Does the future scale?
August 23, 2010 4:23 PM Subscribe
Does the future scale?
I've been writing about the changes in technology, including availability of communication, and access to information from the 16th century to present. This also includes capacity of storage devices and computing power which weren't present in teh 16th century.
Many (most?) developments have had exponential growth. There's no reason to believe that it won't continue. The primary obstacle I see is that weapons development has grown as well.
So, my question is, "does the future scale?" Is there a point at which most development is so decentralized that a military attack couldn't obstruct it? Is the world (short of nuclear destruction) capable of handling being slashdotted? Could someone do a DOS attack on the world?
I've been writing about the changes in technology, including availability of communication, and access to information from the 16th century to present. This also includes capacity of storage devices and computing power which weren't present in teh 16th century.
Many (most?) developments have had exponential growth. There's no reason to believe that it won't continue. The primary obstacle I see is that weapons development has grown as well.
So, my question is, "does the future scale?" Is there a point at which most development is so decentralized that a military attack couldn't obstruct it? Is the world (short of nuclear destruction) capable of handling being slashdotted? Could someone do a DOS attack on the world?
"Many (most?) developments have had exponential growth"
I'd challenge that assumption, for a start. Depending on how narrowly or broadly you define a 'technology', I'd say it's more like logistic growth.
posted by Pinback at 4:36 PM on August 23, 2010 [1 favorite]
I'd challenge that assumption, for a start. Depending on how narrowly or broadly you define a 'technology', I'd say it's more like logistic growth.
posted by Pinback at 4:36 PM on August 23, 2010 [1 favorite]
The trouble with large-scale attacks in the modern highly-interconnected economy is that unless you're an anarchist - and few people really are at heart - then you lose more then you win.
For example, could China or the US bomb the other into gravel? Sure, even if one could do it without any suffering any military retribution, so what? Now there's no market for good/producer of goods.
Tight economic integration renders highly destructive warfare obsolete.
posted by GuyZero at 4:37 PM on August 23, 2010
For example, could China or the US bomb the other into gravel? Sure, even if one could do it without any suffering any military retribution, so what? Now there's no market for good/producer of goods.
Tight economic integration renders highly destructive warfare obsolete.
posted by GuyZero at 4:37 PM on August 23, 2010
You're a bit vague here, but I'll give it a shot.
Yes, the world is vulnerable to attack. The simplest and most plausible is an attack the movement of energy in it's various forms. Stop the oil tankers, blow a few key refineries, knock out major substation crossconnects, and and you start to get a domino effect of energy shortage, panic, and hoarding at every scale.
Without energy, our modern society falls over quickly. At first the electronics, then transportation for essentials like food, and finally the systems like tap water, sewage, and land/water management (think pumps that drain underground and below sealevel areas).
The countermeasure would need to be significant increases in the ability to generate power and transport it in ways immune to direct attack. Such things are possible, like Tesla's scheme for energy broadcasts or solar power satellites that beam microwave energy to Earth, etc. But in a world where energy is flows to the surface if you drill a hole, it's not cost effective.
Another huge vulnerability is food. With continued population growth, food production needs to keep pace. Currently that is done my using most every advance from genetics, irrigation, fertilizer, pest control, all to maximize the density of food we can grow. With movements against GMO, and toward organic and 'sustainable' methods, the ability to meet growing demand will be hampered. The trend is toward less productive, but more 'green' farming, at a time for food around the globe is growing at a dramatic pace.
Obviously, there is lots to debate about the issue, but at some point we will might need to decide whether feeding starving people GMO corn might be worth killing Monarch butterflies...
posted by Argyle at 4:38 PM on August 23, 2010
Yes, the world is vulnerable to attack. The simplest and most plausible is an attack the movement of energy in it's various forms. Stop the oil tankers, blow a few key refineries, knock out major substation crossconnects, and and you start to get a domino effect of energy shortage, panic, and hoarding at every scale.
Without energy, our modern society falls over quickly. At first the electronics, then transportation for essentials like food, and finally the systems like tap water, sewage, and land/water management (think pumps that drain underground and below sealevel areas).
The countermeasure would need to be significant increases in the ability to generate power and transport it in ways immune to direct attack. Such things are possible, like Tesla's scheme for energy broadcasts or solar power satellites that beam microwave energy to Earth, etc. But in a world where energy is flows to the surface if you drill a hole, it's not cost effective.
Another huge vulnerability is food. With continued population growth, food production needs to keep pace. Currently that is done my using most every advance from genetics, irrigation, fertilizer, pest control, all to maximize the density of food we can grow. With movements against GMO, and toward organic and 'sustainable' methods, the ability to meet growing demand will be hampered. The trend is toward less productive, but more 'green' farming, at a time for food around the globe is growing at a dramatic pace.
Obviously, there is lots to debate about the issue, but at some point we will might need to decide whether feeding starving people GMO corn might be worth killing Monarch butterflies...
posted by Argyle at 4:38 PM on August 23, 2010
Weaknesses and unknowns grow and develop alongside everything else.
posted by carsonb at 4:42 PM on August 23, 2010
posted by carsonb at 4:42 PM on August 23, 2010
There's no reason to believe that it won't continue.
