach what Kurzweil calls “the knee“, after which the growth curves become so steep that the development seems to reach endless acceleration.

Developments in genetics will allow us to repair biological errors, grow new organs and renew our DNA for extended vitality of our cells. Human 2.0 is what Kurzweil calls this.

Developments in nanotechnology will create so-called nanobots that will be able to enter the human body by the billions and do their bio-mechanical repair jobs. Or perform a remote sensing job, either on the battle field or on remote exo-planets.

Robots will be based on strong Artificial Intelligence (AI), which requires further increase of our computation capacity per unit volume. Kurzweil demonstrates that we are currently just a few orders of magnitude away from the required computing capacity to develop strong AI. Researchers at the University of Illinois at Chicago have just applied an IQ test to MIT’s ConceptNet 4 artificial intelligence system, and determined it’s about as smart as a somewhat-challenged four-year-old child (see here).

Kurzweil advocates the use of nanobots to do a detailed scan of the brains from the inside, and than use this map for partial re-engineering to create first strong AI brains. These will then be supporting us in further accelerating the development of computation speed and SW solutions.

Exponential growth of technology

With respect to the exponential character of the growth in each of these technology realms Kurzweil presents a richness of material to support his claim that these technologies grow exponentially. Obviously Moore’s law is the best known example of such a growth curve, but the author presents many more examples.

Based on the four points above the author then predicts that in the years 2030 – 2045 the development in these three sectors will reach an explosive speed and power, resulting in radical innovations in our lives: Human 3.0, being an integration of biological and non-biological components of “me”, nanobots all over the place, and robotic intelligence that will outdo our biological intelligence by a factor of well over a billion. Finally, Kurzweil is adamant about the prediction that within his lifetime we will be able to prevent death, first by delaying it until we have the means to completely abolish it (at least from natural causes).

First a few general remarks on Kurzweil’s style of argumentation. In the book he presents an impressive amount of material on the topics he discusses, with lots of references (not all on the level of academic evidence, but good still). Sometimes he has the tendency to drag in too many topics, to the point where he tends to digress, and thus loose the focus. The famous quote: “Sorry my presentation is so long, I didn’t have the time to make a brief one” is certainly valid for this book!

The second general point I would like to make is that Kurzweil weakens the validity of his argument by presenting hard time predictions regarding the different technology break-throughs, and present these not so much as probabilities, but much more are facts. It is a strong and powerful practice in science to present findings as probabilities, with clear indications of the assumptions that underlie the findings. The presentation of the “Higgs-like particle” on July 3rd 2012 by the CMS- and ATLAS-teams at CERN show a very nice and example of this practice (worthwhile to watch here, it was a historic event!) . This way of presenting scientific findings is not so much driven by humbleness, but by experience that making strong statements based on limited evidence is a sure road to embarrassment. It is admitted that Kurzweil explicitly includes the sensitivity of his predictions on the input parameters, but given that not just the parameters are uncertain, but the complete model, this doesn’t change the point.

Then a few words about the explanatory model that Kurzweil uses for the exponential growth rates of the different technologies and the resulting singularity: There is no explanatory model! The author shows the development of a number of trends, and indeed is able to identify rates that seem to be exponential.

By the way, it would not have hurt to do some explicit statistical hypothesis testing on these claims. But that is a detail.

But the reason why these growth rates are exponential, and what determines their parameters, is lacking. Kurzweil recognizes that technology is developed by humans (at least for the time being) and that social processes drive this growth. But how does that work? Are there social processes that can change the direction of these developments? Or even significantly delay or expedite them?

In his inspiring book Cosmos, Carl Sagan argues that the Ionian Awakening, around the 3rd century B.C. in Greece, with the Great Library of Alexandria at its epicenter, was a surge in intellectual and rational development, that was subsequently overrun by worlds of religion, superstition and provincialism. It took the Western World until the days of Galileo to return to the way forward. How could this have happened? What were the social, political and religious forces that halted our progress? It is an interesting exercise to evaluate what-if scenarios! Where would we be today without the stagnation period between 250 BC until Galileo?

Before we can make hard, probabilistic predictions regarding the future development and adaptation of technological mega-trends, we need to put more effort in creating and testing explanatory models of socio-technological development. This is the social science part of futures studies.

