[Comrade Ogilvy]

2050 - and immortality is within our grasp

Britain's leading thinker on the future offers an extraordinary vision of life in the next 45 years

David Smith, technology correspondent
Sunday May 22, 2005
The Observer

Aeroplanes will be too afraid to crash, yoghurts will wish you good morning before being eaten and human consciousness will be stored on supercomputers, promising immortality for all - though it will help to be rich.

These fantastic claims are not made by a science fiction writer or a crystal ball-gazing lunatic. They are the deadly earnest predictions of Ian Pearson, head of the futurology unit at BT.

'If you draw the timelines, realistically by 2050 we would expect to be able to download your mind into a machine, so when you die it's not a major career problem,' Pearson told The Observer. 'If you're rich enough then by 2050 it's feasible. If you're poor you'll probably have to wait until 2075 or 2080 when it's routine. We are very serious about it. That's how fast this technology is moving: 45 years is a hell of a long time in IT.'

Pearson, 44, has formed his mind-boggling vision of the future after graduating in applied mathematics and theoretical physics, spending four years working in missile design and the past 20 years working in optical networks, broadband network evolution and cybernetics in BT's laboratories. He admits his prophecies are both 'very exciting' and 'very scary'.

He believes that today's youngsters may never have to die, and points to the rapid advances in computing power demonstrated last week, when Sony released the first details of its PlayStation 3. It is 35 times more powerful than previous games consoles. 'The new PlayStation is 1 per cent as powerful as a human brain,' he said. 'It is into supercomputer status compared to 10 years ago. PlayStation 5 will probably be as powerful as the human brain.'

The world's fastest computer, IBM's BlueGene, can perform 70.72 trillion calculations per second (teraflops) and is accelerating all the time. But anyone who believes in the uniqueness of consciousness or the soul will find Pearson's next suggestion hard to swallow. 'We're already looking at how you might structure a computer that could possibly become conscious. There are quite a lot of us now who believe it's entirely feasible.

'We don't know how to do it yet but we've begun looking in the same directions, for example at the techniques we think that consciousness is based on: information comes in from the outside world but also from other parts of your brain and each part processes it on an internal sensing basis. Consciousness is just another sense, effectively, and that's what we're trying to design in a computer. Not everyone agrees, but it's my conclusion that it is possible to make a conscious computer with superhuman levels of intelligence before 2020.'

He continued: 'It would definitely have emotions - that's one of the primary reasons for doing it. If I'm on an aeroplane I want the computer to be more terrified of crashing than I am so it does everything to stay in the air until it's supposed to be on the ground.

'You can also start automating an awful lots of jobs. Instead of phoning up a call centre and getting a machine that says, "Type 1 for this and 2 for that and 3 for the other," if you had machine personalities you could have any number of call staff, so you can be dealt with without ever waiting in a queue at a call centre again.'

Pearson, from Whitehaven in Cumbria, collaborates on technology with some developers and keeps a watching brief on advances around the world. He concedes the need to debate the implications of progress. 'You need a completely global debate. Whether we should be building machines as smart as people is a really big one. Whether we should be allowed to modify bacteria to assemble electronic circuitry and make themselves smart is already being researched.

'We can already use DNA, for example, to make electronic circuits so it's possible to think of a smart yoghurt some time after 2020 or 2025, where the yoghurt has got a whole stack of electronics in every single bacterium. You could have a conversation with your strawberry yogurt before you eat it.'

In the shorter term, Pearson identifies the next phase of progress as 'ambient intelligence': chips with everything. He explained: 'For example, if you have a pollen count sensor in your car you take some antihistamine before you get out. Chips will come small enough that you can start impregnating them into the skin. We're talking about video tattoos as very, very thin sheets of polymer that you just literally stick on to the skin and they stay there for several days. You could even build in cellphones and connect it to the network, use it as a video phone and download videos or receive emails.'

Philips, the electronics giant, is developing the world's first rollable display which is just a millimetre thick and has a 12.5cm screen which can be wrapped around the arm. It expects to start production within two years.

