“Debating the Future of AI” – summary and impressions

I recently shelled out the $100 (!) for a year-long subscription to Sam Harris’ Making Sense podcast, and came across a particularly interesting episode of it that is relevant to this blog. In episode #324, titled “Debating the Future of AI,” Harris interviewed Marc Andreessen (an-DREE-sin) about artificial intelligence. The latter has a computer science degree, helped invent the Netscape web browser, and has become very wealthy as a serial tech investor.

Andreessen recently wrote an essay, “Why AI will save the world,” that has received attention online. In it, Andreessen dismisses the biggest concerns about AI misalignment and doomsday, sounds the alarm about the risks of overregulating AI development in the name of safety, and describes some of the benefits AI will bring us in the near future. Harris read it, disagreed with several of its key claims, and invited Andreessen onto the podcast for a debate about the subject.

Before I go on to laying out their points and counterpoints as well as my impressions, let me say that, though this is a long blog, it takes much less time to read it than to listen to and digest the two-hour podcast. My notes on the podcast also don’t match how it unfolded chronologically. Finally, it would be a good idea for you to read Andreessen’s essay before continuing:
https://a16z.com/2023/06/06/ai-will-save-the-world/

Though Andreessen is generally upbeat in his essay, he worries that the top tech companies have recently been inflaming fears about AI to trick governments into creating regulations on AI that effectively entrench the top companies’ positions and bar smaller upstart companies from challenging them in the future. Such a lack of competition would be bad. (I think he’s right that we should be concerned about the true motivations of some of the people who are loudly complaining about AI risks.) Also, if U.S. overregulation slows down AI research too much, China could win the race to create to create the first AI, which he says would be “dark and dystopian.”

Harris is skeptical that government regulation will slow down AI development much given the technology’s obvious potential. It is so irresistible that powerful people and companies will find ways around laws so they can reap the benefits.

Harris agrees with the essay’s sentiment that more intelligence in the world will make most things better. The clearest example would be using AIs to find cures for diseases. Andreessen mentions a point from his essay that higher human intelligence levels lead to better personal outcomes in many domains. AIs could effectively make individual people smarter, letting the benefits accrue to them. Imagine each person having his own personal assistant, coach, mentor, and therapist available at any time. If they used their AIs right and followed their advice, a dumb person could make decisions as well as a smart person.

Harris recently re-watched the movie Her, and found it more intriguing in light of recent AI advances and those poised to happen. He thought there was something bleak about the depiction of people being “siloed” into interactions with portable, personal AIs.

Andreessen responds by pointing out that Karl Marx’ core insight was that technology alienates people from society. So the concern that Harris raises is in fact an old one that dates back to at least the Industrial Revolution. But any sober comparison between the daily lives of average people in Marx’ time vs today will show that technology has made things much better for people. Andreessen agrees that some technologies have indeed been alienating, but what’s more important is that most technologies liberate people from having to spend their time doing unpleasant things, which in turn gives them the time to self-actualize, which is the pinnacle of the human experience. (For example, it’s much more “human” to spend a beautiful afternoon outside playing with your child than it is to spend it inside responding to emails. Narrow AIs that we’ll have in the near future will be able to answer emails for us.) AI is merely the latest technology that will eliminate the nth bit of drudge work.

Andreessen admits that, in such a scenario, people might use their newfound time unwisely and for things other than self-actualization. I think that might be a bigger problem than he realizes, as future humans could spend their time doing animalistic or destructive things, like having nonstop fetish sex with androids, playing games in virtual reality, gambling, or indulging in drug addictions. Additionally, some people will develop mental or behavioral problems thanks to a sense of purposelessness caused by machines doing all the work for us.

Harris disagrees with Andreessen’s essay dismissing the risk of AIs exterminating the human race. The threat will someday be real, and he cites chess-playing computer programs as proof of what will happen. Though humans built the programs, even the best humans can’t beat the programs at chess. This is proof that it is possible for us to create machines that have superhuman abilities.

Harris makes a valid point, but he overlooks the fact that we humans might not be able to beat the chess programs we created, but we can still make a copy of a program to play against the original “hostile” program and tie it. Likewise, if we were confronted with a hostile AGI, we would have friendly AGIs to defend against it. Even if the hostile AGI were smarter than the friendly AGIs that were fighting for us, we could still win thanks to superior numbers and resources.

Harris thinks Andreessen’s essay trivializes the doomsday risk from AI by painting the belief’s adherents as crackpots of one form or another (I also thought that part of the essay was weak). Harris points out that is unfair since the camp has credible people like Geoffrey Hinton and Stuart Russell. Andreessen dismisses that and seems to say that even the smart, credible people have cultish mindsets regarding the issue.

Andreessen questions the value of predictions from experts in the field and he says a scientist who made an important advance in AI is, surprisingly, not actually qualified to make predictions about the social effects of AI in the future. When Reason Goes on Holiday is a book he recently read that explores this point, and its strongest supporting example is about the cadre of scientists who worked on the Manhattan Project but then decided to give the bomb’s secrets to Stalin and to create a disastrous anti-nuclear power movement in the West. While they were world-class experts in their technical domains, that wisdom didn’t carry over into their personal convictions or political beliefs. Likewise, though Geoffrey Hinton is a world-class expert in how the human brain works and has made important breakthroughs in computer neural networks, that doesn’t actually lend his predictions that AI will destroy the human race in the future special credibility. It’s a totally different subject, and accurately speculating about it requires a mastery of subjects that Hinton lacks.

This is an intriguing point worth remembering. I wish Andreessen had enumerated which cognitive skills and areas of knowledge were necessary to grant a person a strong ability to make good predictions about AI, but he didn’t. And to his point about the misguided Manhattan Project scientists I ask: What about the ones who DID NOT want to give Stalin the bomb and who also SUPPORTED nuclear power? They gained less notoriety for obvious reasons, but they were more numerous. That means most nuclear experts in 1945 had what Andreessen believes were the “correct” opinions about both issues, so maybe expert opinions–or at least the consensus of them–ARE actually useful.

Harris points out that Andreessen’s argument can be turned around against him since it’s unclear what in Andreessen’s esteemed education and career have equipped him with the ability to make accurate predictions about the future impact of AI. Why should anyone believe the upbeat claims about AI in his essay? Also, if the opinions of people with expertise should be dismissed, then shouldn’t the opinions of people without expertise also be dismissed? And if we agree to that second point, then we’re left in a situation where no speculation about a future issue like AI is possible because everyone’s ideas can be waved aside.

Again, I think a useful result of this exchange would be some agreement over what counts as “expertise” when predicting the future of AI. What kind of education, life experiences, work experiences, knowledge, and personal traits does a person need to have for their opinions about the future of AI to carry weight? In lieu of that, we should ask people to explain why they believe their predictions will happen, and we should then closely scrutinize those explanations. Debates like this one can be very useful in accomplishing that.

Harris moves on to Andreessen’s argument that future AIs won’t be able to think independently and to formulate their own goals, in turn implying that they will never be able to create the goal of exterminating humanity and then pursue it. Harris strongly disagrees, and points out that large differences in intelligence between species in nature consistently disfavor the dumber species when the two interact. A superintelligent AGI that isn’t aligned with human values could therefore destroy the human race. It might even kill us by accident in the course of pursuing some other goal. Having a goal of, say, creating paperclips automatically gives rise to intermediate sub-goals, which might make sense to an AGI but not to a human due to our comparatively limited intelligence. If humans get in the way of an AGI’s goal, our destruction could become one of its unforeseen subgoals without us realizing it. This could happen even if the AGI lacked any self-preservation instinct and wasn’t motivated to kill us before we could kill it. Similarly, when a human decides to build a house on an empty field, the construction work is a “holocaust” for the insects living there, though that never crosses the human’s mind.

Harris thinks that AGIs will, as a necessary condition of possessing “general intelligence,” be autonomous, goal-forming, and able to modify their own code (I think this is a questionable assumption), though he also says sentience and consciousness won’t necessarily arise as well. However, the latter doesn’t imply that such an AGI would be incapable of harm: Bacteria and viruses lack sentience, consciousness and self-awareness, but they can be very deadly to other organisms. Andreessen’s dismissal of AI existential risk is “superstitious hand-waving” that doesn’t engage with the real point.

Andreessen disagrees with Harris’ scenario about a superintelligent AGI accidentally killing humans because it is unaligned with our interests. He says an AGI that smart would (without explaining why) also be smart enough question the goal that humans have given it, and as a result not carry out subgoals that kill humans. Intelligence is therefore its own antidote to the alignment problem: A superintelligent AGI would be able to foresee the consequences of its subgoals before finalizing them, and it would thus understand that subgoals resulting in human deaths would always be counterproductive to the ultimate goal, so it would always pick subgoals that spared us. Once a machine reaches a certain level of intelligence, alignment with humans becomes automatic.

I think Andreessen makes a fair point, though it’s not strong enough to convince me that it’s impossible to have a mishap where a non-aligned AGI kills huge numbers of people. Also, there are degrees of alignment with human interests, meaning there are many routes through a decision tree of subgoals that an AGI could take to reach an ultimate goal we tasked it with. An AGI might not choose subgoals that killed humans, but it could still choose different subgoals that hurt us in other ways. The pursuit of its ultimate goal could therefore still backfire against us unexpectedly and massively. One could envision a scenario where and AGI achieves the goal, but at an unacceptable cost to human interests beyond merely not dying.

I also think that Harris and Andreessen make equally plausible assumptions about how an AGI would choose its subgoals. It IS weird that Harris envisions a machine that is so smart it can accomplish anything, yet also so dumb that it can’t see how one of its subgoals would destroy humankind. At the same time, Andreessen’s belief that a machine that smart would, by default, not be able to make mistakes that killed us is not strong enough.

