Continue reading »]]> It’s not about politics. It’s about what we know and what we don’t know…yet.

Speaking on the subject of genetics, geneticist and synthetic biologist Craig Venter recently stated: “We know 1% of what we’ll ultimately know.”

This week,Phil  and Stephen  consider that 99% (or more)  that we haven’t learned yet — not just genetics, but across the board.

Where are our biggest gaps in knowledge? And where are the biggest surprises likely to come from? Tune in an explore.

Wednesday, 5/15/2013 7 PM PST / 10 PM EST

Continue reading »]]> I’m reading K. Eric Drexler’s new book Radical Abundance, which explores the impact of atomically precise manufacturing (APM). Drexler predicts that APM will be with us soon and that it will transform the global economy in ways that can be compared to the industrial revolution of the 18th century or the advent of agriculture some 10,000 years ago. That is to say, he predicts it will be among the biggest shifts that have ever occurred.

Drexler compares the introduction of APM with the digital revolution of the past few decades, asserting that APM will essentially turn the production of physical goods into a form on information technology. Just as digital technologies made it possible to produce unlimited copies of information products (books, recorded movies, music) at essentially zero cost, APM will enable the production of physical goods at a tiny fraction of the cost of producing them today — enabling a world of radical abundance per the book’s title. This transition will not come without problems, however. Imagine the kind of disruption which has occurred in the music business over the past decade and a half applied to manufacturing, agriculture, and energy production. The elimination of infrastructure, businesses, and employment will be staggering. Drexler warns that with the introduction of APM we may face a period of “catastrophic success.”

That’s an interesting turn of phrase. We’re all familiar with the concept of “creative destruction,” wherein a new technology or set of technologies come along and supplant the old order — taking businesses and livelihoods with them, but producing far more opportunity than they eliminated. Catastrophic success, it would seem, is an advanced form of creative destruction.

I’ve written extensively over the past couple of years (at the Transparency Revolution blog) about the possibility that automation may be behind some of the long-term problems we’re seeing with the employment picture. Just last week, observing a long-term drop in the number of people employed in the manufacturing sector, I wrote:

The standard argument is that manufacturing as a whole must now be seen as a quaint, buggy-whip-making type activity — one that technology and economic growth have decreed is no longer a viable creator of jobs. But not to worry! The economy marches on, creating more and better opportunities for all those folks displaced from manufacturing jobs. Automation is simply replacing drudge work, as it always has. The real economy is in information, now, not stuff. Everyone has the chance to move up the value chain.

The problem with that argument is that our machines are far better at working with information than we are, except where it comes to actually understanding information, where we still have a bit of an edge. Automation is poised to start killing white-collar jobs with the same ruthless zeal that it used in going after blue-collar jobs. In fact, the use of the future tense in that sentence is superfluous. This is already happening. How else can we account for an economy that is growing overall — however slowly — while the total number of people who work continues to go down?

Not only is technology eliminating jobs, our reliance on it makes it harder for people who are not part of the workforce to join it (or to get back into it.) For example, people who are employed tend to have larger, more current, and more viable social networks than people who aren’t. A returning veteran or a recent college graduate or someone who has been out of work for six months or so can’t rely on social technology, which is driving more and more of the job-search / hiring pr0ocess, to give them the same boost that it gives to others — especially when there is already a presumption in place against hiring the unemployed. Technology is a great enhancer and accelerator of things, including being left out.

If Drexler is correct, we’re no longer just talking about automation replacing jobs in certain sectors of the economy; we’re talking about whole sectors of the economy changing beyond recognition, if not disappearing altogether. The upside is huge: cheaper, better everything — an era of plenty unlike anything we’ve ever seen before. But it’s unclear how we transition from the one era to the next, how we minimize the catastrophe while maximizing the success.

Stay tuned.

We’ll discuss this idea on this week’s The World Transformed. Join us:

Thursday, 5/9/2013 7 PM PST / 10 PM EST

Continue reading »]]>

Special guests Ben Goertzel and David Pearce join Phil and Stephen to examine the question of mind uploading.

Is the human mind ultimately a sophisticated piece of software that will one day be translated to run on another platform — namely, a computer? Will human beings be able to upload their memories, their personalities, and their ongoing subjective experience to a machine substrate?

These questions have been hotly debated of late with prominent figures taking a stand both against and for.