With regard to the main mega-trends that Kurzweil selects, I would agree with development and importance of both genetics and robotics, as I have claimed in one of my previous posts, see here. Definitively Kurzweil is an authority in the field of AI, and his description of the developments in this field, combined with the development of computing power, reads as convincing. Definitively also his detailed and thorough discussion on machine intelligence and machine consciousness is important and convinces.

Genetics is in a tremendous maelstrom, bringing new results and new techniques out at an ever faster pace. No wonder that the worlds of politics and of ethics have trouble in keeping up with the developments. Again Kurzweil writes convincing, and with lots of examples of ongoing research. The reader gets a clear impression that the predictions the author makes are within the same universe as we are today, seem challenging but feasible.

Somehow I cannot say the same of his predictions regarding nanotechnology and especially nanobots. A disclaimer regarding this skepticism is that I know very little about nanobots. I know about the fascination developments in the field of nano-tubes. Amazing physical properties are used for surfaces, touch screens and electronics applications, to name a few. But my imagination fails to picture, within my life time, billions of nanobots scanning my brain. Call it a limitation of my mental capabilities, but until I am convinced with more evidence that this is ongoing I will remain a skeptic!

Nano-buts in my Head

It is mainly his predictions regarding to nanobots that make Kurzweil claim that within his lifetime we will be able to abolish natural death. This is the Holy Grail of humanity, literally! That would also bring it within my lifetime. Wouldn’t that be great. However, I just don’t believe it. This is not a very scientific argument, I know, but as before with respect to the nanobots, I believe we are still a long way off!

As an aside, we need to start thinking about the consequences of further dramatic increases of life expectancy. On Earth the resources to sustain biological life are limited, so either we will need to increase the domain from which we derive our resources, and/or we need to dramatically change our procreation habits and ethics. This will not be easy, as procreation is so deeply ingrained in the fundamental fabric of life.

We will be able to extend the life expectancy, probably step-by-step, as we have been doing for the past 100 years. We can reduce the risks of premature death. But we are not yet able to abolish the effects of aging. People who live past their 100th birthday are both physically and mentally not so fit as we would want to be. We must solve that before we can go realistically beyond our current efforts. So I will follow the developments in this area with great interest, have some hope that the pancreatic cancer that both my parents died of will become curable, and commit myself to healthy food and (very) regular physical and mental exercise as my method for life extension.

The End of Aging

A few elements I find lacking attention in the book. These have to do with evolution, with entropy and with expansion of mankind and her technology into the Universe beyond Earth and the Solar System.

Evolution is a simple yet powerful mechanism. First of all you need something that self-replicates. We call this life. Then we need variation in life. This variation happens, over time. For typical biological very much time. Then you need a struggle for limited resources. And then the automatic result will be survival of the fittest. Only those variants that are best at competing for the scarce resources will survive and be able to reproduce. Evolution as as simple and beautiful as that.

Homo Sapiens has been very good at this survival game. Thus far. Through our brain we have been able to adjust our survival strategies faster than genetic adjustments would allow in other species, and therefore we have been so successful in grabbing the food, and the land, and everything.


Now we create hyper-intelligent technology, and I believe that will happen, and we will be able to turn that into a benign development. But we will need to prevent introducing a competition for resources with this superior technology. We might not survive that competition. Asimov’s Three Laws of Robotics most certainly will not do the trick (I, Robot).

The second element I find lacking in the book is the understanding of entropy, or the second fundamental law of thermodynamics. Entropy in any closed system always increases. And our Universe is a closed system, according to all current cosmological models. This means that Kurzweil’s prediction that humanity will take over the Universe and prevent it to end in a entropy death cannot be true. Local order is a statistical variation in a universal system that increases it’s amount of disorder. This is a very slow process, but it is happening, and no one and nothing will be able to stop that process.

Finally I believe that Kurzweil gives insufficient attention to the mega-trend of space-travel, in other words the expansion of humanity beyond the boundaries of planet Earth. As I will write about this mega-trend a lot in future posts I will not elaborate on that here.