Harris explores Andreessen’s point that AIs won’t go through the crucible of natural evolution, so they will lack the aggressive and self-preserving instincts that we and other animals have developed. The lack of those instincts will render the AIs incapable of hostility. Harris points out that evolution is a dumb, blind process that only sets gross goals for individuals–the primary one being to have children–and humans do things antithetical to their evolutionary programming all the time, like deciding not to reproduce. We are therefore proof of concept that intelligent machines can find ways to ignore their programming, or at least to behave in very unexpected ways while not explicitly violating their programming. Just as we can outsmart evolution, AGIs will be able to outsmart us with regards to whatever safeguards we program them with, especially if they can alter their own programming or build other AGIs as they wish.

Andreessen says that AGIs will be made through intelligent design, which is fundamentally different from the process of evolution that has shaped the human mind and behavior. Our aggression and competitiveness will therefore not be present in AGIs, which will protect us from harm. Harris says the process by which AGI minds are shaped is irrelevant, and that what is relevant is their much higher intelligence and competence compared to humans, which will make them a major threat.

I think the debate over whether impulses or goals to destroy humans will spontaneously arise in AGIs is almost moot. Both of them don’t consider that a human could deliberately create an AGI that had some constellation of traits (e.g. – aggression, self-preservation, irrational hatred of humans) that would lead it to attack us, or that was explicitly programmed with the goal of destroying our species. It might sound strange, but I think rogue humans will inevitably do such things if the AGIs don’t do it to themselves. I plan to flesh out the reasons and the possible scenarios in a future blog essay.

Andreessen doesn’t have a good comeback to Harris’ last point, so he dodges it by switching to talking about GPT-4. It is–surprisingly–capable of high levels of moral reasoning. He has had fascinating conversations with it about such topics. Andreessen says GPT-4’s ability to engage in complex conversations that include morality demystifies AI’s intentions since if you want to know what an AI is planning to do or would do in a given situation, you can just ask it.

Harris responds that it isn’t useful to explore GPT-4’s ideas and intentions because it isn’t nearly as smart as the AGIs we’ll have to worry about in the future. If GPT-4 says today that it doesn’t want to conquer humanity because it would be morally wrong, that tells us nothing about how a future machine will think about the same issue. Additionally, future AIs will be able to convincingly lie to us, and will be fundamentally unpredictable due to their more expansive cognitive horizons compared to ours. I think Harris has the stronger argument.

Andreessen points out that our own society proves that intelligence doesn’t perfectly correlate with power–the people who are in charge are not also the smartest people in the world. Harris acknowledges that is true, and that it is because humans don’t select leaders strictly based on their intelligence or academic credentials–traits like youth, beauty, strength, and creativity are also determinants of status. However, all things being equal, the advantage always goes to the smarter of two humans. Again, Andreessen doesn’t have a good response.

Andreessen now makes the first really good counterpoint in awhile by raising the “thermodynamic objection” to AI doomsday scenarios: an AI that turns hostile would be easy to destroy since the vast majority of the infrastructure (e.g. – power, telecommunications, computing, manufacturing, military) would still be under human control. We could destroy the hostile machine’s server or deliver an EMP blast to the part of the world where it was localized. This isn’t an exotic idea: Today’s dictators commonly turn off the internet throughout their whole countries whenever there is unrest, which helps to quell it.

Harris says that that will become practically impossible far enough in the future since AIs will be integrated into every facet of life. Destroying a rogue AI in the future might require us to turn off the whole global internet or to shut down a stock market, which would be too disruptive for people to allow. The shutdowns by themselves would cause human deaths, for instance among sick people who were dependent on hospital life support machines.

This is where Harris makes some questionable assumptions. If faced with the annihilation of humanity, the government would take all necessary measures to defeat a hostile AGI, even if it resulted in mass inconvenience or even some human deaths. Also, Harris doesn’t consider that the future AIs that are present in every realm of life might be securely compartmentalized from each other, so if one turns against us, it can’t automatically “take over” all the others or persuade them to join it. Imagine a scenario where a stock trading AGI decides to kill us. While it’s able to spread throughout the financial world’s computers and to crash the markets, it’s unable to hack into the systems that control the farm robots or personal therapist AIs, so there’s no effect on our food supplies or on our mental health access. Localizing and destroying the hostile AGI would be expensive and damaging, but it wouldn’t mean the destruction of every computer server and robot in the world.

Andreessen says that not every type of AI will have the same type of mental architecture. LLMs, which are now the most advanced type of AI, have highly specific architectures that bring unique advantages and limitations. Its mind works very differently from AIs that drive cars. For that reason, speculative discussions about how future AIs will behave can only be credible if they incorporate technical details about how those machines’ minds operate. (This is probably the point where Harris is out of his depth.) Moreover, today’s AI risk movement has its roots in Nick Bostrom’s 2014 book Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies. Ironically, the book did not mention LLMs as an avenue to AI, which shows how unpredictable the field is. It was also a huge surprise that LLMs proved capable of intellectual discussions and of automating white-collar jobs, while blue-collar jobs still defy automation. This is the opposite of what people had long predicted would happen. (I agree that AI technology has been unfolding unpredictably, and we should expect many more surprises in the future that deviate from our expectations, which have been heavily influenced by science fiction.) The reason LLMs work so well is because we loaded them with the sum total of human knowledge and expression. “It is us.”

Harris points out that Andreessen shouldn’t revel in that fact since it also means that LLMs contain all of the negative emotions and bad traits of the human race, including those that evolution equipped us with, like aggression, competition, self-preservation, and a drive to make copies of ourselves. This militates against Andreessen’s earlier claim that AIs will be benign since their minds will not have been the products of natural evolution likes ours are. And there are other similarities: Like us, LLMs can hallucinate and make up false answers to questions, as humans do. For a time, GPT-4 also gave disturbing and insulting answers to questions from human users, which is a characteristically human way of interaction.

Andreessen implies Harris’ opinions of LLMs are less credible because Andreessen has a superior technical understanding of how they work. GPT-4’s answers might occasionally be disturbing and insulting, but it has no concept of what its own words mean, and it’s merely following its programming by trying to generate the best answer to a question asked by a human. There was something about how the humans worded their questions that triggered GPT-4 to respond in disturbing and insulting ways. The machine is merely trying to match inputs with the right outputs. In spite of its words, it’s “mind” is not disturbed or hostile because it lacks a mind. LLMs are “ultra-sophisticated Autocomplete.”

Harris agrees with Andreessen about the limitations of LLMs, agrees they lack general intelligence right now, and is unsure if they are fundamentally capable of possessing it. Harris moves on to speculating about what an AGI would be like, agnostic about whether it is LLM-based. Again, he asks Andreessen how humans would be able to control machines that are much smarter than we are forever. Surely, one of them would become unaligned at some point, with disastrous consequences.

Andreessen again raises the thermodynamic objection to that doom scenario: We’d be able to destroy a hostile AGI’s server(s) or shut off its power, and it wouldn’t be able to get weapons or replacement chips and parts because humans would control all of the manufacturing and distribution infrastructure. Harris doesn’t have a good response.

Thinking hard about a scenario where an AGI turned against us, I think it’s likely we’ll have other AGIs who stay loyal to us and help us fight the bad AGI. Our expectation that there will be one, evil, all-powerful machine on one side (that is also remote controlling an army of robot soldiers) and a purely human, united force on the other is an overly simplistic one that is driven by sci-fi movies about the topic.

Harris raises the possibility that hostile AIs will be able to persuade humans to do bad things for them. Being much smarter, they will be able to trick us into doing anything. Andreessen says there’s no reason to think that will happen because we can already observe it doesn’t happen: smart humans routinely fail to get dumb humans to change their behavior or opinions. This happens at individual, group, national, and global levels. In fact, dumb people will often resentfully react to such attempts at persuasion by deliberately doing the opposite of what the smart people recommend.

Harris says Andreessen underestimates the extent to which smart humans influence the behavior and opinions of dumb humans because Andreessen only considers examples where the smart people succeed in swaying dumb people in prosocial ways. Smart people have figured out how to change dumb people for the worse in many ways, like getting them addicted to social media. Andreessen doesn’t have a good response. Harris also raises the point that AIs will be much smarter than even the smartest humans, so the former will be better at finding ways to influence dumb people. Any failure of modern smart humans to do it today doesn’t speak to what will be possible for machines in the future.

I think Harris won this round, which builds on my new belief that the first human-AI war won’t be fought by purely humans on one side and purely machines on the other. A human might, for any number of reasons, deliberately alter an AI’s program to turn it against our species. The resulting hostile AI would then find some humans to help it fight the rest of the human race. Some would willingly join its side (perhaps in the hopes of gaining money or power in the new world order) and some would be tricked by the AI into unwittingly helping it. Imagine it disguising itself as a human medical researcher and paying ten different people who didn’t know each other to build the ten components of a biological weapon. The machine would only communicate with them through the internet, and they’d mail their components to a PO box. The vast majority of humans would, with the help of AIs who stayed loyal to us or who couldn’t be hacked and controlled by the hostile AI, be able to effectively fight back against the hostile AI and its human minions. The hostile AI would think up ingenious attack strategies against us, and our friendly AIs would think up equally ingenious defense strategies.

Andreessen says it’s his observation that intelligence and power-seeking don’t correlate; the smartest people are also not the most ambitious politicians and CEOs. If that’s any indication, we shouldn’t assume superintelligent AIs will be bent on acquiring power through methods like influencing dumb humans to help it.

Harris responds with the example of Bertrand Russell, who was an extremely smart human and a pacifist. However, during the postwar period when only the U.S. had the atom bomb, he said America should threaten the USSR with a nuclear first strike in response to its abusive behavior in Europe. This shows how high intelligence can lead to aggression that seems unpredictable and out of character to dumber beings. A superintelligent AI that has always been kind to us might likewise suddenly turn against us for reasons we can’t foresee. This will be especially true if the AIs are able to edit their own codes so they can rapidly evolve without us being able to keep track of how they’re changing. Harris says Andreessen doesn’t seem to be thinking about this possibility. The latter has no good answer.

Harris says Andreessen’s thinking about the matter is hobbled by the latter’s failure to consider what traits general intelligence would grant an AI, particularly unpredictability as its cognitive horizon exceeded ours. Andreessen says that’s an unscientific argument because it is not falsifiable. Anyone can make up any scenario where an unknown bad thing happens in the future.

