Total Posts:21|Showing Posts:1-21
Jump to topic:

Michio Kaku - the world by 2030

phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2012 10:59:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Starts 5:40
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2012 6:51:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I've been going on and on about this stuff.

Now, knowing this, try to perceive our current socio-political global climate through the lens of a bunch of people that already know this, and much more, and are planning for the future based around this knowledge. I think that is the beginning of the path to true understanding of our current state.
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2012 6:58:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/11/2012 10:59:50 PM, phantom wrote:


Starts 5:40

Take it with a grain of salt. Michio Kaku is a pop-scientist.
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2012 9:41:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Some say it doesn't matter who got elected because we're going down the pooper either way.

I say it doesn't because the planet is going absolutely amazing places, and faster and faster with every day.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2012 11:16:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/12/2012 6:58:51 PM, MouthWash wrote:
At 11/11/2012 10:59:50 PM, phantom wrote:


Starts 5:40

Take it with a grain of salt. Michio Kaku is a pop-scientist.

Well, yeah. But that doesn't make him any less truthful. The guy is amazing at what he does, proven by his work in string theory. He knows what he is talking about, and he is good at talking about it, so he is put out there to talk to the general public about science. While some of the things he talks about may be a bit embellished, that doesn't mean he doesn't have reason and logic behind his predictions.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2012 12:15:52 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I desperately want to live back in the sixties. This technology scares me.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2012 12:27:48 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/13/2012 12:15:52 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
I desperately want to live back in the sixties. This technology scares me.

The prospect of living well past your hundreds scares you? Actually everything he said fascinated me (especially that 51% of internet users are female) but the prospect of life expansion that he talked about at the end especially grabbed my attention as I am a wimp when it comes to the thought of ceasing to be.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2012 1:18:38 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/13/2012 12:27:48 AM, phantom wrote:
At 11/13/2012 12:15:52 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
I desperately want to live back in the sixties. This technology scares me.

The prospect of living well past your hundreds scares you? Actually everything he said fascinated me (especially that 51% of internet users are female) but the prospect of life expansion that he talked about at the end especially grabbed my attention as I am a wimp when it comes to the thought of ceasing to be.

I actually don't find death to be that bad.
However, I was talking more along the lines of how technology allows for extremely deadly warfare. Imagine if one of those contact lenses could call in an air strike from an orbiting satellite.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2012 1:25:34 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
He's correct about the abilities of electronics in the future, but he always goes over-board with his economics. He thinks your shoes are going to have computers in them, your wallpaper, your dog...
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2012 1:41:34 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/12/2012 11:16:19 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 11/12/2012 6:58:51 PM, MouthWash wrote:
At 11/11/2012 10:59:50 PM, phantom wrote:


Starts 5:40

Take it with a grain of salt. Michio Kaku is a pop-scientist.

Well, yeah. But that doesn't make him any less truthful. The guy is amazing at what he does, proven by his work in string theory. He knows what he is talking about, and he is good at talking about it, so he is put out there to talk to the general public about science. While some of the things he talks about may be a bit embellished, that doesn't mean he doesn't have reason and logic behind his predictions.

Just because he's a brilliant theoretical physicist doesn't make him a great economic forecaster. If he really believes in this stuff, he should be finding a way to profit off of it (besides teleivision and stuff), but somehow I doubt he's putting his money where his mouth is.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2012 3:43:02 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/13/2012 1:41:34 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 11/12/2012 11:16:19 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 11/12/2012 6:58:51 PM, MouthWash wrote:
At 11/11/2012 10:59:50 PM, phantom wrote:


Starts 5:40

Take it with a grain of salt. Michio Kaku is a pop-scientist.

Well, yeah. But that doesn't make him any less truthful. The guy is amazing at what he does, proven by his work in string theory. He knows what he is talking about, and he is good at talking about it, so he is put out there to talk to the general public about science. While some of the things he talks about may be a bit embellished, that doesn't mean he doesn't have reason and logic behind his predictions.

Just because he's a brilliant theoretical physicist doesn't make him a great economic forecaster. If he really believes in this stuff, he should be finding a way to profit off of it (besides teleivision and stuff), but somehow I doubt he's putting his money where his mouth is.

There is a large difference between an economc forecaster, and someone predicting scientific advancements.