Barring some sort of supertech like strong AI the above isn't actually true. Consider air travel as one example. Exponential growth is unsustainable almost by definition.
posted by Justinian at 4:55 PM on August 23, 2010
Barring some sort of supertech like strong AI the above isn't actually true. Consider air travel as one example. Exponential growth is unsustainable almost by definition.
posted by Justinian at 4:55 PM on August 23, 2010
Many (most?) developments have had exponential growth.
Actually, I believe developments tend to follow a S-curve, which look exponential for a while, then levels off. If you are only looking at the beginning and middle of the curve, you can easily think you are on an exponential curve. Assuming exponential gets you stuff like this:
Actually, I believe developments tend to follow a S-curve, which look exponential for a while, then levels off. If you are only looking at the beginning and middle of the curve, you can easily think you are on an exponential curve. Assuming exponential gets you stuff like this:
ELVIS IMPERSONATORS REACH AN ALL-TIME HIGHposted by fings at 5:30 PM on August 23, 2010 [3 favorites]
The number of Elvies Presley impersonators has reached an all-time record high - there are now at least 85,000 Elvis’s around the world, compared to only 170 in 1957 when he died. At this rate of growth, experts predict that by 2019 Elvis impersonators will make up a third of the world population !
Exponential growth also applies to the resources required to generate that growth.
The earth is a finite resource.
Why would you assume infinite growth when we haven't made any big strides in moving off world?
World oil production has already peaked (2006) according to EIA.
Besides hard physical limits in our energy inputs, this is a widely used chemical feedstock as well, which due to its ubiquity has been engineered into supply chains for almost every good known to man, including our food supply (via fertilizer).
The future does not scale in terms of energy or resources. We may make great strides in moving the efficiencies in manufacturing back to the local level, though. The ability to download and then construct a part from local stock will prove to be a great aid in unwinding the 10,000 mile supply chains we've built into everything.
The future will have the same, or possibly a bit more resources, but it's not going to be a feast, especially when viewed in terms of population growth.
Hopefully a return to local stewardship of resources will help us more wisely use what we haven't squandered yet.
posted by MikeWarot at 5:30 PM on August 23, 2010
The earth is a finite resource.
Why would you assume infinite growth when we haven't made any big strides in moving off world?
World oil production has already peaked (2006) according to EIA.
Besides hard physical limits in our energy inputs, this is a widely used chemical feedstock as well, which due to its ubiquity has been engineered into supply chains for almost every good known to man, including our food supply (via fertilizer).
The future does not scale in terms of energy or resources. We may make great strides in moving the efficiencies in manufacturing back to the local level, though. The ability to download and then construct a part from local stock will prove to be a great aid in unwinding the 10,000 mile supply chains we've built into everything.
The future will have the same, or possibly a bit more resources, but it's not going to be a feast, especially when viewed in terms of population growth.
Hopefully a return to local stewardship of resources will help us more wisely use what we haven't squandered yet.
posted by MikeWarot at 5:30 PM on August 23, 2010
Even with remarkable growth and robustness, any system may be prone to intentional attack. Increased connectivity or fanciness of devices may not be enough.
posted by bessel functions seem unnecessarily complicated at 5:46 PM on August 23, 2010
posted by bessel functions seem unnecessarily complicated at 5:46 PM on August 23, 2010
I stumbled upon this bleak view of the future once and saved a bookmark to it, FWIW.
posted by forthright at 7:13 PM on August 23, 2010 [2 favorites]
posted by forthright at 7:13 PM on August 23, 2010 [2 favorites]
The problem may not be future weapons development (we reached the possibility of ending civilization with fusion bombs before I was born) vs. research decentralization; the problem may be weapons decentralization. If one in a billion people go crazy unexpectedly, that might not have been a significant risk so long as the President and the Chairman were the only ones with their fingers on the red button... but it becomes a major existential threat once anyone with a computer and a biofabricator can put together the next super-plague.
posted by roystgnr at 7:43 PM on August 23, 2010
posted by roystgnr at 7:43 PM on August 23, 2010
Response by poster: These were all awesome answers and exactly what I was looking for, including challenging my presuppositions. Thanks to everyone who wrote. I hope more will.
posted by frodoxiii at 8:12 PM on August 23, 2010
posted by frodoxiii at 8:12 PM on August 23, 2010
"...compared to only 170 in 1957 when he died"
(Elvis died in 1977.)
posted by blueberry at 8:43 PM on August 23, 2010
(Elvis died in 1977.)
posted by blueberry at 8:43 PM on August 23, 2010
Imagine if Rome hadn't been sacked by the Visigoths way back in the 4th Century. We'd have had indoor plumbing for 1600 years. Who can say what other technologies would have arrived on the scene hundreds of years earlier, were it not for that incident alone.
posted by contessa at 9:14 PM on August 23, 2010
posted by contessa at 9:14 PM on August 23, 2010
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by kenko at 4:28 PM on August 23, 2010