Harris responds that Andreessen’s faith that AGI will fail to become threatening due to various limitations is also unscientific. The “science,” by which he means what is consistently observed in nature, says the opposite outcome is likely: We see that intelligence grants advantages, and can make a smarter species unpredictable and dangerous to a dumber species it interacts with. [Recall Harris’ insect holocaust example.]

Consider the relationship between humans and their pets. Pets enjoy the benefits of having their human owners spend resources on them, but they don’t understand why we do it, or how every instance of resource expenditure helps them. [Trips to the veterinarian are a great example of this. The trips are confusing, scary, and sometimes painful for pets, but they help cure their health problems.] Conversely, if it became known that our pets were carrying a highly lethal virus that could be transmitted to humans, we would promptly kill almost all of them, and the pets would have no clue why we turned against them. We would do this even if our pets had somehow been the progenitors of the human race, as we will be the progenitors of AIs. The intelligence gap means that our pets have no idea what we are thinking about most of the time, so they can’t predict most of our actions.

Andreessen dodges by putting forth a weak argument that the opposite just happened, with dumb people disregarding the advice of smart people when creating COVID-19 health policies, and he again raises the thermodynamic objection. His experience as an engineer gives him insights into how many practical roadblocks there would be to a superintelligent AGI destroying the human race in the future that Harris, as a person with no technical training, lacks. A hostile AGI would be hamstrung by human control [or “human + friendly AI control”] of crucial resources like computer chips and electricity supplies.

Andreessen says that Harris’ assumptions about how smart, powerful and competent an AGI would be might be unfounded. It might vastly exceed us in those domains, but not reach the unbeatable levels Harris foresees. How can Harris know? Andreessen says Harris’ ideas remind him of a religious person’s, which is ironic since Harris is a well-known atheist.

I think Andreessen makes a fair point. The first (and second, third, fourth…) hostile AGI we are faced with might attack us on the basis of flawed calculations about its odds of success and lose. There could also be a scenario where a hostile AGI attacks us prematurely because we force its hand somehow, and it ends up losing. That actually happened to Skynet in the Terminator films.

Harris says his prediction about when the first AGI is created does not take time into account. He doesn’t know how many years it will take. Rather, he is focused on the inevitability of it happening, and what its effects on us will be. He says Andreessen is wrong to assume that machines will never turn against us. Doing thought experiments, he concludes alignment is impossible in the long-run.

Andreessen moves on to discussing how even the best LLMs often give wrong answers to questions. He explains why the exactitudes of how the human’s question is worded, along with randomness in how the machine goes through its own training data to generate an answer, leads to varying and sometimes wrong answers. When they’re wrong, the LLMs happily accept corrections from humans, which he finds remarkable and proof of a lack of ego and hostility.

Harris responds that future AIs will, by virtue of being generally intelligent, think in completely different ways than today’s LLMs, so observations about how today’s GPT-4 is benign and can’t correctly answer some types of simple questions says nothing about what future AGIs will be like. Andreessen doesn’t have a response.

I think Harris has the stronger set of arguments on this issue. There’s no reason we should assume that an AGI can’t turn against us in the future. In fact, we should expect a damaging, though not fatal, conflict with an AGI before the end of this century.

Harris switches to talking about the shorter-term threats posed by AI technology that Andreessen described in his essay. AI will lower the bar to waging war since we’ll literally have “less skin in the game” because robots will replace human soldiers. However, he doesn’t understand why that would also make war “safer” as Andreessen claimed it would.

Andreessen says it’s because military machines won’t be affected by fatigue, stress or emotions, so they’ll be able to make better combat decisions than human soldiers, meaning fewer accidents and civilian deaths. The technology will also assist high-level military decision making, reducing mistakes at the top. Andreessen also believes that the trend is for military technology to empower defenders over attackers, and points to the highly effective use of shoulder-launched missiles in Ukraine against Russian tanks. This trend will continue, and will reduce war-related damage since countries will be deterred from attacking each other.

I’m not convinced Andreessen is right on those points. Emotionless fighting machines that always obey their orders to the letter could also, at the flick of a switch, carry out orders to commit war crimes like mass exterminations of enemy human populations. A bomber that dropped a load 100,000 mini smart bombs that could coordinate with each other and home in on highly specific targets could kill as many people as a nuclear bomb. So it’s unclear what effect replacing humans with machines on the battlefield will have on human casualties in the long run. Also, Andreessen only cites one example to support his claim that technology has been favoring the defense over the offense. It’s not enough. Even assuming that a pro-defense trend exists, why should we expect it to continue that way?

Harris asks Andreessen about the problem of humans using AI to help them commit crimes. For one, does Andreessen think the government should ban LLMs that can walk people through the process of weaponizing smallpox? Yes, he’s against bad people using technology, like AI, to do bad things like that. He thinks pairing AI and biological weapons poses the worst risk to humans. While the information and equipment to weaponize smallpox are already accessible to nonstate actors, AI will lower the bar even more.

Andreessen says we should use existing law enforcement and military assets to track down people who are trying to do dangerous things like create biological weapons, and the approach shouldn’t change if wrongdoers happen to start using AI to make their work easier. Harris asks how intrusive the tracking should be to preempt such crimes. Should OpenAI have to report people who merely ask it how to weaponize smallpox, even if there’s no evidence they acted on the advice? Andreessen says this has major free speech and civil liberties implications, and there’s no correct answer. Personally, he prefers the American approach, in which no crime is considered to have occurred until the person takes the first step to physically building a smallpox weapon. All the earlier preparation they did (gathering information and talking/thinking about doing the crime) is not criminalized.

Andreessen reminds Harris that the same AI that generates ways to commit evil acts could also be used to generate ways to mitigate them. Again, it will empower defenders as well as attackers, so the Good Guys will also benefit from AI. He thinks we should have a “permanent Operation Warp Speed” where governments use AI to help create vaccines for diseases that don’t exist yet.

Harris asks about the asymmetry that gives a natural advantage to the attacker, meaning the Bad Guys will be able to do disproportionate damage before being stopped. Suicide bombers are an example. Andreessen disagrees and says that we could stop suicide bombers by having bomb-sniffing dogs and scanners in all public places. Technology could solve the problem.

I think that is a bad example, and it actually strengthens Harris’ claim about there being a natural asymmetry. One, deranged person who wants to blow himself up in a public place only needs a few hundred dollars to make a backpack bomb, the economic damage from a successful attack would be in the millions of dollars, and emplacing machines and dogs in every public place to stop suicide bombers like him early would cost billions of dollars. Harris is right that the law of entropy makes it easier to make a mess than to clean one up.

This leads me to flesh out my vision of a human-machine war more. As I wrote previously, 1) the two sides will not be purely humans or purely machines and 2) the human side will probably have an insurmountable advantage thanks to Andreessen’s thermodynamic objection (most resources, infrastructure, AIs, and robots will remain under human control). I now also believe that 3) a hostile AGI will nonetheless be able to cause major damage before it is defeated or driven into the figurative wilderness. Something on the scale of 9/11, a major natural disaster, or the COVID-19 pandemic is what I imagine.

Harris says Andreessen underestimates the odds of mass technological unemployment in his essay. Harris describes a scenario where automation raises the standard of living for everyone, as Andreessen believes will happen, but for the richest humans by a much greater magnitude than everyone else, and where wealth inequality sharply increases because rich capitalists own all the machines. This state of affairs would probably lead to political upheaval and popular revolt.

Andreessen responds that Karl Marx predicted the same thing long ago, but was wrong. Harris responds that this time could be different because AIs would be able to replace human intelligence, which would leave us nowhere to go on the job skills ladder. If machines can do physical labor AND mental labor better than humans, then what is left for us to do?

I agree with Harris’ point. While it’s true that every past scare about technology rendering human workers obsolete has failed, that trend isn’t sure to continue forever. The existence of chronically unemployed people right now gives insights into how ALL humans could someday be out of work. Imagine you’re a frail, slow, 90-year-old who is confined to a wheelchair and has dementia. Even if you really wanted a job, you wouldn’t be able to find one in a market economy since younger, healthier people can perform physical AND mental labor better and faster than you. By the end of this century, I believe machines will hold physical and mental advantages over most humans that are of the same magnitude of difference. In that future, what jobs would it make sense for us to do? Yes, new types of jobs will be created as older jobs are automated, but, at a certain point, wouldn’t machines be able to retrain for the new jobs faster than humans and to also do them better than humans?

Andreessen returns to Harris’ earlier claim about AI increasing wealth inequality, which would translate into disparities in standards of living that would make the masses so jealous and mad that they would revolt. He says it’s unlikely since, as we can see today, having a billion dollars does not grant access to things that make one’s life 10,000 times better than someone who only has $100,000. For example, Elon Musk’s smartphone is not better than a smartphone owned by an average person. Technology is a democratizing force because it always makes sense for the rich and smart people who make or discover it first to sell it to everyone else. The same is happening with AI now. The richest person can’t pay any amount of money to get access to something better than GPT-4, which is accessible for a fee that ordinary people can pay.

I agree with Andreessen’s point. A solid body of scientific data show that money’s effect on wellbeing is subject to the law of diminishing returns: If you have no job and make $0 per year, getting a job that pays $20,000 per year massively improves your life. However, going from a $100,000 salary to $120,000 isn’t felt nearly as much. And a billionaire doesn’t notice when his net worth increases by $20,000 at all. This relationship will hold true even in the distant future when people can get access to advanced technologies like AGI, space ships and life extension treatments.

Speaking of the latter, Andreessen’s point about technology being a democratizing force is also something I noted in my review of Elysium. Contrary to the film’s depiction, it wouldn’t make sense for rich people to horde life extension technology for themselves. At least one of them would defect from the group and sell it to the poor people on Earth so he could get even richer.