The next age, he predicts, will be that of 'simplicity' in around 2013-2015. 'This is where the IT has actually become mature enough that people will be able to drive it without having to go on a training course.

'Forget this notion that you have to have one single chip in the computer which does everything. Why not just get a stack of little self-organising chips in a box and they'll hook up and do it themselves. It won't be able to get any viruses because most of the operating system will be stored in hardware which the hackers can't write to. If your machine starts going wrong, you just push a button and it's reset to the factory setting.'

Pearson's third age is 'virtual worlds' in around 2020. 'We will spend a lot of time in virtual space, using high quality, 3D, immersive, computer generated environments to socialise and do business in. When technology gives you a life-size 3D image and the links to your nervous system allow you to shake hands, it's like being in the other person's office. It's impossible to believe that won't be the normal way of communicating.


http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/ ... 35,00.html

[Schrödinger's Kitty]

'If you draw the timelines, realistically by 2050 we would expect to be able to download your mind into a machine, so when you die it's not a major career problem,'

This reminds me of the "Asgard" race from Stargate SG-1. They upload their minds into a machine and then when they die or their bodies are damaged, they download their consciousness into a new, clone body. This is something we definately should be researching, in my opinion. If we succeed, no more will a person die when they get in an accident or something. This will cause the religious radicals though to revolt. Rather those people which believe human life is our bodies and not our mental awareness (the 'pro-life' crowd).

[Comrade Ogilvy]

Id rather live in "cyberspace" for a while.

Imagine no need for sleep, no need for food etc. It would certainly be a
next step in human evolution.

[Schrödinger's Kitty]

I don't know how long you can live like that before getting mentally tired. I'd much rather have a synthetic body or a clone body and transfer my conscioussness when I'm injured. Living in a machine which doesn't allow for movement, like a body, would be real distressing. You'd bascially be like being paralyzed.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

True, however we dont know if that is a correct assumption of the experience.


Just imagine all the information you could access.
Fatigue, discomfort, pain are all physical experiences.
Without a body one could rule theese out. (I would imagine)


Edit : Just imagine what it could mean for space exploration

[Saf]

If we succeed, no more will a person die when they get in an accident or something.

I hope you plan on mandatory 100% sterilisation, then, because the Earth's human population is already far, far too large for long-term sustainability.

[Schrödinger's Kitty]

I hope you plan on mandatory 100% sterilisation, then, because the Earth's human population is already far, far too large for long-term sustainability.

No need for 'sterilization'. All new children will be genderless, i.e., genetically engineered to be physically incapable of achieving cell division through meiosis.

[Clansman]

Also in terms of the good of society one has to ask is this a good idea. People get stuck in their ways, they seem to reach a comfortable balance within themselves and then rest easy there. Were it not for the new adventurous generations coming behind us we would surely stagnate. Also what of the joys of parent hood. That would need to be denied from people for any new child born would also never be allowed to die. Any child born would add forever an extra mouth to feed and cloth to our race. This is one of those times where what can be done is maybe not what should be done, lest we never ever want to experience parenthood in our culture and lest we stagnate in our mental and cultural development as a society.

[futuristic]

I view technocracy as the beginning of the next circle of history. The current circle is getting to its end. It began as socialism industrializing agrarian countries and giving education to the masses. In those times socialism worked better than capitalism. Later, socialism has exhausted its potential and had to be reformed. Those countries which failed to liberalize their economies have declined. As the economy matures it requires more and more liberalization but problems looming...

Technocracy maybe a solution to solve 2 problems:
1. Develop new technologies that would not require the natural resources depleted.
2. Give education to the uneducated who are to be replaced by robots.

Those are similar goals socialism accomplished.

However technocracy is not going to be sustainable for the same reasons socialism/communism wasn’t and would have eventually be reformed. The article above shows how much is still to be done. Those activities would create a lot of jobs and I believe the money and ownership system would still work but only the educated would be able to find a job. Capitalist democratic system will not educate the masses because it requires a huge pool of fools to vote for demagogues funded by special interest groups. It also may not be able to develop efficient energy technologies until oil runs out. These are the reasons why technocracy may be “inevitable” but as any other solution it’s not forever.

