Install a Future Scanner button on your blog.

A brief glimpse at our accelerating 21st century future

June 21 2008 / by futuretalk
Category: Other   Year: General   Rating: 10

By Dick Pelletier

“Two billion years ago, our ancestors were microbes; a half-billion years ago, fish; a hundred million years ago, mice; ten million years ago, aboreal apes; and a million years ago, proto-humans puzzling out the taming of fire. Our evolutionary lineage is marked by mastery of change” – Carl Sagan. Life may appear to change slowly, but today, biotech, nanotech, information technologies, and cognitive science are advancing at breathtaking speeds. Futurist Ray Kurzweil calls this “The Law of Accelerating Returns,” which describes the exponential growth of human evolution. Within the next three decades, many predict, accelerating technologies could eliminate sickness, aging; even death.

The following timeline takes a look at how our 21st century future could unfold:

•2010-2019. Doctors become proficient with stem cell and genetic engineering therapies and can now rejuvenate aging bodies by repairing damaged tissues, bones, muscles and organs. Affordable patient genomes are available by 2012 as medical care moves from reactive to proactive. Cancer and diabetes become manageable by 2015, and heart disease, the number one cause of death in 2007, is controllable by 2019.

•2020-2029. Driverless cars have become the main travel mode in 2020. By mid-decade, nanobots travel through our bodies maintaining health 24/7. All illnesses are now curable; however Mother Nature is creating new diseases to replace old ones. Bold scientists are now suggesting that we replace our biology with non-biological materials, which would make us immune to this evolutionary backlash. Ethicists around the world are pondering this radical proposal. (cont.)

•2030-2049. Futurists saw it coming: “Machines would one day outthink humans.” By 2035, the world’s most powerful supercomputer surpassed human intelligence. This milestone event encouraged us to enhance our minds and bodies with non-biological nanomaterials that allow us to interface with our silicon cousins and share their intelligence. In this manner, humans will always remain smarter than their artificial intelligence creations. And living in enhanced bodies that can shape-shift into different designs on command – and are protected from death – has provided an exhilarating sense of comfort, security, and well-being.

•2050-2074. Space settlements became self-sufficient on the moon in late 2020s and Mars in 2040s. This fostered a rush to space, fueled by lucrative asteroid mining which produced the world’s first trillionaires. By 2070, work began on an artificial habitat, a huge rotating cylinder located near the L-5 lagrangian point above Earth. More than 20,000 citizens signed up in advance to purchase vacation homes in this futuristic wonder. Residents can gaze down through a ‘power-scope’ and observe home planet activities from on high or just enjoy the many wonders of space life.

•2075-2099. Scientists can now harness all of the solar energy that strikes our planet, which increases 2007 energy supplies by 100-billion times. And warp-drive propulsion systems have prompted a huge migration to space. These advancements helped create an affluent, peaceful society where it is no longer viable to waste energy on intra-global conflicts. Now, we are ready “to boldly go where no man has gone before.”

Could these events happen so quickly? Every scenario mentioned in this article is within the capabilities of human accomplishment. Get ready; Gang, for a most incredible “magical future.”

Do you believe that events could happen in the time frame mentioned in this piece?

or Show Results

Comment Thread (12 Responses)

  1. I chose the option number three. What do future humans think of us? (Or will there be future humans?) I believe we will conquer death during the next four decades. But the medicine and stem cell wonders of 2010-2020 could help the retired of today survive long enough to will until 2050. Nanotech wonders of 2020s should theoretically enable us to conquer death, but the human body is so complex, that it will still probably take a couple of decades (From 2020s) until we have enough knowledge of the human body to actually start “fountain of youth” experiments on humans. Human knowledge doubles approximately once during seven years. That time of doubling should radically decrease, because the law of acceleration also applies to our growth of knowledge. And don’t worry Pelletier, if future doesn’t unfold this optimistic, you could still sign for cryo-preservation. If we merge with machines during the 2040s, our level of intelligence will grow exponentially, which results in the fact, that we can’t accurately foresight events, that will happen after the singularity. Future humans (us) might not even think of booking a vacation from space.

    Could this all be possible in just a couple of decades? I’m one that believes so. What do you think?

    Posted by: JHE   June 22, 2008
    Vote for this comment - Recommend

  2. JHE, as a Positive Futurist, I certainly believe that society could advance along the timeline suggested in this piece.

    Though it is impossible to project with 100 percent accuracy events so far in advance, for the most part, this could be a picture of our future.

    Regarding cryonic-preservation, although I do not wish to discourage anyone who has signed up for services at Alcor or any other freezing facility; I believe that by the time technology has advanced to the point where preserved tissues can be “morphed” into an exact replica of the frozen patient before death, including restoring mind and memories (hopefully by mid-century or before), other technologies could appear that would accomplish the same thing.

