When the next president of the United States is sworn into
office on January 20, 2009, six of the nine justices on the Supreme
Court will be over 70 years of age. The prospect that a majority of
the members of the court could be selected by the next president —
especially if he or she wins a second term — is very real.
Regardless of one’s political leanings this is a serious issue
and it transcends the fear of a future court being packed by
ideologues whose views counter to one’s own convictions.
Every day radical advances in medical technology bring society
ever closer to new treatments and possible cures for cancer, heart
disease and a host of other ailments. Among the many things that
this implies is that society could soon be on the verge of
achieving life expectancies of 100 years or higher.
Combined with the possibility of so many new and younger
justices being appointed by the next president this means that
there is a reasonable chance many of these justices could still be
on the court in the year 2060 – 2060!
It is hard to imagine that the Founding Father’s—who were
interested in insulating Supreme Court justices from the political
pressures typically associated with legislative and executive
branches of government—ever contemplated the prospect of
wide-spread radical life extension when granting the justices
life-time tenure.
One solution which has been proposed by law professors Steven
Calabresi and James Lindgren of Northwestern University is to cap
the justices’ terms at 18 years—or the equivalent of three U.S.
Senate terms. (Under their plan a constitutional amendment would
grandfather in all existing justices and then create staggered
18-year terms such that every president would be ensured of
selecting a minimum of two justices.) (cont.)
Yesterday, the journal Nature reported researchers at the
University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine had successfully tested
a robotic arm which was controlled using only the signals from a
monkey’s arm. (A good overview of the technology can be read in
this article: “Mind
over Matter: Monkey Feeds tself using its Brain”.)
The test was not the first such test but it does suggest that
the technology is getting better and will likely someday soon be
used to aide people with spinal cord injuries or other debilitating
diseases such as Lou Gehrig’s disease or MS.
I would, however, encourage people to think beyond these
immediate applcations. Michael Berger of Nanowerk recently had a
very thoughtful – and thought-provoking – piece entitled
Nanotechnology, transhumanism and the bionic man, in which he
discusses how technologies which were initially created for the
disabled could become a platform for “the acceptance of
transhumanist ideas and products.”
He is right and the aforementioned brain-neural technology is a
perfect case in point. In the beginning, it will be sold as a tool
for the disabled but as the technology continues to improve it will
eventually be viewed by some people (but not all) as a way to
perform at a higher level—both mentally and physically. I discussed
this idea briefly in this piece entitled “Pong and the President’s
Brain” a few months ago, but the issue is worth thinking about
in greater detail. (cont.)
I highly recommend it for anyone interested in the future. Among
some of the key points I took away from the book were:
1. Uncouple the art of forecasting from prediction. As I
stated in this piece a few days ago the future is unknowable,
but this doesn’t diminish the importance of forecasting. It does,
however, suggest that all of us should take everyone’s predictions
with a healthy dose of salt. As Voltaire said, “Doubt is not a
pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.” It is good advice to
heed when contemplating the future. Far too many variables are at
work to predict the future with much accuracy.
2. Don’t adopt a fixed mind-set. Related to this point
was the author’s warning against adopting a fixed mind-set with
regard to the future. Too often, people with a particular mind-set
see only things that fit their pre-conceived worldview. For
example, I tend to be very optimistic about the future. (A
case-in-point is this piece I wrote on human longeveity.) Therefore, it
is all that much more important for me to guard against fitting all
future technological advances into this optimistic mind-set.
(cont.)
Personally, I despise the saying “Think outside the box.”
Nevertheless, as a result of exponential advances in technology
people will need to learn to “jump the curve” in order to envision
how different the future will be. To this end, I’d refer you to the
graph to the right. If you are inclined to “think outside the box,”
please think way outside the box—because this is where we will be
living in the future.
There’s that old saying that if walks like a duck and quacks
like a duck, then it’s a duck. Well, in the future, things are
going to get a little more confusing. Soon, devices will walk like
humans; feel like humans and see like humans, but that won’t mean
it is a human.
To this point, I simply refer you to a handful of articles that
were published only this morning. The first explains how
researchers at Delft University in the Netherlands have developed
a robot that walks like a
human. The next article documents how researchers have
constructed a new
pet robot that communicates with humans only by touch. Lastly,
there was this report outlining how advances in image
recognition technology is improving to the point where computers
and robots will soon be as good (and eventually even better) than
humans at recognizing the images around them.
If you consider how all of these advances are likely to converge
with one another, it is easy to understand how robots might soon be
seeing, feeling, walking and even jumping their way around us.
