Why we should we be wrong about predicting the life-extending changes of nanomedicine for the 2030s. And the cognitive explosion provided by brain-computer interfaces in the same decade.
We’re not talking about all of technology. The predictions of Moore’s Law only pertain to a statistic — information processing per dollar. But that then includes any technologies and fields where computer processing has taken over as a main driver. So in health science for example, we will see the medical technology run on smaller more powerful computers and machines at fractions of the cost ultimately.
Nanoparticles will be at the forefront and inside many of our bodies by the millions in the 2030s, though maybe not available on my own health plan for another decade later.
That will be the kind of biological hacks available to us then, in the 2030s, should we be so lucky. Tiny nanoparticles, each a node in a network, that work in our bloodstream to fight and prevent illnesses that otherwise would have crippled us.
The nanoparticles alone may extend our lives for another 50 years. And that additional life time would again witness a further advance in computing that will allow us to stave off brain diseases. And perhaps in all that time, after having piecemeal replaced our failing body parts and continually adapted to having our brains interfaced with the cloud, we may see it as natural to move into a machine body. Ultimately giving us the same capacity as non-human A.I.’s and a new — albeit different — life.
At that point even space travel would be feasible. Like, deep space travel, since we would be hosted in machines and so could withstand long time frames, radiation, and zero-gravity.
These aspirations are mocked as cultish.
I don’t want to be in any cult, but I don’t think we’re going to have much choice. In the way that our Internet of Things and screens of the current revolution are now critical to a person being included in this culture and economy.
I especially don’t want to be in this particular cult, because I don’t love technological advancement at all costs. There are serious costs to this rush towards progress that we see in environmental degradation, and inhuman injustice towards ourselves and animals.
Maybe the degradation and injustice we’ve amassed in human history are also inevitable trends as long as we continue down this course.
It seems to be a trait of the human species to allow for a certain level of destruction included in the cost of doing business. And that may take some millennia to change. It may take some millennia to evolve beyond our competing nature — that nature which embraces heavy costs and downsides, for advances with which to outperform our neighbors.
I’m not here to debate pros and cons or inevitability. Obviously from one perspective, our greed for technological prowess has not been worth the trail of suffering left behind us. End of conversation.
Alternatively, from a limited, super universal perspective, it’s ok to not get emotional about the environmental costs. Over 99% of all species that have ever existed on earth have come and gone already — gone before any of the 10 million species now occupying earth in the human era.
That so much life has come and gone is sobering enough. But additionally there is also the tendency for whole planets to be wiped out by other rogue planets, comets, asteroids, their own sun, nearby supernovae, and on and on. There was never any guarantee that earth would be here tomorrow.
It’s a fact of life in the universe, and perhaps it should be a reminder that no life is so sacrosanct. I’m also assuming life has existed before elsewhere on a galaxy far far away and will exist again in another corner of the universe far far in the future.
I’m not saying we shouldn’t try to be compassionate and patient, I am saying that we should consider our arguments carefully.
There’s no pure reason that our oncoming technological revolution should be discredited. But there’s also no pure reason why it should be celebrated.
In our ugly wake of suffering and debris, there will simply be something metamorphic blooming for those still around in the 2040s to make sense of it and steer towards good. No more or less.
Not all species that earth has created can witness this brave-new-world journey — most will not, and maybe none will at all if we can’t lower our weapons.
I’m not here to debate the costs and benefits of adopting technology. This isn’t about the pressing ecological and social issues we’re facing, that this technology might be detracting from.
I’m just saying it’s ok to embrace what’s coming. And to begin to accept it now — accept it now, ahead of the curve, so we won’t continue living in a state of shock. And so we can actually get to focusing on compassion.
By around 2050, it does seem possible that people living today could see life expectancy moving away from them faster than they themselves are aging. And we’re allowed to be excited about that fact. Being excited doesn’t make us technophiles or less compassionate humans.
Life extension will be accomplished through the forthcoming revolution of nanomedicine and brain-computer interfaces, by about 2050. They will be in our bodies, millions of nanobots and artificial-neurons eliminating disease and strengthening our immunity and abilities by orders of magnitude. And the interfaces will extend our consciousness into the cloud. By 2050 we may choose to resemble machines more than the humans we are today.
That revolution is beginning already and sooner than we would naturally imagine. Apparently, most of the common skepticism comes from our difficulty in thinking exponentially. Because until now we have lived and evolved in a world that appeared to only change linearly. But we have finally come to a part in our human story where our technology is changing at an exponential rate. It’s understandable that we confuse linear change for exponential change in the early stages. But it becomes problematic quickly as we come out of this inflection in the exponential curve.
It’s ok to think that, by 2040, you too will be able to have millions of nanobots flowing through your bloodstream and artificial synapses and brain links — all helping you live much longer in a much more powerful body.
It’s ok to think that way, and it doesn’t put you into a cult of technology. It is not far-fetched. And it doesn’t make you a dreamer. Actually, I think the longer we resist or fail to plan for these inevitable advances, the worse that our natural world and human relations will suffer.
It seems like some are ostracizing others and making the argument that somehow believing this, puts you into a ‘singularity cult’
So I want to say, that is not the case. And that skeptics who want to pronounce the end of Moore’s law for one reason or another, may be doing humanity a disservice. They may be allowing less informed folks to remain caught off guard, which could have big effects like job losses, fear, and a divided world. Much worse than our divisions over the coronavirus.
I’m just saying that it’s ok to look ahead and be excited and accept where the humans are inevitably going. I say inevitably, but I’m just speaking as an observer. I’m not saying no one has the power to stop or change the course of our humanity’s future. I’m saying there seem to be some trends that exceed the differences among us.
So I’m saying it’s ok to think like that.