Second Law of Thermo-dynamics

In summary, The Singularity Is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology is a valuable piece of positive, optimistic Out-of-the-Box thinking. I can highly recommend it. And my reading advice on it is (as with all books): Do not believe just everything what you read, but make it part of your model of the world that we live in. Enjoy!

Technological Mega-trends 2013 – 2113

Proposing mega-trends is more than just looking in a crystal ball. Mega-trends are mostly identified as extrapolations of past and current developments. And there are more mega-trends than only technological ones. For example social and economical mega-trends are profound and have strong mutual interaction with technological mega-trends. After-all technological development requires funding, and funding requires a certain prioritization: The question, for example, if we should spend our money on  the development of space flight or create better medical care is a valid one.

As I have argued in previous posts, there is ample evidence that investments in big science and in big technology have an accelerator effect on economic activities. For every dollar of community investments in NASA the private sector receives back 7 dollars. Part of that is “just” jobs, but also stimulation of e.g. medical sciences and medical methods is evident. Therefore I have argued in favor of spending big bucks on big science and big technology. And that is what we have been doing for quite a while.

In this post I will list the 7 mega-trends that I see, will explain what they are, and what is the rationale behind each of them. In later posts I will dig deeper into each on them, and will aim to post updates on them as time goes by. It will be interesting to see which of these trends actually materializes, and which mega-trends we completely miss. I also would welcome comments and criticism regarding my top-7!

Looking at where we come from I see the following technological mega-trends for the following 100 years, so until 2115.


Since DNA was identified in 1944 as the molecule type that carries the blue print for all life of Earth, scientists have come a long way: Watson and Crick discovered in 1953 the double helix structure of DNA and how the code was copied for generation of proteins and for reproduction. Then we learnt the mechanism of meiosis and mitosis. And in the early 21st century the human genome was completely sequenced. Hard work is ongoing to identify which genes are located exactly where on the genome.

Double Helix DNA

We now understand that the genome contains all the information necessary to generate an organisms that is very similar to the parent organism. We also understand that the genome contains lots of non-functional code, and dysfunctional code. Some of that dysfunctional code is specific to certain individuals. These variants will show certain diseases. Other dysfunctional code is in all the instances of the species, and causes e.g. ageing. Actually aging and dying of individuals is probably very functional for a species as a whole, but that is a discussion we will have in a later post in more detail.

The better we understand the mechanisms of reproduction, both on the level of the species and on the level of the individual cells, the better we will be able to make modifications to the genetic code in order to cure the dysfunctional parts. Inherited diseases are being re-engineered as we speak, genetic limitations that e.g. cause ageing are now under the microscope.

Initial ethical doubts will disappear as the general public will adapt to the principle of genetic improvement and enhancement. Resistance will become a fringe phenomenon, just as resistance to inoculation is today.

Genetic engineering will be used, step by little step, to drive at least three of the other mega-trends mentioned below: Life extension and space flight and terra-forming.


In our drive to improve the quality of life we use all means available. Apart from genetic engineering and “classical” biochemical pharmacy, more and more are we using non-biological methods of solving biological problems. Obviously this is already a very old approach: think of the wooden legs and hooks of old days, but also of spectacles. But today we are able to create very many non-biological devices that support biological life: from hearing aids to pace makers, from artificial hearts to artificial kidneys, all the way to Deep Brain Stimulation to soften the impact of certain brain defects like epilepsy and Parkinson disease.

Prosthetic hand

We start to understand that there is nothing special about biological mechanisms, apart from them being very complex and very delicate. There are basically no limits to enhancing biological functionality with non-biological technology. We will see step by step an increase in these technologies, so that the lame can walk, the blind can see and the deaf can hear. And we will be able to enhance our brains. We already start to understand how the brain works, and what APIs the brain has, how we can connect our electronic processors to communicate with the chemo-electrical circuitry of the brain. This will be a major development, that will make our intellectual capabilities increase exponentially.

Life Extension

Immortality has been the Holy Grail for as long as we have records of human thinking. Probably immortality would be unbearable, but a significant extension of our lives would be something to strive for. And that is what we have done for centuries, with quite some success. The average life expectancy increased from below 40 less than 200 years ago in Western Europe to over 80 in 2010. Current thinking is that without fundamental developments in genetic engineering and other medical techniques the increase in life expectancy will top out somewhere around 100 – 106 years.