To this last point about jumping, check out this short video
which demonstrates how a tiny robot can already leap – kind of like
Superman – “taller than the tallest building” :
This morning as my daughter was leaving for school she asked if
she could watch the “fat, chunky” movie this weekend. I gave her a
perplexed look and replied that I’d never heard of it. I probed a
little further and although it took me a few moments to determine
what she was talking about, I eventually understood that she wanted
to know if she could watch a VHS-format
movie.
This incident, along with another this past weekend where she
gazed unknowingly at a record player that was for sale at a garage
sale, has gotten me to thinking about what else might seem “fat and
chunky” to her in the future.
Already televisions, phones and iPods are impressively thin and
are likely to grow more so in the future. Alas, it won’t stop
there.
A few months back, I wrote about solar energy’s
long-term potential and one reason I’m so optimistic about its
potential is that I believe thin-film photovoltaics are only going
to grow more efficient and cost-effective over time. Among other
things this implies that today’s bulky silicon solar cells are
likely to fade away.
The field of nanotechnology is also leading to thinner and more
effective materials. Therefore, walls made out of aerogels; car
panels constructed of new nanocomposites; and automobile batteries
(which utilize various nanomaterials) should also become thinner.
As will lights, which will take advantage of advances in organic
light emitting diodes. (cont.)
The future is unknowable. There are far too many variables for
even the most foresighted individual or powerful supercomputer to
accurately forecast what tomorrow – let alone next year or the next
decade – will look like with precision. Nevertheless, this fact
neither discounts the importance of forecasting, nor does it
diminish the work that those individuals (myself included) try to
do in discerning what the future might hold in store.
I would, however, like to submit that anyone inclined toward
thinking about the future should be open to the idea of unlearning,
which I define as “the unique skill of jettisoning old knowledge in
order to accomodate newer and more relevant information.”
A case in point is this new
study suggesting that global warming may not be worsening
hurricanes. Now, before anyone gets too not and bothered by the
real or perceived flaws in the study’s methodology, I’d like to
make clear that it is not my contention that this study is the
final word on the topic. Rather, I simply want to highlight it as
an example of how continued advances in the development of better
and more sophisticated supercomputers, algorithms and ubiqitous
sensors are likely to lead to more situations in the future where
scientists and researchers produce results that question and
challenge conventional wisdom. (To this point, since Hurricane
Katrina ripped through New Orleans many people have come to believe
that there is a direct connection between global climate change and
the frequency and severity of hurricanes; and this belief, in turn,
has lead them to predict that more hurricanes are in our future.)
(cont.)
One of my preferred methods for trying to understand where the
future might be headed is to look for those areas where technology
can address a compelling human need. To this point, this past
weekend I read with great interest this opinion piece in the Wall
Street Journal entitled “Why We Need a Market
for Human Organs.” It’s a well-reasoned piece and the sentiment
appeals to my more libertarian and free market-oriented
sensibilities. Nevertheless, I am of the opinion that within the
next 10-15 years advances in tissue and organ regeneration
technology will render the need for “organ markets” obsolete.
I have written about this idea before, but I’d encourage you to read this new
government report entitled “2020: A
New Vision – A Future for Regenerative Medicine.” According to
the report the current world market for replacement organ therapies
is in excess of $350 billion. More disturbing, however, is the fact
that there are currently over 100,000 patients are on a waiting
list for an organ donation and an estimated 8,000 people on that
list will die this year while waiting for a transplant. (cont.)
A few months back, I wrote an article entitled “The Coming Health Care
Revolution” in which I discussed the startling advances in the
field of genomics. To provide readers a better sense of how fast
things are happening, I’d like to highlight the news just from
today.
I began my morning by reading this article discussing how researchers in Georgia
believe they have identified a gene which plays a significant role
in causing Alzheimer’s. Next, I stumbled across this BBC report reviewing how smoking causes genetic
changes which limit the production of a protein believed to be
helpful in preventing lung cancer. Finally, there was this report
on Physorg discussing how the gene –
GLUT2 – might be linked to obesity.
(cont.)
To paraphrase Henry David Thoreau, it seems that for every 1000
people working to treat disease there is but one person working to
prevent that disease from occuring in the first place. This, of
course, is a slight exaggeration but it is safe to say that the
preponderance of today’s health care expenditures are directed
toward treatment, not preventation.
This is a costly way of doing business. Luckily, a fair number
of scientists, researchers and savvy businesspeople are working
hard to reverse this trend. The other day, Technology Review had an
excellent article entitled “Next Generation Diagnostics” in
which it highlighted a new start-up called Quanterix.
Apparently, the company’s technology is so sophisicated that it can
detect a single molecule. This feat is important because often
tumors will release small trace amounts of a signature protein
prior to turning into larger, more problematic tumors. Much the
same is true with heart attacks. Often proteins indicative of a
heart attack will be released prior to the attack actually
occuring. The thinking goes that if these trace amounts can be
detected early, the diseases can be prevented. (cont.)
