Frank Wilczek’s The Lightness of Being is an entertaining and very interesting read for anyone curious in finding out what’s at the bottom of the universe. I’m mathematically handicapped, but fascinated by these topics. It’s great to have someone like Wilczek who can give us an understanding of the nature of the universe without requiring advanced mathematics.

I’ve always thought that you could describe a baseball game in purely mathematical terms, and it might be completely accurate, and incomprehensible to all but a few. But a 10 year old can watch the game and understand it. Maybe the universe works the same way. Wilczek’s book let’s you peek through the fence and at least get a glimpse of the action.

Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.

Anti-gravity

I don’t mean aircraft, I mean a complete understanding of gravity and its direct counteraction.

photovoltaics are almost at grid parity. (same cost as coal or petrol) A small increase in efficiency will change the energy outlook forever. Cheap energy truly to cheap to meter for the entire world!

In Horace Freeland Judson’s book, ‘The Eighth Day of Creation’, molecular biologist Sydney Brenner, talked about the science as it stood two-plus decades ago. He pointed to the vast domains of understanding that were still lacking and claimed that we could only call ourselves masters of the field when we could create a unicorn in a test tube, at will. Perhaps that time is drawing a little closer?

Chris, Reading, MA.

My votes are:

1. Fusion power (end energy scarcity)

2. Anti-aging technologies, including organ culture
(end mortality)

3. Superintelligent, self-replicating robots
(replace human beings in many productive tasks)

“….a power so great, it can only be used for good…….or evil” — Firesign Theatre

Hi Tom,

I think that Room Temperature Superconductors would revolutionize our
lives. I think that Frank Wilczek would agree.

Thanks,
–John

BTW, thorium reactors are no panacea
(although thorium is more widely distributed than uranium, the fuel can still be used to make nuclear weapons. Do we want 1000 plants worldwide spewing out materials that terrorists can potentially lay their hands on?)

Although fusion technology would also be capital-intensive, at least it would not feed nuclear proliferation. We probably should be investing more (> $10B/yr on getting fusion off the ground, because this would liberate humanity from dependence on fossil fuels, with negligible effects on climate. It will always be 50 years in the future until we get serious about it.

Common sense in politics

The total sum of all the change effected by new information across the spectrum of human knowledge from biological to hard sciences is impossible to predict. Common mutual respect and the simple fact – ‘Treat others as you would want to be treated,’ have to guide all human actions or we can all become terrorists as the alternative, protecting our own.

Tom,

Listening to your show this morning with half-an-ear, I was somewhat dismayed at with the topic and the comments, until – the woman called in and gave you all the razz for the “lack of humility” of your topic and this morning’s conversation’s treatment of it.

The most alarming statement I heard this morning was your assertion that some future scientific breakthroughs might turn life on its head. [ Been there. Still at it. ]

One of my all-time favorite quotes:

“The most significant feature of modern civilization is the sacrifice of the future to the present, and all the power (and genius) of science is prostituted to this purpose.”
( Ca. 1900 by William James, American psychologist and philosopher)

Science, via its favorite child – “Technology” – has already been working assiduously to effectively undermine “Nature” (thus “life”) for at least a couple of centuries, attempting to gain any possible advantage, for either the boffins themselves, or for their “benefactors”. “Nature” is a system. Science and its many practitioners have been “gaming the system” ( we usually just call this “cheating” ). They’ve done pretty well at it so far. Life has already been significantly turned on its head as a result of “scientific achievements”. There is little doubt in my mind that the upheavals we’re seeing now (economic, environmental) are the inevitable result of “Nature’s” inherent ballast, resolutely seeking gravitational equilibrium. Lately, at a rapidly accelerating rate, scientists are realizing that there is now going to be overwhelming payback for the Industrial Era’s perversions of the environment and the rules governing life. Science needs to pay more attention to its philosophical departments.

Two more relevant quotes: “The economy is a wholly owned subsidiary of the environment.” (Nelson) ; “Nature always bats last.” (Gould)

It’s been fun.

Dan Treecraft

Polywell Fusion Reactor.