But these advanced methods are already being developed, with successful experiments doubling the lifespan of mice. I expect these developments to receive ample attention and funding, with the actual life expectancy increasing to well beyond 100, and with preservation of quality of life.

A phase in-between life extension, prosthetics and robotics is the field of non-biological life. I will not dive too deep into that right now, but this entails transplanting the complete conscious and subconscious footprint of a biological person into a non-biological mechanism. This is a fascinating field that has been used a lot by SciFi writers, just think of the talking space ships with personality in both Dr. Who and in the Culture books by Iain Banks (The Culture Boxed Set: Consider Phlebas, Player of Games and Use of Weapons).


Robotics is popular among SciFi fans, and has a futuristic ring. However, robotics is a simple extension of the millennia long quest to create tools to make our life and work easier. Robots are tools that are controlled by artificial intelligence. Note that we live in a world that is full of robots, but we do not recognize them as such because the do not have a humanoid form. Machine intelligence will increase exponentially, both in the number of devices that contain artificial intelligence, and in the level of intelligence these devices have.


Most of these robots will not look like humans, or dogs, or anything living. The intelligence will reside for example in our cars (that will themselves prevent accidents) and in our houses (that will optimize for energy consumption and comfort, and will order groceries). Ubiquitous intelligence, to serve you and me.

Will we get human-like robots? Maybe. Because it is cool. Or because it would be a generic tool, that can handle all tools that are designed for handling by humans. In the end this will be a cost-benefit decision. Do not expect intelligent artificial men and women to roam our streets any time soon. But do expect year to year an increasing amount of artificial intelligence all around you!

Space Travel

Space was hot in the ’60s and ’70s. Then it cooled down, after the space race was preliminary won by the USA. The International Space Station, the gorgeous photos from the different space telescopes, and the Mars rovers have warmed up the mood for space again, after a cool-down period of ever decreasing budgets. Definitively also the discovery of hundreds of (exo-) planets around nearby stars has stimulated the taste for space again.

The good thing is that now most countries that were competing with each other during the Cold War are now partners in Space: The IIS is a splendid joint effort by NASA, the Russian space agency, ESA (European Space Agency), Canada and Japan. Only China and North-Korea still consider space as a nationalistic effort, with all the waste that this approach causes. Large scientific and technical enterprises like space travel require big budgets, long and stable commitments, and should probably be handled as global efforts, efforts by humanity as a whole.

Space exploration

When we look at the picture “Pale Blue Dot“, the picture taken by Voyager 1 at a distance of 6 billion km, we start to understand what a tiny place our mother Earth is, less than a grain of sand in an almost endless Universe. The fragility of Earth is so evident. Do we want to wait, like all those extinct species before us, until something hits this planet, and also wipes us out? Or do we want to use the brains that have catapulted us ahead of all other species on our planet, and start with some serious spreading of the risks? I guess the answer to this question is evident. Therefore we need to continue our investigation of the Universe, pick up again with manned and unmanned space flight, and start seriously investigating planets and moons. First inside our own solar system. And after that also towards planets accompanying nearby stars. A pretty good further argumentation for (manned) space exploration is Zubrin’s The Case for Mars: The Plan to Settle the Red Planet and Why We Must. I will return to his argumentation is another post.

The technological developments needed for such interstellar travel are magnificent. But we are working on each one of them. It is a matter of having a direction, and then keep working on it!


The previous mega-trend already implied trips to other planets. What to do once we are there? Mars as it is does not support human life – or Earth plants and animals, for that matter. The search for exo-planets that contain liquid water, an atmosphere that humans can breath in (so closely resembling our atmosphere), can take a long, long time. But planets that are located in the habitual zone of it’s host star, and that contain, either in it’s atmosphere or in it’s soil or oceans, the needed substances for a useful atmosphere are probably plenty. All we need to do is go there and create a biologically habitual atmosphere using the technologies we have. We are pretty good at changing atmospheres. We have been doing that for many years on Earth. Here we change the atmosphere in the wrong direction. But we can use the same mechanisms to terra-form a planet.