[Haraldur]

create a lot of jobs

The point of automation in a technate is to replace human labour, not increase it.

money

ownership system

Capitalist democratic system

These would not exist in a technate, indeed, the technate would be doomed to failure if they did exist in the technate.

[futuristic]

The point of automation in a technate is to replace human labour, not increase it.

I am all for automation but there is always non-trivial R&D work that requires human participation. Certainly, there will be no pizza delivery jobs 20 years from now but there will be many more others much more interesting. But without education former pizza deliverers would live on streets and that is the problem current system is not going to solve.

These would not exist in a technate, indeed, the technate would be doomed to failure if they did exist in the technate.

Democracy is clearly doomed to fail like socialism did and liberalism and corporatism are going to.

I personally don’t want technocracy. There are certainly other “freer” ways to solve the problems. I already wrote a lot about them on this forum. All is needed is to eliminate democracy and make the government interested in economic growth. But at some point we may be forced to use technocracy as a temporary solution.

[starman2003]

Why is democracy doomed and how do you eliminate it? I sure have my ideas on that, what are yours?

[Tangerine]

I'm just wondering here futuristic, no negative feelings intended, but... What exactly are these 'freer' ways? How in heaven’s could they solve our ever looming and increasing stream of dilemmas - the Price System is to blame – to anywhere near the extent of what is the potential within the most effective, efficient, and rewarding system that is physically possible at this moment in time? You clearly, as Kolzene said, do not fully comprehend Technocracy.

No calculated offence meant here either, but I do not understand your pizza delivery metaphor… Or whatever it was.

It is impossible really to not want Technocracy, there is no other way to bring working hours down the minimum that is physically possible; increase living standards to the highest physically possible; because everyone will have unlimited resources, the best education system physically possible; pollution and the destruction of nature down to the least physically possible - no pollution, and even restoring large portions of whatever Technate to their natural origins; highest leaps in understanding in any subject, science, pursuit (space colonization, for example) physically possible. I could go on… What is it that you want out of society?

[Ombrageux]

The uploading of consciousness and downloading into a clone body thing is, philosophically, a gold mine.

Is the new body 'you'? It will certainly act like you.

[futuristic]

Why is democracy doomed

Because it allows the incompetent to make decisions, which is an huge inefficiency, and a dictatorship managed by experts can easily outcompete it. The problem with dictatorships is that dictators are rarely interested in the country’s economic growth but when this is not the case competing democracies have no chance. That’s why the only chance for the West not to lose the competition with China is democratization of China.

and how do you eliminate it?

Well, there are a few possible solutions. Ultimate goal is to eliminate democracy, make the ruling party interested in economic growth, ensure competing parties have enough funding to oust the ruling party in case something goes not well enough, create multiple competing countries with unrestrained mobility of people and capital between them.

A few possible alternatives to democracy:

Vote delegation (search text for "vote delegation", most interesting is post # 10.)
Voluntary and anonymous funding of political parties, also discussed here.
Voter test.

The problem is that all those ways still advocate certain feedback from people to the gov’t, i.e. participation of the incompetent in decision making. But I don’t see how to completely eliminate this feedback and still ensure the gov’t does its job in a best way possible. (I know that technocracy advocates just that but I can’t accept that.) I hope once everyone is educated well enough they would understand that they should allow experts to make decisions, so the problem would disappear; intelligent people know that they know nothing and would let the qualified to decide while fools don’t know even that.

[futuristic]

Technocracy is not about automating everything, just all the stuff people don't want to do

Well, this statement raises questions. Capitalism would prefer to automate everything that can be automated at a cost lower than people would be willing to do that for or that people can’t do. It’s probably somewhat different that “all the stuff people don't want to do”...

What you say is true, futuristic, but probably not for the reasons you think. First you have to remember that Technocracy is not in "competition" with all the other ideologies on this board or elsewhere.