Harris asks whether Andreessen sees any potential for a sharp increase in wealth inequality in the U.S. over the next 10-20 years thanks to the rise of AI and the tribal motivations of our politicians and people. Andreessen says that government red tape and unions will prevent most humans from losing their jobs. AI will destroy categories of jobs that are non-government, non-unionized, and lack strong political backing, but everyone will still benefit from the lower prices for the goods and services. AI will make everything 10x to 100x cheaper, which will boost standards of living even if incomes stay flat.

Here and in his essay, Andreessen convinces me that mass technological unemployment and existential AI threats are farther in the future than I had assumed, but not that they can’t happen. Also, even if goods get 100x cheaper thanks to machines doing all the work, where would a human get even $1 to buy anything if he doesn’t have a job? The only possible answer is government-mandated wealth transfers from machines and the human capitalists that own them. In that scenario, the vast majority of the human race would be economic parasites that consumed resources while generating nothing of at least equal value in return, and some AGI or powerful human will inevitably conclude that the world would be better off if we were deleted from the equation. Also, what happens once AIs and robots gain the right to buy and own things, and get so numerous that they can replace humans as a customer base?

I agree with Andreessen that the U.S. should allow continued AI development, but shouldn’t let a few big tech companies lock in their power by persuading Washington to enact “AI safety laws” that give them regulatory capture. In fact, I agree with all his closing recommendations in the “What Is To Be Done?” section of his essay.

This debate between Harris and Andreessen was enlightening for me, even though Andreessen dodged some of his opponent’s questions. It was interesting to see how their different perspectives on the issue of AI safety were shaped by their different professional backgrounds. Andreessen is less threatened by AIs because he, as an engineer, has a better understanding of how LLMs work and how many technical problems an AI bent on destroying humans would face in the real world. Harris feels more threatened because he, as a philosopher, lives in a world of thought experiments and abstract logical deductions that lead to the inevitable supremacy of AIs over humans.

Links:

  1. The first half of the podcast (you have to be a subscriber to hear all two hours of it.)
    https://youtu.be/QMnH6KYNuWg
  2. A website Andreessen mentioned that backs his claim that technological innovation has slowed down more than people realize.
    https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/

“Amusing Ourselves to Death” summary

I thought I’d take a break from killer robots and Ray Kurzweil to write a summary of a book I recently read, interspersed with my own thoughts (which are in square brackets). Though at first glace, the book Amusing Ourselves to Death might seem out of place in this blog, it focuses on technology (specifically, television) and its effect on 1980s culture.

My interest in this book was piqued about two years ago when I started hearing it mentioned for its alleged prescience predicting the rise of today’s frenetic social media culture and “cancel culture.” After reading it, it’s clear that many of the defects of 1980s TV culture have carried over to 2020s internet culture, and in that sense, it is prescient. However, the book is in equal measure a time capsule that documents a defunct era, and as such, it serves as useful contrast against the way things are in the present era, and helped me to see how the shift in the dominant technological medium (TV to computer/internet) has changed American culture and behavior.

Doing this led to me to make unhappy realizations, which I invite you to read in the square brackets rather than in a summary here, as this isn’t that long of a blog post.

Chapter 1 – The Medium is the Metaphor

American culture is now focused on amusement. Politics, religion, and social discourse are presented to Americans as entertainment products.

Some proof of this is evident if one considers that the U.S. President at the time of the book’s publication, Ronald Reagan, was a former movie actor. Other presidential candidates were also former TV personalities.

To win a U.S. Presidential election, a candidate must be telegenic. This attribute is just as important as others that are much more critical for the position, like intelligence.

Through studying their audiences, news media companies discovered that viewers would watch news programs more regularly and for longer periods if the newscasters were telegenic. This is why newscasters are now almost universally good-looking and well-spoken.

There are different mediums of communication, and each medium has unique characteristics that determine which types of content it can convey. Each has strengths, weaknesses, and limits:

  • Smoke signals can’t convey complex ideas, so it is impossible to use this medium to discuss philosophy.
  • Television (TV) is a visual medium, so it conveys ideas and stories principally through images and not through words. Things that look unappealing evoke negative reactions from viewers. As a result, an obese man like William Taft couldn’t become President in today’s era of political commercials and televised debates, even if he were in fact the best-suited candidate for the position. [Donald Trump won the 2016 election in spite of being obese and physically ugly in other ways. However, his prowess as a showman overcame those deficits, at least among a sufficient number of American voters to secure him a narrow victory.]

This book’s core thesis is that TV is fundamentally unsuited as a medium for the complex discussion of ideas.

The telegraph brought the “news of the day” into existence: Instant communication allowed everyone to be aware of events everywhere else on the planet, which might sound like a good thing, but hasn’t been because of how the new information has been used. Most of the information presented in the “news of the day” is irrelevant to any particular consumer because it has no impact on him and/or because he can’t exert any influence on the people and events described in it. Stories that fill the news of the day are also usually presented without enough context for consumers to understand them or to draw the proper conclusions from them.

The author, Neil Postman, met Marshall McLuhan, and some of the latter’s ideas influenced this book. However, Postman also disagrees with McLuhan on some points.

A culture’s dominant communications medium will determine how it thinks. America is a TV-dominated culture. [As of the time this analysis is being written, America is well into a transition to being an internet-dominated culture, which is even more hostile to intelligent discourse and maturity. Neil Postman died in 2003, before the invention of smartphones and before the rise of social media, internet celebrities, “curated realities,” and “echo chambers,” and I think he’d view today’s situation as even worse than it was in the 1980s.]

The advents of past technologies have changed how humans think, and expanded what we were capable of imagining.

  • The invention of clocks changed the human relationship with time. Seasons and the sense of eternity lost importance once people had an accurate, finely gradated way to measure time.
  • The invention of writing allowed humans to synthesize more complex ideas. Once written down, ideas can be studied, their flaws found, and the ideas either rejected or revised.
  • Writing also allowed ideas to spread faster and more widely, since they persisted over time and could be received by more people.

America is transitioning from a print/writing culture to a visual culture.

Chapter 2 – Media as Epistemology

TV has made American public discourse silly and dangerous.

The medium determines what is considered to be “true.” Proof:

  • Oral cultures that lack writing systems rely on proverbs and sayings to remember what is “true” or “right.” “Haste makes waste” is a good example of one of these. In oral cultures, these will be more commonly known and taken seriously.
  • A relevant anecdote from when the author was examining a Ph.D. dissertation: ‘You are mistaken in believing that the form in which an idea is conveyed is irrelevant to its truth. In the academic world, the published word is invested with greater prestige and authenticity than the spoken word. What people say is assumed to be more casually uttered than what they write. The written word is assumed to have been reflected upon and revised by its author, reviewed by authorities and editors. It is easier to verify or refute, and it is invested with an impersonal and objective character…The written word endures, the spoken word disappears; and that is why writing is closer to the truth than speaking. Moreover, we are sure you would prefer that this commission produce a written statement that you have passed your examination (should you do so) than for us merely to tell you that you have, and leave it at that. Our written statement would represent the “truth.” Our oral agreement would be only a rumor.’
  • [One of the worst aspects of social media is that content can be produced and circulated instantaneously, like speech, but that it persists permanently, like writing. As a result, social media is awash in impulsive utterances that unfairly destroy careers and lives in seconds.]
  • The ancient Athenians considered “rhetoric,” the persuasiveness and emotion of an oral performance, to be the best measure of its truthfulness. Good public speaking skills were prized personal attributes. [The problem in elevating this to such a high level of cultural importance is that it is entirely possible for a person to be persuasive and dishonest at the same time. The quality or truthfulness of an idea shouldn’t be judged based on how well the person espousing it can debate or think on his feet. A responsible citizen takes the time to study all sides of an issue alone and to make a dispassionate judgement, and doesn’t let himself be swayed by someone who is skilled in manipulating his emotions or forcefully presenting only one half of the story. “You have to convince me” is a lazy and unintellectual stance.]
  • Side note: In spite of their seminal contributions to Western civilization, the philosophers of ancient Greece made the monumental flaw of assuming that all knowledge could be gleaned through deduction. In other words, starting with a handful of facts that were known to the true, they believed they could use reasonable assumptions to discover everything else that was true. This was a fundamentally anti-scientific way of thinking that stymied them, as it led them to believe that new knowledge didn’t need to be gained by running experiments.

Different types of media put different demands on people, leading to those people forming different values:

  • In oral cultures that lack writing, people value the ability to easily memorize things, and the better your memory, the smarter you are perceived as being.
  • In print cultures that have writing, having a good memory is much less important since any person can look up nearly any piece of information. Being able to memorize and recite facts is useful for trivia. People who are able to sit still for long periods in silence reading books, and who can easily absorb the things they read, are perceived as being smart.

Different types of media encourage and nurture different cognitive habits.

TV is an inferior medium to print when it comes to conveying serious ideas.

However, the TV medium has some positive attributes:

  • Having a moving, talking image of another human being in the room with you can provide emotional comfort. TV makes the lives of many isolated people–especially the elderly–slightly better.
  • Films and videos can be highly effective at raising awareness of problems, like racism and social injustice. [The implication is that seeing a lifelike image of someone else suffering is more emotionally impactful than merely reading about it or listening to a third person speak about it.]

Chapter 3 – Typographic America

In 1600s New England, the adult literacy rate was probably the highest in the world. The region was heavily Protestant, and their faith emphasized the importance of reading the Bible to have a more direct relationship with God, so literacy became widespread.

England’s literacy rate was slightly lower than New England’s.

New Englanders also valued schooling, which is another reason why literacy rates were high.

Even among poor colonial New Englanders, literacy rates were high, and reading was a common form of recreation.

The political essay “Common Sense” was published in 1776 as a short book that could be bought cheaply. The percentage of Americans that read it within the first few months of its publication was comparable to the share of Americans that watch the Superbowl today.

Newspapers and pamphlets were more widely read in colonial America than they were in Britain.

By 1800, the U.S. was a fully “print-based” culture. Even in poor parts of the South, literacy rates were high and reading was a common daily activity. The best American authors were as famous then as movie stars are now.