These processes take time, in the order of magnitude of 100 – 300 years. But what is such a period in the history of men? Let alone in the history of life on Earth? Just imagine that in the time of Newton we would have started the terra-forming process of Mars: She would be a green planet by now!

Terra-forming will take time. However, I included it as one of the mega-trends, because terra-forming, or some form of climatic engineering, will be required to make further colonization of space feasible. So I expect that in the coming century this will probably not so much be actually executed, but will be a strong driver for research and development.


All we do requires energy, lots of energy. This goes especially for space travel. Inside the Solar system we can probably still manage with existing technologies of propulsion, as soon as we want to go beyond we need some serious oomph! We do understand the physics of potential energy creation: fission, fusion and matter-antimatter annihilator, to mention a few. But we will need to be able to engineer these principles in a workable fashion. That requires a sense of purpose. I again refer to the book by Zubrin, mentioned and linked above.

The mega-trends above may appear far-fetched. But let’s just look back in history. Check out what we have accomplished in the last 100 years that would have appeared fantasy in 1915: computing, men on the Moon, robot rovers in Mars, a completely decoded human genome, to name just a few.

No matter how big an effort may seem to realise these mega-trends, they are small compared with other efforts accomplished by humans, and take just a short time in our history.

Seven mega-trends that will liberate men and women. Liberation from the limits of a short life. Liberation from the limits of biological being. Liberation from the need to do all work ourselves in order to be able to survive. And liberate from the limits of our Earth. See here a program for guiding funding, both public and private, to the relevant R&D programs.

I am looking forward to receive your top-mega-trend list, so we can check that we have the right ones. This list will drive a lot of the writing I am planning for months and years to come on this blog.

A Bright Future?

Can we predict the Future?

Isaac Asimov

Psychohistory dealt not with man, but man-masses. It was the science of mobs; mobs in their billions. It could forecast reactions to stimuli with something of the accuracy that a lesser science could bring to the forecast of a rebound of a billiard ball. The reaction of one man could be forecast by no known mathematics; the reaction of a billion is something else again.”

Isaac Asimov, The Foundation Novels (Prelude to Foundation (Foundation, Book 1)

Before I continue my posts on science, technology and how these may change our lives beyond our wildest imagination, I need to set the stage with some remarks regarding futures studies, sometimes called futurology.Let’s face it: We all want to know what the future brings us. Therefore we watch the weather forecast. We try to find secret recommendations for the horse races or for investments that will sky-rocket. Science is all about making predictions, and so are the economic and social sciences. We try to predict what tomorrow, and the day after tomorrow, will bring us.

Asimov’s Foundation novels, written in the 1950s, describe a Universe many tens of thousands of years in the future, when Earth is just a distant rumor. The hero of the books is the inventor of psychohistory, the mathematical science of predicting the future. Of course this is only fiction. But the good SciFi authors are typically very well trained in science and technology, just as many scientists are fans of SciFi. This genre of novels stimulates the creativity and the fantasy, and is often an inspiration for actual scientific and technological research. Think of the robots that play such a crucial role in Asimov’s novels. Since then we have been working, step by little step, towards the goal of making robots feasible!

DARPA robot

So, just as a starting note, I can highly recommend some SciFi works. I am not an expert in this genre, and certainly have only read a few well known authors, but those are great reads: Asimov’s Foundation Series and Robot series (I, Robot), and then the Culture Novels by Iain M. Banks, a grand master of the genre who recently died, way too young! (e.g. The Player of Games (Culture) and Use of Weapons (Culture). In this context I cannot leave out the granddaddy of them all: Jules Verne: I just re-read several of his books, and that man was a genious! Highly recommended (The Collected Works of Jules Verne: 36 Novels and Short Stories (Unexpurgated Edition) (Halcyon Classics).

But back to the topic of Futures Studies, and predicting what the future has in store for us. Most sciences try to understand the workings of a particular aspect of reality. The extent to which a particular explanation is successful is tested by making predictions based on that new understanding. The better the predictions are realized, the more confidence we have in the validity of the understanding we have of that phenomenon.