He is a scientist, his goal in life is not money, except for grants, it is knowledge.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2012 7:43:49 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/13/2012 1:41:34 AM, darkkermit wrote:
Just because he's a brilliant theoretical physicist doesn't make him a great economic forecaster. If he really believes in this stuff, he should be finding a way to profit off of it (besides teleivision and stuff), but somehow I doubt he's putting his money where his mouth is.

Wow, applying rational choice theory to everything really leads to some dumb conclusions.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2012 9:03:03 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/13/2012 1:25:34 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
He's correct about the abilities of electronics in the future, but he always goes over-board with his economics. He thinks your shoes are going to have computers in them, your wallpaper, your dog...

...

Shoes, wallpaper, and pets frequently have "computers" in them.

Well, I suppose it depends on how far you're willing to stretch your interpretation of "wallpaper."
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2012 9:30:41 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Prof. Kaku is a brilliant man and always interesting. He has made a bunch of YouTube videos that explain modern physics, well worth watching.

It strikes me as odd that people think he should be pursuing wealth instead of doing what he is doing. He is obviously enjoying doing exactly what he is doing and would get less pleasure from trying to be richer. The people who have amassed great riches get joy from the activity of making money far more than from having it. A common theme, from Rockefeller to Gates, is that they give it away in old age.

Prof. Kaku is wrong that physicists invented what he claims. Physicists when acting as physicists only discover laws of nature. When they use laws of nature to make useful things, they are acting as engineers. Only engineers care about this distinction, of course.

It's interesting to keep score on what visions of the future have panned out so far. For example, houses are still pretty much made of wood and brick as they were hundreds of years ago. Fifty years ago it was easy to predict a future full of personal airplanes, and that hasn't happened. Fifty years ago there were common predictions of doom through overpopulation and nuclear war; that didn't happen either, though in academia the hope is still alive that it will.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2012 9:34:31 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/13/2012 1:18:38 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 11/13/2012 12:27:48 AM, phantom wrote:
At 11/13/2012 12:15:52 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
I desperately want to live back in the sixties. This technology scares me.

The prospect of living well past your hundreds scares you? Actually everything he said fascinated me (especially that 51% of internet users are female) but the prospect of life expansion that he talked about at the end especially grabbed my attention as I am a wimp when it comes to the thought of ceasing to be.

I actually don't find death to be that bad.
However, I was talking more along the lines of how technology allows for extremely deadly warfare. Imagine if one of those contact lenses could call in an air strike from an orbiting satellite.

Things were already pretty bad in the '60's... I mean, in the first half of the century, we harnessed enough power to basically destroy the entire planet. At that point, there's really nothing scarier that anyone could come up with. It is both an instant death and a slow death. Its kiss will affect you no matter what -- you could survive the blast, you might even survive the fallout, but within that infinitesimal probability, you will still have a kid with two heads or with no skin.

In any case, I'm really excited about emerging technologies. Really, I've already heard about just about everything that man discussed, and wonder why he, given the amount of time he had to talk, he remained so superficial in what he was sharing and how it applies to our world. It's clear that he's not an economist. He probably knows nothing whatsoever about economics. He's a scientist. That actually usually results in a person with a rather limited scope of day-to-day life, no matter how brilliant they are.

But, if he were much more into, say, economics or politics, he probably would have refrained from making the error of assuming that markets are static and the price of goods literally abides by a linear reduction in price, resulting in the preposterous notion that there will ever be anything both intricately mechanical and disposable. That is not economically savvy, and our country's businessmen would never be so foolish, no matter what other mistakes they've made. Paper has always been disposable. Mechanical instruments have never been disposable. They're rarely even made of biodegradable substances. In fact, many of those substances are at the forefront of socioeconomic strife in Third-World countries.

So, all things considered, it was a ridiculous suggestion, whether he was serious about it or not. Nonetheless, he did touch on some very amazing things, such as how people can grow organs using stem cells (which humans can produce from any somatic cell, whether it's a skin cell or a molecule of protein from you saliva), but he left out the other two major ways I've heard that organs are produced. I can't remember one of them, but I know this other one is this powder called extracellular matrix that, when applied to the body, can cause it to regenerate itself (doctors used this technique to help a man grow an entirely new esophagus at 76 years old). He didn't even mention the buckmeister fullerene. He said nothing about the fact that interfaces likely would no longer require that we touch anything anymore, because humans have figured out a way to connect computer chips to brains, so that our synapses can cause transmissions to operate other mechanisms (like prosthetics, but obviously, this extends to all sorts of computers). So, it's true what he said about computers becoming so ubiquitous, they're no longer even visible, but he didn't really go into detail why. Such explanations, I think, robbed from the luster of the presentation.