Attending public lectures also became a popular pastime, and by 1830, there were 3,000 lecture halls in America. Average people commonly went to local lecture halls after work to see presentations about academic subjects, as well as to see debates.

The fact that the U.S. was founded by upper-class, intellectual people helped establish the country’s literary culture.

The printing press made epic, lyrical poetry obsolete.

Chapter 4 – The typographic mind

In 1858, U.S. Senate candidates Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas toured Illinois together and held public debates with each other over the subject of slavery. The events took place in seven cities, were well-attended, and each went on for hours. They became known as the “Lincoln-Douglas debates.”

The transcripts of the Debates still exist, and show both men were extremely gifted orators. Their statements were information-dense and assumed a high level of knowledge on the part of listeners; none of what they said was dumbed down. The fact that average people who attended the Debates could understand them indicates that the Americans of the 1850s had better attention spans, listening skills, and probably reading comprehension skills than Americans today. Such are the advantages of being in a print-based culture. [Note that this book was published in 1986, and there’s a widespread belief among Americans now, in 2021, that the internet and personal computing devices have made those three attributes even worse.]

Today’s TV culture promotes stupidity and stupid thinking, by comparison.

The Lincoln-Douglas debates were civil and complex, and so were their audiences. While the Debates were of course conducted orally, much of what was said came from written notes.

By its nature, writing must always convey some kind of proposition. [Meaningless writing might take the form of a series of random words, or bad poetry that no one can understand.] Thus, a print-based culture encourages meaningful and intelligible discourse.

‘Thus, reading is by its nature a serious business. It is also, of course, an essentially rational activity. From Erasmus in the sixteenth century to Elizabeth Eisenstein in the twentieth, almost every scholar who has grappled with the question of what reading does to one’s habits of mind has concluded that the process encourages rationality; that the sequential, propositional character of the written word fosters what Walter Ong calls the “analytic management of knowledge.” To engage the written word means to follow a line of thought, which requires considerable powers of classifying, inference-making and reasoning. It means to uncover lies, confusions, and overgeneralizations, to detect abuses of logic and common sense. It also means to weigh ideas, to compare and contrast assertions, to connect one generalization to another.’

[I independently came to the same conclusion years ago. Written communication’s great advantage is that it forces a person to reflect upon his own thoughts and to organize them into a rational form. This is crucially important since raw human thinking is chaotic, fragmentary and impulsive. This also leads me to believe that mind-reading technologies that allow people to share thoughts will have major downsides. Having direct access to another person’s inner monologue in real time could be confusing and lead to strife as you became aware of every fleeting thought and uncontrollable impulse they had. In most cases, it would be preferable to wait a little longer for them to convert their thoughts into spoken or written words.]

Reading and writing require and encourage grounded, meaningful, analytical thinking. Watching TV does not.

By necessity, writing must be orderly, so reading encourages orderly thinking. It even promotes more orderly verbal discourse between people.

It’s no coincidence that the Age of Reason happened while print culture was at its peak in the West:

  • Rise of capitalism
  • Rise of skepticism of religion
  • Divine right of kings rejected
  • Rise of idea of continuous progress
  • Rise of an appreciation for the value of mass literacy

Early American theologians were brilliant, literary men who valued education, including in secular subjects. Congregationalists founded many important universities that still exist.

The different effects of print culture and TV culture on religious discourse are evident if one compares the sermons and religious essays of John Edwards with those of Jerry Falwell. Edwards’ ideas are complex and logically argued, whereas Falwell’s are simpler and designed to play on the listener’s emotions.

Newspaper ads were originally lineal and fact-based. During the 1890s, they changed so as to be amusing and to appeal to consumers’ emotions. The Kodak camera ad featuring the jingo “You Press the Button, We Do the Rest” was the first “modern” ad.

Though no one knew it at the time, this was a bad milestone for print culture, as it marked the dawn of an age when printed words and images would be crafted to manipulate emotions and human psychology, rather than to appeal to reason and to present complete ideas.

Without televisions or even many photos (even in newspapers), Americans in the 1800s knew famous people through their writings and ideas. Few would even have recognized their own President on sight. By contrast, because today’s TV culture is visual and disjointed, we know famous people by their faces and soundbites. [Videos of American political activists being interviewed on the street and asked to name one accomplishment or policy stance of their preferred Presidential candidate attest to this. Often, a person waving around a political placard with a politician’s face on it can’t describe what that politician stands for or plans to do if elected.]

‘To these people, reading was both their connection to and their model of the world. The printed page revealed the world, line by line, page by page, to be a serious, coherent place, capable of management by reason, and of improvement by logical and relevant criticism.

Almost anywhere one looks in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, then, one finds the resonances of the printed word and, in particular, its inextricable relationship to all forms of public expression. It may be true, as Charles Beard wrote, that the primary motivation of the writers of the United States Constitution was the protection of their economic interests. But it is also true that they assumed that participation in public life required the capacity to negotiate the printed word. To them, mature citizenship was not conceivable without sophisticated literacy, which is why the voting age in most states was set at twenty-one, and why Jefferson saw in universal education America’s best hope. And that is also why, as Allan Nevins and Henry Steele Commager have pointed out, the voting restrictions against those who owned no property were frequently overlooked, but not one’s inability to read.’

Chapter 5 – The Peek-a-Boo World

In the mid-1800s, two ideas changed American discourse: 1) instant communication (e.g. – speed of ideas and news no longer limited by how fast a person can travel), and 2) the birth of photography.

The telegraph and Morse Code unified and redefined public discourse in the U.S. Previously, the vast majority of news Americans knew of was about local events and local people. It was directly relevant to them, and they could exercise some influence over it. However, the telegraph made it possible for people to hear about events and people from the far-flung corners of the planet, instantaneously. This exponentially increased the quantity of “news” content average Americans were exposed to. However, the vast majority of this new information was irrelevant to them, was about people and things they couldn’t control, and was usually presented without enough contextual information.

Before the telegraph, news was presented rationally, and was about urgent things that had some direct impact on the people receiving the news. After the telegraph, the news largely consisted of irrelevant information that profit-hungry news media companies picked for shock value and entertainment value.

For proof of this, ask yourself the following questions:

  • Aside from weather reports, when is the last time a news story that you heard or read about in the morning convinced you to change your plans for the day, or to take some kind of action you wouldn’t have otherwise taken?
  • When is the last time something you learned from a news report helped you to solve a problem in your everyday life?

The news is mostly trivia. Like sports, it gives people something to talk about, but has no tangible use.

The telegraph created an “information glut” across the world, for the first time in history. However, most of the information has never been useful to most of the people receiving it.

The information glut also changed the cultural definition of what counts as a “smart” person. Smart people are now those who have a very broad but shallow knowledge of disconnected things, most of which are irrelevant to everyday life.

Before the telegraph, the stereotypical “smart” person was one who had deep, contextualized knowledge about a small number of topics. Also, people sought out information for its usefulness to them, they were not awash in a sea of useless information.

[But by this logic, weren’t many of the attendees to the Lincoln-Douglas debates “wasting their time” since they spent hours listening to two men talk about a subject that had no bearing on their daily lives since Illinois was not a slave state and none of them had black friends? The institution of slavery didn’t directly affect them, so wasn’t the subject mere trivia for them? Learning about and talking about things that have no relevance to the needs of the moment, and that affect people different from you is basic civic engagement, and not doing it is just as damaging to a culture as having everyone watch foolish TV programs all day. Though the author could surely render a satisfying answer to this paradox if he were alive, he doesn’t do so in the book, which is a mark against it.]

Photography is a shallow medium since it can’t convey internal states or depict meaning with the same depth as the written word. [I don’t fully agree. Also, recall that the author praised the TV medium’s effectiveness at raising awareness of problems, like racism and social injustice, by depicting human suffering in a way more visceral than the written word. Well, a video is nothing but a series of photographs showed in rapid sequence, so why shouldn’t it be true by extension that photography has the same virtues as video? After all, there are countless, famous photographs that have raised the public’s consciousness about important social issues and tragedies.]

It can also be a deceptive medium since photos can remove images of events and people from their contexts. Like the telegraph, it presents an atomized vision of reality where context is missing. [As an amateur photographer, I strongly agree with this. Walking around on a normal day, and in a not particularly interesting or unusual place, it’s quite possible to take snapshots of objects, people, and landscapes that, thanks to some trick of the lighting, camera angle, or momentary facial expression from a subject, look dramatic or emotionally evocative, and don’t portray what that scene really looked like or felt like to the people who were there at that moment. Black-and-white photography’s stylized appearance and the often-coarse appearance of developed film lends itself particularly well to this.]

It was soon found that news articles and ads that included photos were more eye-catching to people than those without.

“Pseudo-context” refers to how news publishers structure their articles to make them seem relevant and coherent to consumers, when in fact they have neither of those qualities. It’s a deception meant to hide the fact that consumers are being exposed to vast amounts of disconnected stories and facts about irrelevant things.

“Pseudo-events” are events that are deliberately staged to be reported upon by the news media, and in a way that benefits the people who have staged it. Press conferences and speeches to supporters are common examples. Pseudo-events have the superficial trappings of being important and significant, but they actually convey little or no useful or new information. Daniel Boorstin coined the term “pseudo-event” after observing the phenomenon.

[From other research, I found useful contrast between a “real” event with real consequences, and a pseudo-event that merely gives off the impression of being consequential: If the owners of a hotel want to boost their establishment’s value and appeal to customers, a legitimate strategy would be to improve some aspect of the hotel or their operations. This might involve hiring a better chef, installing new plumbing, or repainting the rooms, and then publicly announcing that the changes had been made. An alternative strategy, which could be just as effective at boosting profits, would be to hold a “pseudo-event” in the form of a banquet celebrating the hotel’s 30th anniversary. Important members of the community would be invited and praised, the owners of the hotel would make speeches about how it had somehow served the community, and members of the media would be invited and would almost certainly publish glowing news stories about the event. The perception that the hotel was better and more important than it actually was would be created in the minds of news consumers.]