Through Newton’s 3 laws of motion and his inverse square law of gravitational attraction we are now able to predict with high accuracy the position of planets and space craft. Our increased understanding of the workings of bio-chemistry lets us predict the effects of certain medications. Our standard model of particle physics made us predict the existence of the Higgs boson.

Once we have explanatory models that we are confident of, because they are good at predicting the future of that particular phenomenon, we can start using such understanding to engineer things: space craft, medication, cars, cathedrals, ice cream.

Also in business we do a lot of forecasting. All the market research that is being paid for is aimed at predicting if people and companies will buy certain products and services. If we know where the world is going, we can anticipate that direction and make some good money with that! Market forecasting is becoming more and more a quantitative social science, using more or less the scientific method. The questions for which answers are sought tend to be highly precise, e.g: How large, in USD, will the total accessible market be for product XYZ?

Trend spotting is a less precise field of identifying large scale trends that effect and drive markets, technologies and social behavior. Trend Spotters are somewhat like oracles: If you have once predicted (or should I say: guessed?) a major trend, then you build a reputation, despite the fact that you usually are only one time right! But identifying major trends is a popular hobby, and some companies make a good living out of it. Good examples are again the market research companies. Often these trends are presented as the next big thing, with not much reservations or modesty shown. I have never considered it wisdom to make investment decisions based on the trends predicted by market researchers.Whether that is the reason I am not rich or the reason I am not broke is unclear.

Now we get to the topic of Futures Studies. Futures Studies, also called futurology, is an interdisciplinary field of study that aims to draw potential futures based on past and current developments in the world. There are difference of opinion as to whether this is an art of a science. It is currently taught at some 40 academic institutes worldwide.

The need for understanding of what is in store for us is beyond any doubt. For example some businesses and other human endeavors need to make decisions with long lead times. Think of law makers in the area of environmental protection. Think also of oil companies, with their very long exploration and development cycles. Shell has been known for developing and using scenario writing for the purpose of exploring possible futures, see e.g. here. Crucial feature in the scenario writing approach is that potential futures (plural) are being developed and investigated. The approach is aimed at analyzing the consequences of different possible futures. Then, based on the different outcomes, patterns in the different options are identified, and based on that we can make probabilistic statements about in this case the use of energy in the year 2015. Scenario writing is one of the much used techniques in futures studies. More about these methods and techniques for conducting futures studies below.

But let’s now first look at some of the issues with making predictions. We know that many, if not all, natural and social processes are fundamentally stochastic and contingent (chaotic). This is nicely stated in the quote from Asimov at the top of this post. In the past many scientists had the positivist illusion that our inability to make hard predictions e.g. regarding the weather or regarding the development of society were caused by our lack of understanding. Wasn’t it the same with astronomy: Before Newton we were not able to predict with precision the location in the sky of planets and comets. But then Newton cracked the secret of celestial dynamics, and now we can predict these motions with great precision. Would it be the same in chemistry, biology and history?

However, since the beginning of the 1900s we know that our Universe on the smallest scales is fundamentally stochastic, killing off the concept of determinism for once and for all. To answer Einstein: God is playing at dice!  But although the behavior of individual particles like photons and electrons can not be predicted, the behavior of large numbers of them can be described with great precision. Therefore the laws of thermo-dynamics are laws, providing very precise descriptions of the behavior of e.g. gasses. And in the world of Asimov’s Hari Seldon the same principle is valid for billions of people. In a weaker form this is also the premise of fields of study like economics and sociology!

And this is also one of the foundations behind futures studies: We cannot predict individual developments with any precision, but we can say within certain limits of uncertainty what waves and trends will result from all the individual developments.

Futures studies are said to contain four dimensions, described as 3Ps and a WPossibilityPrediction and Preference, completed with Wildcards.

Many futurologists are driven by the preference P: the field clearly has a strong value component, sometimes also political: The thought directions are very diverse: From a culture pessimism a la Spengler, ecological disaster predictions, to technology optimism from people like Ray Kurzweil (see my previous blog on progress). They then make their point by showing the feasibility of the future they more or less predict. E.g. Kurzweil goes a long way in describing the current status of fields like genetics, brain research, artificial intelligence and robotics, and how from the current status in these fields we can expect a “Brave New World”! (The Singularity Is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology).