    Tomorrow’s artificial intelligence, armed with the number-crunching abilities of quantum computing, could, some say, gather up enough data around the world to simulate a deceased person’s mind, memories, emotions, personality; etc., along with physical information, and recreate that individual. Would this simulation truly represent the original? If friends, relatives, and associates could not tell the difference, and if the simulated person believes that he or she is the original person; then maybe they are the original person.

    I believe that a simulation would satisfy me that it is really me.

    Then there is always the possibility that time traveling nanobots might one day approach me while I am still living, scan my mind, and bring it into the future allowing me to continue my life. Wild, but possible. Comments welcome.

    Posted by: futuretalk   June 22, 2008
    Vote for this comment - Recommend

  3. I agree 100%.

    I look the future in a positive way, and I never have disagreed with your views of the future (I have read atleast 50 of your posts.).

    The idea that a deceased person could be brought back to life after their death remains a mystery. How could just come back to life if you had already died? Relatives, friends and co-workers wouldn’t notice a change, but would it really be you?

    Then again how would like the idea of a indefinite life span? I suppose the leading politicians do. So the government support would be obvious.

    Humans have always searched to conquer the biological “mistakes”, and that “trend” is on going, now maybe more than ever.

    Another futuristic way of solving complex problems involves time travel. “A man in the 2050s sits on a chair and wonders what is the perfect way of playing chess on 100×100 (In the future the standard 8×8 board is way too easy.) board. He walks to the personal nano-replicator, and constructs a hand-held time travel enabled nano-quantum computer. He programmes the computer to start solving the specified problem. A second later he get’s the answer to the machine, that also triples of as a receiver. The answer had traveled through time!”

    I would be delighted, if you would address my thoughts Pelletier.

    Posted by: JHE   June 23, 2008
    Vote for this comment - Recommend

  4. On the ninth text filled row of my last post, i meant who, not how. And on the fifth text filled row it misses a you word: How could you…

    Posted by: JHE   June 23, 2008
    Vote for this comment - Recommend

  5. I chose option number two. Not only does 2040 sound way too optimistic for the maturation of transhuman tech, I’m starting to think that 2100 may be a tad optimistic as well. I know this for a fact. IEEE Spectrum wouldn’t lie.

    Their recent Singularity special issue has articles by the best and brightest folks of their respective fields. These people have carefully analyzed the subject and have come up with thorough and evidence-based opinions. Most are skeptical of some technologically-propelled secular Rapture happening by mid-century, and rightfully so. The human body is not something we can just regenerate on-the-fly to stop and reverse the aging process. Aging is an immensely complicated ballet of precise biological processes that are next-to-impossible to detect using our current and near-future scientific tools.

    I find it sad that Dick is inflating the hopes of the Baby Boomers this way. Most of what he talks about comes from the mouth of the infamous Ray Kurzweil, who is well-known as a pariah in science-land.

    Posted by: adbatstone80   June 23, 2008
    Vote for this comment - Recommend

  6. @adbatstone80: Who are the brightest folks on their field?

    IEEE spectrum is wrote by skepticists, and aimed at skepticists. On their article “Waiting for the rapture” they unanimously knock out the idea of uploading minds to evade death. They write: “It’s just wishful thinking to believe that people could escape death by uploading their minds.”

    From the same article: “Now you know why the singularity has also been called the rapture of the geeks.”

    IEEE spectrum is just a plain anti-singularitarian magazine. Nothing less, nothing more. When I read the text of the IEEE spectrum, it looks like it’s wrote by negative sci-fi authors. It’s a combination of sci-fi and skepticism.

    There are positive futurists, who believe, that the future will be “magical”, and negative futurists, that believe, that our advancement in the field of technology will eventually engineer our own destruction. But the authors of IEEE spectrum are neither, they simply think that death is un-reverse-engineerable. That sounds like religion!

    What comes to the aging processes: Aging might be caused by just a couple of genes. Why do we (humans) tolerate death, illness and desease? Why do we just say: Oh we can’t do anything about it. We all could die tomorrow! (From causes that we can’t even control yet. Supernovae for example.) Humans shall progress step by step. When we conquer aging and death we can focus on another problems like global warming, and population boom.

    Skepticism ain’t a science. There are three kind of sciences: Humanistic sciences, natural sciences and philosophical sciences. And skepticism doesn’t fit in any of those categories.

    Instead of arguing who is wrong and who is not, we should be focusing on bigger problems like global warming, alternative energy, disease, illness, dictatorship, war and last, but not least: death.

    I have talked. Thank you.

    Posted by: JHE   June 23, 2008
    Vote for this comment - Recommend

  7. “IEEE spectrum is wrote by skepticists, and aimed at skepticists.”

    Spectrum is written by scientists, and aimed at scientists, who are trained to be skeptical. These are the people who work in the labs, publish papers, give lectures and immerse themselves into finding the best solutions. They don’t just say “such and such won’t happen” because they are a bunch of killjoys, there are reasons behind their skepticism.