It was still awesome, though, and I'm really glad you shared. :)
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2012 10:20:58 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
It's no ridiculous to suppose that computers might one day be disposable. It costs more to make something durable than something disposable. Imagine telling a monk who took years copying a book on to parchment that one day printing would be so cheap that printed items would actually be disposable. Making circuits is a process much like printing. It's now done with metals and semiconductors, but organic media now seems like the likely next step, and that's closer to conventional printing.

It's hard to guess what innovations will win. Virtual reality hype peaked around 2000 and now seems to be subsiding, while smartphones have taken off.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2012 6:00:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
You raise some excellent points. I would love to see organic machinery. I would literally die happy, no matter how my life goes, if I live to see organic mechanical engineering.

...although, I would obviously prefer a good life.

...

I think that we needed to go through the process of compartmentalizing ourselves before we get back into the whole virtual reality thing. I mean, think about it. Virtual reality literally means that someone or a collection of people create an interface that allows one to upload everything about his or herself, resulting in a manifestation of that person in the interface. People needed to first get used to the idea of relinquishing everything about themselves, releasing it publicly, and regularly maintaining this information themselves in order to make something like that work. Things are finally coming full circle, and the market is much closer to ready for something like virtual reality, with all its implications.
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2012 5:48:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/12/2012 11:16:19 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 11/12/2012 6:58:51 PM, MouthWash wrote:
At 11/11/2012 10:59:50 PM, phantom wrote:


Starts 5:40

Take it with a grain of salt. Michio Kaku is a pop-scientist.

Well, yeah. But that doesn't make him any less truthful. The guy is amazing at what he does, proven by his work in string theory. He knows what he is talking about, and he is good at talking about it, so he is put out there to talk to the general public about science. While some of the things he talks about may be a bit embellished, that doesn't mean he doesn't have reason and logic behind his predictions.

Light-cone string field theories were introduced by Stanley Mandelstam and developed by Mandelstam, Michael Green, John Schwarz and Lars Brink. An explicit description of the second-quantization of the light-cone string was given by Michio Kaku and Keiji Kikkawa. He really didn't do as much as you think.
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2012 5:53:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/13/2012 1:18:38 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 11/13/2012 12:27:48 AM, phantom wrote:
At 11/13/2012 12:15:52 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
I desperately want to live back in the sixties. This technology scares me.

The prospect of living well past your hundreds scares you? Actually everything he said fascinated me (especially that 51% of internet users are female) but the prospect of life expansion that he talked about at the end especially grabbed my attention as I am a wimp when it comes to the thought of ceasing to be.

I actually don't find death to be that bad.
However, I was talking more along the lines of how technology allows for extremely deadly warfare. Imagine if one of those contact lenses could call in an air strike from an orbiting satellite.

Technology has actually had the alternative effect on warefare, since WW1 and WW2 we've gotten better at killing soldiers and enemies rather than simply everyone. example, technology has allowed us to move past carpet bombing and on to laser guided missiles.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2012 1:32:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/13/2012 10:20:58 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
It's no ridiculous to suppose that computers might one day be disposable. It costs more to make something durable than something disposable. Imagine telling a monk who took years copying a book on to parchment that one day printing would be so cheap that printed items would actually be disposable. Making circuits is a process much like printing. It's now done with metals and semiconductors, but organic media now seems like the likely next step, and that's closer to conventional printing.

Printed copies of materials are disposable now, but hopefully that will be changing. Producing all this paper and ink is not helpful to the environment or our own sustainability. This is a practice that will inevitably be tapering off as it doesn't make sense to be pumping out paper for billions of people.

There's no technological way around the fact that putting computers into everything we have will take more resources and effort. It will create more waste, require more menial jobs to sustain (customer service, troubleshooting, etc.) and will be ultimately unsustainable.

It makes more sense that we will have a small amount of more powerful computers which can be maintained sustainably and efficiently.

It's hard to guess what innovations will win. Virtual reality hype peaked around 2000 and now seems to be subsiding, while smartphones have taken off.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.