In my eyes the P of Predicted is often the weakest component. Not often enough is the future model presented as a potential future, one among many. In that sense I would want to stimulate this scientific approach to the field.

The final W of Wild Card refers to highly unlikely events with major impact. Often included in this field are disaster scenarios like a collision of the Earth with a comet or an asteroid.

We have now a growing toolbox of techniques to develop and evaluate possible futures. I mentioned above scenario writing. Well-known is the computer simulation of mathematical models, as used by Meadows and Forrester in their study Limits to Growth which they performed in 1972 for the Club of Rome (Limits to Growth: The 30-Year Update). Until today most studies in this field have been weak in empirical testing, a limitation that deserves ample attention.

If history teaches us one think, then it is that the future is always more exciting, more different, more mind blowing, than we could imagine at the time. Just take the period of my own life: Think of the Internet, wireless communications, ubiquitous computing, robots driving around on Mars, space telescopes looking all the way to the dawn of the Universe, to name just a few things. Of course some predictions did not come out, yet: We are not yet traveling to the stars, and humanoid robots are not yet all around us. But the developments I mentioned above were not anticipated, and have had a dramatic impact on the world and our lives.

What this shows us is that we should be prepared to think far out-of-the-box in the creation of our futures scenarios. Many of the developments we think up will go slower than we now think, others will go faster, and other matters we will not even have thought about. But thinking-out-of-the-box gives us models of tomorrow on the basis of which we can make decisions regarding what research to stimulate, and what risks to anticipate. So thinking-out-of-the-box I will do (or at least I will share in my posts preposterous ideas from others): terra-forming, post-biological life, hyper-intelligence, and even travel FTL (Faster Than Light), which sounds like impossible, but was considered even by Einstein!

And with these future posts I will not pretend to be predicting the future, as Asimov’s Hari Seldon does, but to evaluate possible futures, so we can prepare, prevent or promote.

In some of my coming posts you will be presented with radical and often outrageous ideas and concepts. When that happens, bear with me, these thoughts are brought to yo in order to stimulate the thought process, and to evaluate the consequences. The future will be different from the models anyway! And probably the future will be very exciting!

Enjoy the ride!

What to do between today and 2113?

So there we go! A reader starts writing. In that sense we are talking about an experiment, testing a hypothesis. The hypothesis is that someone who reads a lot (and I mean A LOT, just ask my wife!) also has something to say. Is able to process all that information, mix it, judge it, cut it up and combine it in now ways, to generate valuable new thoughts.

Also this is an experiment in the workings of social media: Believe it or not, but I have been teaching and consulting on the topic, but have never done a blog, never attempted to draw a following. I realize that I had three words in the previous sentence (believe, teaching, following) that could create a suspicion regarding religiosity. Just to take that suspicion away immediately (and warn the religious faint-of-heart): I am quite un- if not anti-religious, and will no doubt show that on a regular basis in this blog. So: If you can’t handle that, don’t read me!

So this blog is the start of a journey towards the year 2113, and in parallel a learning experience in generating traffic, followers, sharing, comments, based on my texts. In order for that to be successful I need to write good and well thought through blogs on topics that matter to people. Well, if I can create such texts we will see, as that is part of the experiment.

The topics you will find orbit around the exciting development of science and technology in the coming 100 years, and they ways in which this will change our lives and who we are in most profound ways. I will write about the mega trends that I see, which include genetics, robotics and space exploration, to mention the most important ones.

I will aim at painting possible scenarios of the world between today and the year 2113, and connect that futuristic image with developments of today: Technology developments, science developments and the social and political processes that have an impact on them.

So, the first question I am now curious about is the effect of mentioning the topics above on interest in and visits to by blog. My expectations are modest. I realize that I will need to create content that you want to read, spend your precious time on. Therefore I will ask your feedback, so I can accommodate.

For all non-Finnish readers: On Friday we celebrate Juhannus, which is Mid-Summer, a very important day for Finnish people (and for Dutchmen living in Finland. So I wish all a great Mid-Summer, and remember: After Friday the days are getting shorter, and we will be heading straight towards winter (Finnish optimism!).

This post is transferred, in slightly modified form, from Blogger.

Summer in Finland