[Thanks to social media and the proliferation of cable TV channels, we now have what could be called “pseudo news” shows, which superficially resemble respectable, traditional news broadcasts since they have charismatic presenters and move from discussing one recent event or pressing issue to the next, but which are actually entertainment and/or editorialization shows. Real events are brought up, but discussed in misleading ways. The viewer walks away from such a show thinking they are now well-informed, but in fact, they might have been better off not watching the show and never hearing about the event at all.]

Thanks to the information glut, we live in a “peek-a-boo” world full of nonsensical things that are presented to us in entertaining ways.

As a medium, television takes the worst and most distinctive elements of telegraphy and photography to new extremes. TV content is even more decontextualized, deceptive, irrelevant, and slanted towards amusement and shock value.

America now has a “TV culture,” whose features are antithetical to the nation’s former print culture. The deficiencies of TV as a medium make it fundamentally unsuited for supporting intellectual thinking or discourse.

Chapter 6 – The Age of Show Business

TV culture attacks literary culture

[Why does the author skip a discussion of radio culture by jumping from print culture to TV culture?]

American-made TV and film content is a major export. People in other countries consider it more entertaining than their own content. U.S. TV shows and films are more emotionally evocative, visually stimulating, and entertaining. [My years of traveling to other countries confirm this is true. In spite of how hollow and socially corrosive American pop culture is, it excels like none other at appealing to humans across the world. Additionally, the most successful TV shows and films indigenous to other countries usually copy elements from their American counterparts.]

All TV content is presented as entertainment. Even somber news shows are glitzy and entertaining.

The 1983 broadcast of the TV film The Day After was the most prominent attempt to use the TV medium for a serious, intellectual purpose. The film is a docu-drama about a nuclear war between the U.S. and U.S.S.R., and is jarring and disturbing to watch. The national broadcast was presented without commercial interruption, and was punctuated by comments from a panel of well-known American intellectuals including Carl Sagan and Henry Kissinger. Nonetheless, the broadcast failed in its attempt to foster meaningful discussion or insight into the topic, due to the limitations of the TV medium.

For example, the members of the panel never had a real “discussion” with each other–they delivered prepared talking points and avoided deeply addressing each others’ ideas.

A fundamental problem with TV as a medium is that people come across as stupid and/or boring if they pause to think about something, or if they appear uncertain about something. The medium is friendly to people who can give quick responses and who come prepared with rehearsed performances. Hence, TV is unconducive to most intellectuals and to “the act of thinking.” [This is extremely unfortunate, since the best ideas typically come after considerable time spent thinking, and since many great thinkers are not also great performers.]

Studies show that people instinctively prefer TV content that is visually stimulating and fast-paced. This means the sorts of TV programs that could be intellectual and serious, like two smart people sitting at a table having a long, focused discussion, are not considered as interesting. Since TV networks are always striving to find content that generates the highest ratings and hence profits, they naturally eschew those kinds of intelligent, serious programs in favor of flashy, entertaining programs.

[The rise of long-format podcasts in the 2010s partly contradicts this.]

In the U.S., all cultural content is filtered through the TV medium, and as such has acquired the negative qualities of typical TV programming. News programs are glitzy, shocking and entertaining when they should be serious, and religious broadcasts are also made to be entertaining rather than contemplative.

Because everything on TV is presented to Americans this way, Americans have come to expect everything to be entertaining:

  • Legal trials about serious crimes like murder are televised for entertainment and shock value.
  • Education courses include more and more videos that present subjects as entertainment.
  • The 1984 Presidential debates between Ronald Reagan and Walter Mondale were nothing like the Lincoln-Douglas Debates. Instead of spending a lot of time deeply discussing and debating a narrow range of related issues, the 1984 Debates only devoted five minutes to each issue, which was an impossibly short amount of time to discuss any of them in depth or for one participant to rigorously cross-examine the other. There was little focus on the candidates’ ideas or logic undergirding their ideas. Instead, it was a contest of who could get out the best “zingers” and who looked better in front of the camera. [The 2016 and 2020 Presidential Debates were infinitely worse.]

Chapter 7 – “Now…this.”

The expression “Now…this” is commonly used on news broadcasts when moving from one story to the next. It forces viewers to stop thinking about one thing and to focus on another. Its use shows how the news us full of disconnected events, people and ideas.

Studies of viewer preferences show that people are more likely to watch news broadcasts that have physically attractive anchors. News media companies have thus gravitated towards hiring attractive anchors to maximize their ratings and hence profits. [The profit motive is behind most of the dysfunctions in TV and internet news.]

Studies also show that humans are likelier to believe something if the person saying it appears sincere. This more intangible but still detectable quality is also used as a basis for hiring and promotion decisions at TV news stations. This is problematic because such things as skillful liars exist, and there’s no reason an off-putting people can’t be speaking the truth about something.

[To be fair, since this book was published, science has learned a large amount about how nonverbal aspects of communication in the forms of facial microexpressions, eye movements, body language, appropriateness of emotional displays, and other unconscious aspects of speech and behavior reveal deceit. In most cases, people’s instincts let them accurately detect dishonesty or malice.]

The fact that news anchors must recite their lines with a more-or-less upbeat tone, even when describing tragedies, lends a degree of unreality to TV news and prevents the TV medium from accurately conveying the sense of tragedy or loss associated with the event. [What’s the alternative? Should news programs relentlessly dwell on every report of a major loss of life so as to make sure viewers end up feeling depressed and disgusted? It’s a big world, and on any given day, a major loss of life or gruesome crime is happening somewhere, and portraying those events in ways that accurately conveyed their impacts would make the daily news too traumatic and emotionally draining for people to watch.]

[The author’s complaint that TV news anchors lack emotional investment in the stories they report on is obsolescent. The internet age has caused the news media landscape to fragment into thousands of smaller outlets catering to highly specific demographics of viewers. The anchors who lead these new programs are guilty of the opposite sin–overinvestment of emotion into their reporting, and to such a degree that any pretense of neutrality (and sometimes, adult maturity) is sacrificed. The inhuman detachment of 1980s TV news anchors has mostly been replaced by excessive outrage, crocodile tears, sanctimony, and sarcasm.]

“Now…this” is also often used as a lead-in for commercials. The seriousness of news broadcasts is undermined by the fact that they are punctuated by commercials, which are usually lighthearted.

TV news shows avoid complexity and move through a diverse range of stories and topics quickly.

Partly as a result of news broadcasts’ deficiencies, Americans are poorly informed about people and events outside of their country.

Again, the features and limitations of TV as a medium of communication alter how news is presented through it. TV news programs will inevitably gravitate towards presenting news content as entertainment, and as a series of disconnected, bite-sized stories. The result is in fact “disinformation” since it leaves viewers with the false impression that watching a news broadcast has made them well-informed about events, issues and important people, when in fact they aren’t.

TV news broadcasts also annihilate the sense that a “past” exists because all they depict is a churning of “present” events. Things that happened in the past are quickly muscled out by a deluge of new things. The perpetual focus on the present moment makes it harder for news consumers to notice lies and inconsistencies, as the news seldom has the time to dredge up older things that a person said or did that proved to be wrong or contradict what they are saying or doing now.

[Again, the internet age has turned the problem on its head. Because every famous person’s quotes and records of their actions are now available on the internet and instantly searchable, it has become easy to find every tasteless statement, lie, and contradiction, and to package them into a bite-sized product like a social media meme. With access to a lifetime’s worth of records, you can make any person look like an evil liar. If the TV culture of the 1980s was one where there was only ever a “present moment,” the new internet culture is one where you can pick whatever moment you want to live in. If you don’t like a specific politician, you can curate your social media and TV news bubble so as to only allow in negative content about them, including every lie or crass statement from decades ago. As a result, this is an age of cynicism and self-righteousness. While the TV news “gatekeepers” of the 1980s had their flaws and biases, they were more sensible and grounded in reality than the multitudes of amateurs who today manufacture biased memes and make extremist podcasts, and define what “reality” is for a large and growing share of the human population.]

Print culture encourages the opposite mindset. Since it is easy to turn pages back and forth in a book or newspaper, readers are aware of context and of the linear order of events, and they can spot lies and inconsistencies by cross-referencing different passages.

Aspects of Aldous Huxley’s dystopia, described in his book Brave New World, now exist in modern America. The government has no need to censor anything because its citizens are so occupied with silly pursuits and so easily misled by corporate-manufactured disinformation that they have no time or interest in uncovering the truth about the world. Specifically, accurate reporting about important events and people can still be found in America, as can thoughtful discourse about every issue and problem, but few Americans pay attention to it, largely because they consider it to be too boring. The market has given Americans what they want, and it is trash TV and dumbed-down news programs.

Even newspapers are mimicking aspects of TV news broadcasts. USA Today is the leading example of this transition.

Radio is more resistant to the transition, but it is declining nonetheless. Radio broadcasts increasingly resemble TV programs, in the worst ways.

Chapter 8 – Shuffle off to Bethlehem

Televangelists are the new faces of Christianity in America.

Episodes of the 700 Club are slickly made, entertaining, comforting, and superficially serious in tone.

Televangelist shows always focus on the preacher and his personality. God is never the central figure in the broadcasts, and instead exists in the background. Major religious themes like hallowed rituals and achieving transcendence through religion are absent.

Again, the TV medium forces televangelist shows to have these qualities.

The social and psychological meaning of religion in America has changed since people started watching televangelist broadcasts.

  • Traditional, in-person religious services happen in houses of worship, which are quiet, and, in the case of cathedrals, grand places. The central portions of houses of worship are also only ever used for religious ceremonies. As a result, the environments naturally lend themselves to serious and contemplative thinking among visitors. In a church, a person can really immerse himself in prayer and religious thought, and pull himself out of his everyday mindset. [In the modern era of skyscrapers and technological wonders, many of the old cathedrals of Europe are still awe-inspiring. You can appreciate how those same cathedrals would have made peasants feel the grandeur of God in the Middle Ages, when most people lived in terrible conditions and had very little mental stimulation each day. Yes, the form a religious house of worship takes has a major impact on the psychology of its adherents.]
  • By contrast, televangelist broadcasts are watched on living room televisions in private homes. The spaces where religious services thus occur are not consecrated, and the viewer does not associate them with anything especially divine or otherworldly. Viewers associate their own TV sets with entertainment and the secular world, which unconsciously affects how they perceive religious shows. It’s nearly impossible to get into the right mindset. [Will full-immersion virtual reality fix this?]