    Those who propose a “magical future” (this means you too, Kurzweil) most likely haven’t had any peer-reviewed papers published or have little to no laboratory or academic experience in their chosen field. Kurzweil, a businessman and inventor, has no experience in neuroscience or biotechnology.

    Posted by: adbatstone80   June 23, 2008
    Vote for this comment - Recommend

  8. Kurzweil has a “honorary doctorate of science” from nine universities, three times “honorary doctorate of humane letters”, one time “honorary doctorate o music”, “honorary doctorate of engineering” and “honorary Doctorate in Science and Humanities”. And to top of that, he has nine awards in science and technology.

    This a bold list of trans-humanist high achievers:

    Martine Rothblatt, Chairman and CEO of United Therapeutics Philippe van Nedervelde, CEO of E-spaces, Director of Foresight Institute Europe Nick Bostrom, Oxford philosopher, Director of Future of Humanity Institute Ray Kurzweil, pioneering inventor, CEO of Kurzweil Technologies Max Tegmark, Associate Professor at MIT, leading cosmologist James Hughes, lecturer at Trinity College, author of Citizen Cyborg Marvin Minsky, AI pioneer and co-founder of MIT’s AI laboratory Ramez Naam, developer of IE and Outlook, formerly CEO of Apex Nanotechnologies Ben Goertzel, prolific author and CEO/CSO of Novamente LLC Bruce Klein, President of Novamente LLC John Smart, entrepreneur and futurist, founder of Accelerating Studies Foundation Susan Fonseca-Klein, Director of Development for Methuselah Foundation Max More, Strategic Philosopher, ManyWorlds, Inc. Natasha Vita-More, cultural strategist and designer Harvey Newstrom, Founding Partner, Newstaff, Inc. Dan Stoicescu, biotech millionaire, 2nd person to pay for his genome to be sequenced Brian Cartmell, successful Internet entrepreneur and millionaire, now VC William Sims Bainbridge, Co-Director of Human-Centered Computing at the NSF Terry Grossman, Director of the Frontier Medical Institute Phil Bowermaster, telecom professional Richard A. Clarke, formerly counter-terrorism czar for the US government Kevin Warwick, Professor of Cybernetics at the University of Reading Stelarc, acclaimed performance artist Amara Graps, astrophysicist at the Planetary Science Institute Steve Mann, Professor at University of Toronto, cybernetics pioneer

    And that is certainly not bad for a movement, which consists of approximately 10,000 people.

    Then a direct quote for Michael Anissimov’s bolg: “Some of them are philosophers and futurists, and I suppose that qualifies as “talk”, but professional talkers that consult with Fortune 500 companies and organizations like the CIA, put on leading technology conferences, and head major departments at universities is nothing to sneeze at.”

    If you want to debate so be it.

    I noticed a embarrassing mistake from my last post: I meant “Is written”, not “Is wrote”. Sorry for my immature use of the english language. (English is not my native tongue, as you may, or may not have noticed.)

    Comments welcome.

    Posted by: JHE   June 23, 2008
    Vote for this comment - Recommend

  9. Just a little add to the previous list: Anders Sandberg, Aubrey de Grey (Though he has said he doesn’t like the word “transhumanist”.), and David Pearce. The singularity is near blog writer Michael Anissimov is also active in transhumanist meetings.

    Posted by: JHE   June 23, 2008
    Vote for this comment - Recommend

  10. @adbatstone80

    “I find it sad that Dick is inflating the hopes of the Baby Boomers this way.”

    I personally do not believe that it’s what Dick is doing. My understanding is that Dick is well in his 70s. And he is apparently very excited about possibility of experiencing all these developments during his life. And for that, all that stuff have to start happening pretty soon. I’m in my 30s, so my timeline is not that optimistic. But I probably would not even bother to care about these things if I believed none of them have any chance of occurring in time to benefit me.

    Posted by: johnfrink   June 24, 2008
    Vote for this comment - Recommend

  11. “Kurzweil has a “honorary doctorate of science” from nine universities, three times “honorary doctorate of humane letters”, one time “honorary doctorate o music”, “honorary doctorate of engineering” and “honorary Doctorate in Science and Humanities”. And to top of that, he has nine awards in science and technology.”

    Honorary Doctorate = “Everyone gets a trophy” day.

    Kurzweil hasn’t studied a damn thing. He’s a crank who has manipulated everyone into thinking he’s some uber-scientist. He’s got all those awards because of his name.

    Posted by: adbatstone80   June 24, 2008
    Vote for this comment - Recommend

  12. @adbatstone80

    “Kurzweil hasn’t studied a damn thing. He’s a crank who has manipulated everyone into thinking he’s some uber-scientist.”

    It sounds like a typical ad hominem – attacking the person instead of the argument. Although Dick, on the other hand, seems to be trying to appeal to authority. One logical fallacy against another.

    Posted by: johnfrink   June 24, 2008
    Vote for this comment - Recommend

Related content from the Future Scanner and Future Blogger