Thinking Longer Term about Technology

1
Thinking Longer Term about Technology

• Christine Peterson
• Foresight Nanotech Institute
• for ASU Center for Nanotechnology in Society

2
Disclaimer

• Not a social scientist
• Not a physical scientist
• Not an academic
• With a public interest organization, motivated by
  environmental and humanitarian goals

3
Standard Error

• We tend to overestimate the impact of a
  technology in the short run and underestimate it
  in the long run. (Roy Amara, Institute for the
  Future)
• People tend to overestimate what can be done in
  one year and to underestimate what can be done in
  five or ten years. (Joseph Licklider, MIT
  computer and internet visionary)
• Paul Saffo explanation latter is reaction
• Kurzweil people think linearly, not
  exponentially as they need to do

4
Necessary to divide into timeframes

• Near term 2-5 years
• Mid term 5-10 years
• Long term 20 years
• Interested parties, and those attempting
  predictions, vary by timeframe

5
Near term 2-5 years

• Interested parties Everyone, but especially
  industry
• Who predicts trade consultancies
• If predictions are done well, predictors can do
  very well financially
• Plenty of entities trying to predict in this
  timeframe, info is widely available

6
Mid term 5-10 years

• Interested parties Military, govt, insurance,
  utilities, v. large cos
• Who predicts Think tanks, some academics with
  approp. funding
• Global Business Network, Institute for the Future
• Ned Thomas, MIT Institute of Soldier
  Nanotechnologies (boots)
• In some ways, this is the most challenging
  timeframe

7
Long term 20 years

• Interested parties Military, govt, insurance,
  utilities, individuals
• Environmentalists should be, but are too busy w/
  nearer timeframes
• Who predicts Visionaries, sf writers. In rare
  cases, think tanks

8
Mid term and long term what doesnt work

• Survey of natural scientists
• Some do applied also, but pure scientists
  pursue eternal verities focus on natural world
  as it is do not think much about tech change,
  new tools, building new things
• Cultural bias against predicting tech change
  (hype, overpromising)
• Predictions tend to be far too conservative

9
When a scientist says a proposed tech is
impossible

• Can have one of three meanings
• 1. Impossible due to law of physics etc., which I
  can specify and explain
• 2. Impossible with todays tools
• 3. Impossible in my lifetime or working lifetime
• Need to dig in. Often 2 or 3, which are timing
  predictions
• If unclear, need visible debate

10
Tools for looking ahead to long term technologies

• Laws of physics etc. as understood today. These
  laws do not change, only our understanding of
  them. Cant predict when that will happen. Can
  predict filling in of details (not content or
  change in laws)
• Laws of economics faster, better, cheaper
• Laws of human nature, here defined not to change.
  People want to be healthier, better-looking,
  richer, and will engineer toward those goals

11
Think tanks making mid- to long-term tech
predictions

• Clients are government agencies, military, v.
  large companies, utilities, insurance cos
• Example Global Business Network Peter Schwartz,
  Stewart Brand
• Example Institute for the Future Paul Saffo,
  Bob Johansen, David Pescovitz
• Usual timeframe is up to 10 years
• Recent effort by IFTF to do 10, 20, 50 years for
  UK govt. OK for 10, 20 on nanotech, not OK for
  50 years (nanobio limitation not realistic in
  that timeframe 50 years is v long)

12
Long term tech predictors

• Visionaries. Examples
• Doug Engelbart hypertext, network, GUI
• Ted Nelson personal computers, hypertext
• Richard Feynman nanotech (see quote)
• Eric Drexler nanotech
• David Brin transparency technologies
• Ray Kurzweil accelerating change, reverse
  engineering of brain as route to AI (timing)
• Central insight vs. details, ramifications, time
  estimates, adoption

13
Feynman, 1959
The principles of physics, as far as I can
see, do not speak against the possibility of
maneuvering things atom by atom. It is not an
attempt to violate any laws it is something, in
principle, that can be done but in practice, it
has not been done because we are too big.
Theres Plenty of Room at the Bottom
14
Long term tech predictors

• Hard science fiction writers. Examples
• Enders Game by Orson Scott Card. Future of
  computer gaming. Reqd reading for rising stars
  in U.S. Navy
• Accelerando by Charles Stross. Future of
  wearables, gift economy, tax on mobile
  professionals.
• We think in terms of scenarios involving people.
  Hard sf writers generate human scenarios using
  future technologies based on current science.
  U.S. military invites such writers to brainstorm.

15
Hard sf

• Ability to think calmly about major change seems
  to correlate with reading this at some point
  (poll)
• Those attempting to look ahead in technology
  really should read the best of it
• Painful process for literature lovers often poor
  characterization, dialog, plot
• Feels hard to justify as work, not fun enough for
  play
• Suggestion dont think of it as literature.
  Skim the annoying parts

16
Hard sf

• For most benefit, need to know science
• Reason writers selectively violate a physical
  law on occasion to make a human story
• Example faster-than-light travel to shorten
  travel times
• Example Poul Anderson nanotech story in which
  nano is inexplicably applied to all areas except
  energy. Bogus technical reason given for this,
  but real reason is to make a good story.
• Level of influence Many engineers/ technologists
  (not scientists) do pay attention to hard sf and
  visionaries in their fields

17
Sounds like science fiction

• If youre trying to look far ahead, and what you
  see seems like science fiction, it might be
  wrong.
• But if it doesnt seem like science fiction, its
  definitely wrong.

18
Summary

• Mid-to-long term technological prediction
  extremely difficult
• Timeframe estimates extraordinarily so
• Futurist think tanks address mid-term
• Visionaries, hard sf address long-term
• Natural scientists not good at technology
  projections
• Fundamentals physical law, laws of economics,
  human nature
• Avoid standard error of overestimating near term,
  underestimating long term

19
Resources

• foresight.org main site
• nanodot.org news blog back to 2000
• Book Unbounding the Future (full text online)
• 14th Foresight Conference on Advanced
  Nanotechnology, May 2007, on Technology Roadmap
  for Productive Nanosystems (with Battelle)
• Foresight Vision Weekend, Spring 2007