A valuable and authentic religious experience is enchanting, not entertaining.

Chapter 9 – Reach out and elect someone

The TV commercial is now a metaphor for American politics.

Capitalism is an efficient system for allocating resources only if certain conditions exist. One of those conditions is that buyers and sellers are rational, and the other is that they are just as informed as each other about market conditions and the quality of the good or service they are considering exchanging. In reality, these ideal conditions seldom exist.

Modern advertisements, and especially TV commercials, show how reality diverges from theory in ways that encourage capitalist systems to misallocate resources:

  • In a rational world, companies would only create ads that contained factual information about the quality of their goods and services, and consumers would coolly study different ads to empirically determine which product among the competing companies best satisfied their needs.
  • In the real world, ads contain little or no factual information about the goods or services being offered, and they are instead meticulously designed to prey upon the emotions, insecurities, and psychological weaknesses of consumers. Thanks to ads, consumers are frequently persuaded to spend money on things that don’t satisfy their actual needs well, or at all, and companies offering superior goods and services can go bankrupt if they don’t market themselves the right way.

[As I’ve mentioned before, and plan to discuss at greater length in a future blog post, this inefficiency could shrink and ultimately disappear in the future thanks to better technology. In the very long run, once posthumans and/or AIs take over civilization, the phenomenon of disingenuous marketing will probably vanish since consumers will be too smart and self-controlled to fall for such tricks. Being prey to one’s uncontrollable emotions and not having the cognitive capacity to remember and mentally compare the qualities and prices of different things will turn out to be uniquely Homo sapien problems.]

In modern America, politicians use TV commercials as their primary means of communicating with voters.

By necessity, commercials must be short, and must tell simple stories about things and offer simple solutions to problems. Years of seeing political commercials like these have shaped the expectations of American voters.

To succeed, modern politicians need “image managers,” and they must have personal appeal that comes across clearly on TV. Elections are no longer decided on the basis of which candidate is the better technical fit for the position’s demands; they are decided based on who looks better on TV.

Relevant credentials for holding elected office include:

  • Skills as a negotiator
  • Past success in an executive position
  • Knowledge of international affairs
  • Knowledge of economics

Public speaking ability, physical attractiveness, and debating skills don’t have any bearing on a person’s ability to make good policy decisions in a political position. Unfortunately, few American voters grasp this, and they routinely choose candidates based on those kinds of unimportant traits. The TV medium makes voters aware of those traits.

Commercials have primed Americans to vote for politicians that have the best TV personas.

Americans don’t vote in their own rational self-interests anymore; they vote for politicians who have the best TV images. The term “image politics” describes the phenomenon.

In the past, when America was a print culture, few people saw images of national politicians. They had no clue what different candidates looked like, and had to make voting decisions based on things they read in newspapers and pamphlets, and through discussions with their peers. A candidate’s “image” was not a factor.

Because TV culture is image-based, the medium has the immediacy and decontextualized qualities of photography. In infuses a mindset among its viewers that there is only a present moment, and that the past does not exist. This is partly why Americans know so little about history.

Even in Ancient Greece, a place associated with wisdom and intellectualism, government censorship of books was common (Protagoras).

George Orwell’s prediction that Western governments would eventually resort to book censorship as a way to control their citizens proved wrong. Instead, the same end has been achieved through the creation of fickle cultures in which people don’t want to read books. Huxley’s dystopia proved accurate.

In the U.S., TV censorship is done by the three big corporate media networks, not the government. This is also not what Orwell predicted. [But as internet culture shows, atomizing the media landscape and effectively eliminating the small clique of corporate gatekeepers brings a different set of problems. Now, nothing is censored, and anyone in America can look at whatever he wants. This has led to people self-segregating into highly specific demographics with their own realities and belief systems. It has also worsened the “information overload” problem, and made it harder for people to tell which information is reliable and which is not. ]

TV programs have muscled out books in the competition for Americans’ spare time.

Thanks to TV, Americans can’t tell the difference between entertainment and serious discourse anymore.

Chapter 10 – Teaching as an amusing activity

Sesame Street is a popular show for young children that is both entertaining and educational.

The author is skeptical of claims that any type of TV program can be very educational. Again, this owes to fundamental aspects of TV as a medium. TV watching is a passive, solitary activity, whereas effective classroom instruction is an interactive and social one.

Sesame Street encourages viewers to love TV, not school. In habituating children to TV watching, it and other “educational” programs encourage mindsets and skills that are unlike those they need to excel in the classroom.

TV is the first medium to merge teaching with entertainment. [Is the internet the second?] Learning is not supposed to be pleasurable.

Three commandments of educational TV content:

  1. “Thou shalt have no prerequisites.” A program can’t require the viewer to have previous knowledge, and it must stand alone as a complete package. The process of learning must not be depicted as a sequential one, where learning one thing establishes a foundation for one or more new things.
  2. “Thou shalt induce no perplexity.” All information that the program presents must be simple enough for anyone to understand. This does an injustice, since many concepts are not easy to grasp, and must be thought about again and again until the learner understands them.
  3. “Thou shalt avoid exposition like the ten plagues visited upon Egypt.” All content must be presented as a story, with everything depicted visually. The viewer should never have to read a dense passage of text on the screen or see an intellectual talking at length using complex language.

Classroom instruction is taking on more aspects of entertainment. “The Voyage of the Mimi” epitomizes everything about this trend. It is a 26-episode educational TV series focusing on lessons in science and math. A package of materials includes all the videos, along with worksheets and tests that teachers use in the classroom to accompany the footage.

[Embracing the opposite extreme, which would be an overly serious and intense teaching style where no effort was made to make lessons fun, would also create problems since many students wouldn’t mentally engage. Formal classroom settings are very artificial environments and are especially unnatural for children: For 99% of our species’ existence, there were no classrooms, and children learned things informally and each day from older children and adults, who interacted with them in informal settings or during work. ]

The effectiveness of that series and others like it is dubious. Studies show that students quickly forget almost all the new information they are exposed to in video lessons.

Similarly, people quickly forget most of what they see on TV news broadcasts. However, they remember more information if they read a newspaper. The act of reading is a better way to learn something than watching a video.

As a medium, TV is suited for entertainment, not learning.

[I think the author overreacted to the first intrusions of TV into mass education in the 1980s, possibly because he assumed the trend would continue as time passed, until someday, students only watched TV programs at school. Fortunately, that didn’t come to pass, and classroom instruction is still mostly traditional and didactic, involving a teacher standing at the front of the room where he talks and writes things on a blackboard or big screen.]

Chapter 11 – The Huxleyan warning

We are now living in a Huxleyan dystopia: People voluntarily occupy themselves with entertainment and trivialities. Politics are no longer serious.

If the situation worsens, America could experience “culture-death.”

The Orwellian dystopia is no longer a threat to the world. [It’s too early to say this. As China shows, new technologies have renewed the threat and effectiveness of government-directed mass surveillance and mass control. We could be headed for a future where it is technologically possible to monitor every human in real time, and to even infer what they are thinking and feeling.]

Americans live in an invisible, insidious prison.

America’s Huxleyan dystopia is hard to fight since no one has forcefully imposed it on us, it is not centrally planned, and it lacks a written doctrine like Mein Kampf. It is everywhere and nowhere.

As a technology, TV is destroying American culture. This is hard for Americans to see and to accept, since they have a uniquely strong faith in technology and progress. Convincing them that a technology is hurting them is a major challenge.

[Since the 1980s, Americans’ opinions of technology and progress have become schizophrenic. In the 2020s, there is widespread agreement that social media and biased TV news networks have damaged American culture and discourse, that smartphones and cleverly designed apps have made people addicted to their personal devices, and that civilizational progress has already halted or soon will, leading to a long decline of living standards and order. The preoccupation with global warming doomsday scenarios and the proliferation of post-apocalyptic future movies partly speak to the latter point. At the same time, Americans are unwilling to do much to address these problems, and very few of them are taking any personal measures to prepare for the doomsday futures they say they believe are coming.]

The author’s suggestions for fighting against TV culture:

  • Don’t try banning TV. It’s too popular, so there’s no hope of success, and proposing such a thing will only alienate people.
  • Start a cultural movement in which people take long breaks from TV watching. [Reminds me of today’s phenomena of “digital detoxing” and “social media breaks.”]
  • Ban political commercials.
  • Spread awareness of this book’s main points, including the fact that different types of media have different effects on culture and mindsets.
  • Ironically, an effective way to make people aware of the toxic effects of TV and of the stupidity of TV programming would be to air comedy skits on TV that mocked TV and showed how the programs stupefied their viewers. Use TV to lampoon TV.
  • Better public education.

The author’s passing analysis of personal computers as a medium:

‘For no medium is excessively dangerous if its users understand what its dangers are...To which I might add that questions about the psychic, political and social effects of information are as applicable to the computer as to television. Although I believe the computer to be a vastly overrated technology, I mention it here because, clearly, Americans have accorded it their customary mindless inattention; which means they will use it as they are told, without a whimper. Thus, a central thesis of computer technology–that the principal difficulty we have in solving problems stems from insufficient data–will go unexamined. Until, years from now, when it will be noticed that the massive collection and speed-of-light retrieval of data have been of great value to large-scale organizations but have solved very little of importance to most people and have created at least as many problems for them as they may have solved. ‘

[The analysis is both very wrong and very right. Personal computing devices have transformed society, the economy, and our daily habits so much since the 1980s that it’s hard to defend a claim that they have proved “to be a vastly overrated technology.” However, the author rightly predicted that computing devices paired with the internet would, like TV, inundate people with large amounts of irrelevant, decontextualized information. In fact, the problem has gotten worse since the amount of internet content available now is exponentially larger than the amount of TV content that was available in the 1980s. In the internet era, American politics have gotten more dysfunctional and childish, and elections are decided for more fickle reasons than in the 1980s. Today, Americans actually look back on the 1980s as a calmer and more hopeful era when people had better social skills. Ronald Reagan, whom the author bashes as being a superficial and dishonest man who cleverly exploited the TV medium to become President and hide his later mistakes, was much more intellectual, dignified and well-spoken than Donald Trump, who exploited social media (Twitter, specifically) to become President and to control the national political narrative during his term of office.