True. I have already realized that debate on what ideology is better is senseless unless debaters agree on basic principles of what they want to accomplish, which is exactly where ideologies differ and so debate between proponents of different ideologies is senseless.

It is not something that someone can or will "choose" from others. It is, as it was designed to be, a technological solution to a technological problem, which is the failure of any Price System (including democracy, capitalism, socialism, etc, etc.) to adequately distribute the abundance of goods and services produced by advanced technology. Where they fail, Technocracy takes over.

The claim of the “abundance” is questionable. There is in fact no abundance. What if something is not abundant? You know, Toyota can’t even make enough Priuses, not to say about more complicated things. What if someone wants something that can’t be produced in the quantities they want, for example 10 helicopters? And what if that individual is willing to work more and more productive to get that something and otherwise he/she would not work? I understand though that consumption and the waste of resources caused by competition would have to be restricted in case a critical natural resource is depleted and a workaround technology is not yet developed...

described in this article

OK, interesting article. I read also the other articles about Technocracy a while ago and I think I understand what it stands for. Main problem we have now is that more and more people can’t find jobs. And technocrats argue that that is a problem of capitalism and price system. But I would argue it a problem of democracy. One of the reasons there are more and more unemployed is minimum salary requirement, which makes it impossible for the uneducated and the unproductive to find a job. Minimum salary rises as productivity and average salary raises but the productivity of the uneducated does not change that’s why more and more of them have nothing to do but deal drugs and rob people. And democracy makes it impossible to abolish minimum salary requirement. Another fact of democracy is that it requires a huge pool of fools to vote for corrupt politicians. That’s why public schools don’t teach science but rather only brainwash children.
As I already mentioned, the article above shows that capitalism would keep creating demand for educated workers but the lack of education is the problem and democracy is not going to deliver...

Well, now a new solution exists, and we can all live happily ever after.

The solution is not sustainable because number of free riders would be ever increasing. The only way to sustain it would be a forced sterilization of those who don’t work.

I'm afraid that you misunderstand Technocracy, which is ok, because most people do. It is a very different concept, and takes a while to learn, thus is very easy to mistake it for something it is not.

I read that web site some time ago. Main problem of technocracy is that people would not have to work to survive and would not have incentive to work better. I know that technocrats argue there would still be enough incentives to work but I don’t think I would ever get convinced. Technocracy may be sustainable for only one generation but then it would have to be reformed. But I would probably agree that Technocracy would be a pretty good solution when those whom democracy failed to educate lose jobs.

There really is no "freer" society than a Technocracy since Technocracy does not attempt to control people, but rather only enhance their abilities and options.

Not really. Technocracy would in fact control how much and of what everyone can consume. It would control what amount of consumption is “reasonable”.

One obvious one is that you cannot simply abolish things like money and politics, and then hope to easily reinstate them again.

Why not? Yes, politics should be abolished forever. But the history has examples of privatization of means of productions and transition of controlled money system (in Technocracy would be energy credit) to uncontrolled. Sometimes state initiated effort can create better means of production and give better education to the masses than a private effort would but the history has also shown state control is not sustainable. If the gov’t is interested in faster growth and is not affected by the incompetent it would implement best solution in eny situation, would gain more control when needed and give more control to entrepreneurs when needed to ensure fastest growth. If experts decide technocracy would be the best option under certain conditions I would not argue. But I also believe it would be only a temporary solution.

That would be a massive amount of social upheaval

Well, this could be true. When Soviet Union dissolved a very hard time began for people who under commies lost their ability to think and work. The same is going to happen if a technocratic system collapses. That’s why it would be important to reform it in time without waiting until it’s too late. I hope as experts would be in power they would make right decisions...

[futuristic]

What exactly are these 'freer' ways?

See above.

How in heaven’s could they solve our ever looming and increasing stream of dilemmas - the Price System is to blame

The problems appear have been “looming” for 70 years since technocracy have been designed. During this time the productivity has increased maybe 100 times but still only those who can’t exceed the minimum salary threshold are unemployed, others are simply in between jobs and there are a lot of job opening that can’t be filled because there are no qualified workers. But I agree that problems are really looming, but only for those whom their corrupt representatives decided not to educate. Democracy rather than the price system is the problem.