===

“Solar power is the only sustainable source for the world’s future energy needs”

So true. Scientists are already working on ways to collect dark energy. When you consider that at the poles it is dark 6 months of the year, it is obvious that there are vast amounts of untapped dark energy available.

I think small-scale, home-based manufacturing will happen in my lifetime and change everything.

We already have 3-D printers, of course, which have really cool, if limited, functionality. But they’re still kind of pricey and their usefulness is limited.

But I can imagine a time in the not-too-distant future when a 3-D printer could manufacture almost any simple household item; a stapler, a spoon, a chair, a handbag.

It’s not hard to imagine a 3-D printer doing more complicated electronic goods, too.

I don’t think my life would be much changed if suddenly we could have cat-dogs or sheep-goats, as one of the contributors suggested.

But I am confident that if all the goods I need in my house could be manufactured in my neighborhood, that my world would be very different indeed.

I am not sure what will be discovered, but I am sure after 2010 the Earth will be more toxic than it is today and all the new inventions will continue to help this cause. Cell towers, wind turbines and solar panels will continue to allow us to mine and bulldoze mountains away, the world military machine will create more weapons to scare children, there will be more people wanting to live a materialistic life and universities will continue to give worthless education.

I think we should read Isaac Newton’s predictions on technology, world problems and the 21st century. We should also read

Do Not Worry

25″Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more important than food, and the body more important than clothes? 26Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they? 27Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to his life[b]?

28″And why do you worry about clothes? See how the lilies of the field grow. They do not labor or spin. 29Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these. 30If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, will he not much more clothe you, O you of little faith? 31So do not worry, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’ 32For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them. 33But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well. 34Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.

If we do this, we probably will stop destroying the Earth and wanting to be materialists. I can only hope.

Undoubtedly we will have a time of great dying; when resources are mined out, disease is rampant, governance is uncontrolled and the horses of the apocalypse ride roughshod across the planet. Warfare and triage will hold the scythe, and population will be cut by 20% due to natures collapse and another 20% due to the aftermath.

There will be great opportunities to reconstruct our ways of working and living to fit the population levels of say 50 years ago (50% of today’s population) or 100 years ago (would be about 20% of todays population). Sustainability needs to be seen not as a supply side issue, but as a demand curve.

I am surprised that such a long obvious trajectory as overpopulation to collapse is barely discussed as real.

How will we learn to stop when we we are ahead?

A new experimental city built from scratch, controlled by computers at It`s core and used as an example to the rest of the world will change everything.
We find that our quality of life, as far as functionality, has been increased greatly by the benefits of the technological tools we create. From a lawn mower to a pace maker, technology saves lives and decreases the amount of time we need to spend on mundane, difficult or dangerous activities. In fact, if one steps back far enough, it becomes clear that Technological development is the most important institution we have and the pursuit of socially helpful technology(not weapons) should be the highest priority of the culture.

At the same time, technological development is brought about by a particular train of thought, or process… this could be called “The Scientific Method”. Carl Sagan was once quoted as saying something to the effect of “Society welcomes the gifts of science, but rejects its methods”.

This is very true in the modern age, for what the public fails to understand is that science is not just a tool… it is a near universal functionality which can be applied to society in ways many would not think about.

It seems obvious that technology improves our lives and serves as the greatest liberator of human life in the material realm… so why aren’t its methods applied to society as a whole?

Obviously, the scientific method is used constantly for isolated systems, but it has never been truly considered in the broadest ways. This is largely due to age old superstitions which battle the logic of science in favor of a dogmatic, outdated and highly romanticized world view.

If we had the option to rebuild a society from scratch, how would we do it to make it the most efficient, sustainable and humane? This is our perspective. Obviously, we cannot build a society from scratch but the point is clear. It is time we stop thinking about monetary concerns and limitations, and begin to think about the possibilities we have here on earth in the broadest sense.

It is this interest that has created the concept of a ‘Resource Based Economy’. The Venus project has been working on this concept for a long time and its foundation is very simple. We survey, preserve and maximize our use of planetary resources in conjunction with open information and technological development.

In this view, little is left to subjective interpretation, for it is a scientifically derived strategy for social construction at the very core. From there, the scientific parameters work themselves out as far as possibilities.