Who to believe? Tune in for answers!

Wednesday May 1 2013
7 PM PDT / 10 PM EDT

About Out Guests

Continue reading »]]> What’s better than reality? How about augmented reality — applications that interact with the world around us to provide startling new insights and capabilities.

Special guests Jospeh Rampolla and Collin O’Malley join hosts Phil Bowermaster and Stephen Gordon to discuss the opportunities (and risks) represented by this amazing new technology.

What happens when the whole world becomes a computer interface? Give it a listen…

—

—

About Our Guests

Joseph Rampolla has been a law enforcement officer for 18 years. In 1994 he received a Masters of Arts degree in Criminal Justice from John Jay College in New York City. Joseph holds a Bachelor of Arts degree in Law &  Society from Ramapo College of New Jersey. He became a police officer in 1995 and currently holds the rank of Captain for the Park Ridge Police Department. He has supervised numerous criminal investigations within the department and oversees the Detective Bureau. In 2003 he was assigned to a regional computer crimes task force. He has successfully completed training offered by county, state and federal agencies as well as leading  technology companies with a focus in the areas of computer forensics, Internet child exploitation, cyber-bullying, cyber counter-terrorism, human trafficking, and Peer-to-Peer file sharing investigations. He is a member of the HTCIA, HTCC, and IACIS . Joseph enjoys teaching the topics of cyber crimes, augmented reality / virtual worlds, cyber-bullying and advanced undercover Internet Relay Chat (IRC) investigations. He has taught International law enforcement at Microsoft in Redmond WA, in the Ontario Canadian Providence, and taught cybercrime topics to all levels of law enforcement for the National Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force.  Joseph serves as a consultant for various organizations across the United States and presents for the National District Attorney’s Association (NDAA) and Fox Valley Technical College. He has become an Augmented Reality “Junkie” and dreams about how AR can make our world a better place while protecting society. Joseph is the creator of the Augmented Reality Dirt Podcast and Blog (ARDirt.com). The AR Dirt Podcast is one of the first podcasts dedicated to field of AR and explores cutting edge and emerging technologies that influence society, cybercrime and our legal system. Joseph recently co-authored the book “Augmented Reality – An Emerging Technologies Guide to AR” which was released in December of 2012.

Collin O’Malley is the IT Director for Legacy Academy Charter School in Elizabeth, CO. Legacy Academy is the first iSchool in Colorado and one of the first schools to implement a one to one deployment of iPads. Prior to Legacy Academy, Collin worked for Apple.Inc for nearly 6 years in Littleton and Lone Tree, Colorado as well as London, England. Collin has extensive knowledge and experience on Apple products and software. He also holds certifications as a Mac Technician as well as Final Cut Pro and Aperture. His passion for emerging technologies has led him to experiment with Augmented Reality in an education setting exploring new ideas to engage students.

—

Cross-posted from The World Transformed

Continue reading »]]> (Cross-posted from The Speculist.)

There’s a great piece currently running on Pajamas Media from physicist Frank J. Tipler on the subject of whether our current society any longer has any interest in  pursuing big ideas. Not surprisingly, the author of The Anthropic Cosmological Principle opines that there are still some big ideas out there, and that people are still actively and eagerly pursuing them.

He concludes with a huge one. But before he goes there he lays out the following:

Then there is transhumanism: the evidence is very strong that sometime in this century (I predict by 2030, Ray Kurzweil by 2045) we will see the creation of computer programs that are fully equal to humans in mental ability.  At roughly the same time, we predict that humans will be able to download themselves into computers, and live forever.

(Yes, you read me right. What you see here is only the second biggest big idea that Tipler presents. Read the whole piece to discover the biggest.)

In the comments section, skeptics make short work of Tipler’s transhumanist projections:

And I predict that by 2030 Mr. Tipler will have revised his prediction of computer programs fully equal to humans in mental ability to 2050, perhaps not noticing that it’s been a good while since anyone takes these recycled 70′s era strong-AI pronouncements seriously anymore. Our gadgets are great tools, and while imputing our own capabilities onto our tools is fun and makes for great movies, it will remain a pipe dream, and thankfully so.

Another adds:

I have seen strong AI claims of this form for 50 years, and they have universally been wrong. We do not have systems that are even close to being able to simulate human intelligence.