– to anywhere near the extent of what is the potential within the most effective, efficient, and rewarding system that is physically possible at this moment in time? You clearly, as Kolzene said, do not fully comprehend Technocracy.

The system is only in theory “effective, efficient, and rewarding”. But in practice, if there is no competition, a reward for the creation of something that sells, and a punishment for laziness, the system is not gonna last long even though it may be the best option at some point.

No calculated offence meant here either, but I do not understand your pizza delivery metaphor… Or whatever it was.

I will elaborate. Let’s say someone called Joe, goes to a public school that only brainwashes him but does not teach any skills that are in demand by the market. After the graduation Joe works as a pizza deliverer and votes for Democrats who make money converting Joe’s and other’s votes into monetary bribes. They also enforce minimum salary law because Joe wants that and the bribers don’t object because it hurts their competitors more than them. One day as minimum salary reaches the price of a pizza delivery robot Joe loses his jobs forever. Since than he lives on street watching his compatriots who were lucky to attend private schools and also “guest workers” who were lucky to attend public schools in undemocratic, possibly technocratic, countries, developing new generations of computers having more intelligence that Joe does, flying saucers, spending vacations on Mars (there are scenic views there, worth seeing) and doing other futuristic things...

It is impossible really to not want Technocracy, there is no other way to bring working hours down the minimum that is physically possible

This is probably not a good idea. I know from my own experience that I am less productive if I work few hours a day. A better option is to retire sooner but it’s already available to anyone – all is needed is to invest rather than spend money for junk. A professional like myself can have a million within 10 years just working for the man and investing.

increase living standards to the highest physically possible

That’s questionable...

because everyone will have unlimited resources

Resources are always limited. Also often entrepreneurs manage to accomplish better results with even limited resources than not-so-interested bureaucrats with unlimited.

the best education system physically possible

Better than now but not the best.

pollution and the destruction of nature down to the least physically possible - no pollution, and even restoring large portions of whatever Technate to their natural origins

Well, this is true. Pollution would be reduced comparing to its modern levels but I believe in the long run capitalism would create more advanced and less polluting technologies than technocracy would.

highest leaps in understanding in any subject, science, pursuit (space colonization, for example) physically possible.

It’s all theory that is not going to become the reality with no incentives to work hard...

I could go on… What is it that you want out of society?

I want pretty much the same that you do but I would use different means than you would...

[futuristic]

The uploading of consciousness and downloading into a clone body thing is, philosophically, a gold mine.

Is the new body 'you'? It will certainly act like you.

If the knowledge about “your” relatives, past, job, skills, and “yourself” is preserved, it’s certainly “you”, maybe with a bit different appearance but that’s of low importance.

[futuristic]

Another article on the subject: IBM's brains plan to build a brain

[Clansman]

The solution is not sustainable because number of free riders would be ever increasing.

That is an untested assumption which if supported by any theory at all is supported only by liberal economic theories that treat human beings as self interested actors alone in a market place.

1. A technate has no market and so no competition for resources.

2. Technates are communitarian as much as they are liberal.

As such the only theory upon which your assumption can be based is not valid in a technocracy. It may be that what you say is true, but then it may also be that it is not true. No body knows, not even advocates of technocracy, how the majority would behave in a technocracy.

Technocracy would in fact control how much and of what everyone can consume. It would control what amount of consumption is “reasonable”.

Nope, a technocracy tries to maximise its own resources, but unlike the present system, it is acutely aware of what is physically possible and sustainable and what is not. It is these physical limitations on the technate that determine how much people can consume, not the technocratic structure, this merely does the best it can given its resources. Over consumption would never be allowed in a technate, but then over consumption is what is killing the planet at the moment so I don't see that as any great infringement on my liberties but rather as a great promotion of my interests in having a world that is in balance and sustainable. Beyond this however, the consumption patterns of society would be heavily, even decisively influenced by society thorugh the purchasing mechanism and through preference voting.