I’m not interested in exploring when or whether strong artificial intelligence is going to happen. (Anyone who is interested in the subject might give this a listen.) But I’m intrigued by the argument. People have predicted [name a development] in the past and it didn’t happen when or how they said it would; therefore, predictions of [that same development] can be discounted. Here the principle is applied to strong artificial intelligence, but presumably it will work with anything that has ever been predicted.

For example,  many of you are no doubt familiar with this sketch made by Leonardo da Vinci probably some time in the 1480′s:

This is a preposterously inaccurate representation of how heavier-than-air flight would work. Poor Leonardo naively believed a flying machine could be built from materials available in his day and age. As if! He was off by a mile, as were many who came after him.

Such a blatantly inaccurate record of predictions spanning hundreds of years can only mean one thing: airplanes are impossible. They do not exist.

Oh, and while we’re on the subject, helicopters are also a fantasy:

If you’re not entirely satisfied with that analysis, you might be interested in future forecaster Paul Saffo‘s admonition that we should “never confuse a clear view with a short distance.” I would add that we should never confuse a long road with an impossible destination.

A while back I was present at a talk Saffo gave in which he explained this principle using a chart similar to the one shown below. Technological progress and adoption rates don’t follow the straight line we would expect. Rather, progress occurs along an S-curve which encourages overestimation in the early stages and underestimation further along. Or as Saffo puts it, “Technologists can get it wrong twice.”

Saffo provides some great examples of this S-curve in action as it relates to adoption rates of some familiar technologies.

Obviously, the fact that a given technological development has been inaccurately predicted doesn’t prove it will happen. The point is that it’s not terribly good evidence that it won’t happen, either.

Keep that in mind when you hear predictions of coming developments. Do they sound overly enthusiastic? Do they sound overly cautious? And remember the S curve.

Continue reading »]]>  

The future is on its way. What will it be like? Phil and Stephen debate some pivotal questions about what may unfold in the years to come:

Continue reading »]]> Your hosts are observing spring break this week, so enjoy this great discussion from 2011:  David Brin, P.J. Manney, and Thomas McCabe talk about how our thinking must change if we are to survive and thrive in a  world transformed.

The World Transformed 2, Part 1

Some of it is evolutionary, some of it is cultural, and a small portion of it is original to us as individuals.

It is our way of thinking.

Our thinking is always subject to scrutiny and inspection, but perhaps never more urgently than now. If profound change truly is upon us…

…what assumptions must we avoid?

…what new ideas must we be ready to embrace?

…what cherished “truths” must we be prepared to put away once and for all?

Our panel will explore the role that education, imagination, and creativity have to play in coming to grips with a world in a state of transformation.

Continue reading »]]>  

Babies cured of HIV! Sharks with chainsaw jaws! Earth-Like planets closer then we thought! Ancient languages reconstructed! Rats with their brains wired together!

Phil and Stephen review select items from popular web features dedicated to tracking weekly developments in science. Amazing breakthroughs are occurring all the time.

What’s coming next? Our hosts provide some headlines they hope to see soon.

Continue reading »]]> Futurists Samantha Atkins and PJ Manney join Phil and Stephen  to discuss whether there is anything truly new in the movement known as “transhumanism.” Was there ever a time when humanity wasn’t striving to transcend its current state?

Perhaps we’ll find that we have always lived in the future.

If so — how is the situation any different today? What exactly is the difference between a human and a “trans” human?

Tune in and explore!

About our Guests:

Samantha Atkins is a software architect, a futurist, and a transhumanist. Much of her professional work is in the area of persistent and distributed systems.  She is also is a budding entrepreneur currently bootstrapping a startup to make people effectively smarter. She has an avid interest in Artificial Intelligence, Longevity, and Intelligence Augmentation.

Samantha also runs a transhumanist group in Second Life with weekly meetings on current technological trends and research in nanotech, biotech, energy, computation, cognitive science, economics and other current situation indicators and what can be done to move us toward the future we desire. She is especially focused on envisioning the future we wish to inhabit and on what it will take to manifest this future, especially in the critical nexus of the next few decades.

PJ Manney is a writer and futurist. She is the former chair of the World Transhumanist Association — an organization whose name she helped change. She has also been a frequent guest, sometimes host and the official hollywood correspondent for this program.