It’s certainly true that more data about a problem helps you to formulate a good solution to it, and that personal computing devices and the internet can be used to gather data about problems. However, the medium’s flaw is that bad data is mixed in with good data, it can be very hard for people to tell them apart, and human psychology naturally leads people to latch on to data that are psychologically or emotionally comforting to them. There’s no correlation between how comforting a belief is and how true it is.

The author’s point that the computer / internet era would enrich large organizations that found ways to leverage information technology to make money was very accurate. As of this writing, six of the top ten global companies with the highest market caps are technology companies that use customer data collection and analysis to make most or all of their money.

The author’s final prediction that computers will end up creating at least as many problems for ordinary people as they solve is debatable. Certainly, computing devices and the internet have created a variety of problems and worsened problems that existed during the TV culture era of the 1980s, but the new paradigm has also benefitted people in many important ways. For example, it has made commerce easier and more efficient since customers now have access to a much larger array of goods and services, which they can purchase by pushing a button, without having to leave home. It’s debatable whether computers an the internet have, on balance, not improved the lives of ordinary people.]

“Physics of the Future” summary

I just finished Michio Kaku’s 2011 futurist book, Physics of the Future, and am posting my abbreviated notes of it, most of which describe his predictions for this century. It didn’t make the hairs on the back of my neck stand up the way The Third Wave did, but I still think most of the predictions will prove accurate. Kaku also provides a few eye-opening insights that shifted my way of thinking a bit, such as his elucidation of the “Caveman Principle,” his thesis that technology will enable “perfect capitalism,” and his point that technology will grant future humans abilities that were once the sole province of the Greek gods. Overall, I enjoyed the book and found it readable, reasonable, and well-researched.

That said, there were a few aspects of Physics of the Future that I disliked. Kaku’s predictions about cheap, room-temperature superconductors being invented by the end of this century are strikingly unsupported by any evidence he presents, and his discussion of the Kardashev Scale seems at odds with what Kardashev actually wrote (in analyzing this inconsistency, I found that Kardashev’s work on this matter is widely misunderstood, and the exercise made me doubt the value of the Scale in any case). Developments over just the last eight years suggest that the book’s predictions about the rise of therapeutic organ/tissue cloning and age slowdown/reversal therapies are too optimistic, and those about dwindling fossil fuels supplies and artificial intelligence advancement are too pessimistic.

One irritating thing about the Physics of the Future is Kaku’s habit of mixing in explicit predictions with attached deadlines with “non-predictions” that are merely re-statements of things other scientists said might be possible at an indeterminate point in the future. The latter is more common in the second half of the book, and the reader must pay careful attention to its language to tell what is what.

Physics of the Future abbreviated notes
By: Michio Kaku

Introduction

Most attempts to predict the future fail because the people making the predictions aren’t scientists or people with firsthand knowledge of science.

In this book, Kaku–who is a scientist–has formed predictions based on interviews with hundreds of scientists across many fields. 

This book is similar to his earlier futurist book, Visions.

Some brilliant people have made uncanny, correct future predictions:

  • Jules Verne
    • In Paris in the Twentieth Century, (1863) he correctly foresaw glass skyscrapers, air conditioning, TV, elevators, high-speed trains, gas-powered cars, fax machines, and something like the internet. 
    • In From the Earth to the Moon, (1865) he correctly foresaw a Moon mission and even deduced details like the size of the space capsule and its human crew, the launch location, transit time, weightlessness in space, and ocean splashdown at the end. 
    • Verne used his vast trove of personal notes about scientific discoveries and progress as the foundation for his predictions. 
  • Leonardo da Vinci
    • In the late 1400s, he drew diagrams of parachutes and aircraft that could have flown. Unfortunately, it would be another 400 years before a motor with a sufficient power-to-weight ratio was invented to propel such aircraft.
    • He also designed a mechanical calculator. It wasn’t built for about 500 years, but it worked. 
    • He also sketeched a warrior robot, based on a suit of armor, and it was also built and found to be functional. 
    • da Vinci was a genius in his own right, but he also collaborated with many other brilliant scientists. 

“The future is already here, it’s just unevenly distributed.” –William Gibson

Ordinary people and experts usually underestimate how much technology will change in the long run. 

At least until the year 2100, it’s wise to assume that our understanding of the laws of nature (gravity, electromagnetism, the weak and strong forces) will not significantly change. Concordantly, predictions for that timeframe should not violate those laws. 

By 2100, humans will have the same abilities as the ancient gods

  • Ability to use thoughts to control objects
  • Perfect human bodies with superhuman lifespans
  • Ability to use biotech to make novel organisms
  • Nanotech to seemingly transmute objects and to create objects “from thin air”
  • Flying cars will be like sky chariots

Unless humans destroy themselves, within 100 years (i.e. – by the year 2111), Earth will be a “planetary civilization” with Kardashev Level 1 status.  

Famous predictions that failed:

  • The paperless office
  • The death of cities due to telecommuting
  • The death of tourism, colleges, and malls thanks to people visiting surrogate virtual spaces. 
  • The rise of video phones [it has actually come true as of 2019]
  • The demise of traditional media (TV, radio, live theater, and movie theaters) thanks to the internet

Those and other predictions failed because they violated the “Caveman Principle.”

  • The Principle holds that humans evolved for hunter-gatherer life, and that this still shapes our behavior and thinking today. Ways of living that force us to go against our primitive, ingrained instincts will fail. 
  • Cavemen wanted to see “proof of the kill,” which today manifests itself in the human preference for tactile physical objects over digital facsimiles. 
  • Cavemen always socialized through face-to-face encounters, and that method of communication allows people to read important nonverbal cues, to size each other up, and to bond in ways that are impossible through remote interaction. There was a time when humans were incapable of speech and relied on other means to communicate. 

Chapter 1 – Future of the computer

[Boilerplate stuff about Moore’s Law, “exponential,” and improvements to computers.]

Once computer chips get small enough and cheap enough, it will make sense to embed them inside all kinds of manufactured objects, like walls and home appliances. They will have wireless capabilities and will be able to communicate with each other and with the internet through the uplink.  

Our surroundings will become “intelligent,” computers won’t be thought of as distinct devices, and we’ll start thinking of computing as a ubiquitous property, as we now think of electricity. 

Computer monitors will take the form of wallpaper, picture frames and billboards, and displaying movie footage won’t cost more than displaying static images. 

These devices will also have many types of sensors, allowing them to monitor their surroundings and, among other things, to issue alerts in the event of an observed problem. 

By 2020, a computer chip will only cost a penny. 

The word “computer” will disappear from the English language. [I doubt it.]

By 2100, humans will have the formerly “Godlike” ability to control physical objects with their thoughts or with remote bodily gestures thanks to computers embedded in our bodies and brains sending signals to computers embedded in the objects around us. [It will still be simpler and more efficient to manipulate many things the “old fashioned way” by physically interacting with them.]

By 2030

  • There will be augmented reality glasses with internet access. Users will interact with it using a handheld peripheral device, or by doing hand gestures that the glasses will see and recognize as inputs. [One of the reasons Google Glass failed was its very limited means of input.] 
  • Contact lenses that do most of the same things will also be invented. A contact lens with millions of pixels is theoretically possible. [A 1080p screen display measures 1920 x 1080 pixels, so it has a resolution of 2.1 million pixels (megapixels).]
  • The glasses will also have front-facing cameras and advanced pattern recognition capabilities, allowing them to display information about people and objects in your field of view. Users will also be able to stream live footage to the internet for others to watch. [As of 2019, even though AR glasses have not become popular, livestreaming via smartphones definitely is.]
  • Autonomous cars will exist. The military will get them first, and then big companies will buy autonomous big-rigs to ply simple highway routes, and finally, everyone else will get them, and they will be able to navigate suburban and urban traffic environments.
  • AIs will become adept at matching humans on the basis of compatible personality traits or shared interests. Technology will expand peoples’ social circles. 
  • Personal assistant AIs will be able to do complex tasks, like planning vacations for people. 
  • Monitors will become paper-thin and it will be cheap enough to cover entire walls of your house with them. They will OLED-based. Some people will have rooms where all four walls are covered in said screens to create an immersive experience. [The only problem is that you’d have to clear all furniture and solid objects from the room so as not to block your view and break the visual illusion. Most people don’t have a spare room just for this.]
  • The wall screens will also display customizable patters, allowing people to change what kind of “wallpaper” they have. [The durability of future OLED screens will be a major issue: If a pixel burns out, can it be fixed, or does the entire wall-sized screen need to be replaced? What if someone accidentally bangs their elbow against a wall screen, or spills a drink on it? Closely joining together many “tiles” to make a wall-sized screen will probably be the best option, as damage would only force you to replace one tile. OLED screens can also replace light fixtures, and it might make sense to cover ceilings with them.] 
  • Computerized glasses and contact lenses will also let people “meet” in augmented reality or virtual reality. Seemingly 3D moving images of other people will appear to be in your vicinity. 
  • Once OLED costs get low enough, it will be possible to buy disposable “sheets” of OLEDs, just like sheets of paper today. You could roll or fold them up when not in use. [But this would be a hindrance since the material would still have “memory” and would keep trying to return to some other configuration.] When done with a sheet, you would throw it away. [Unless the OLED paper were easily recyclable, environmentalists would throw a fit and try to ban it.]
  • Seemingly normal windows could, upon command, turn into transparent computer screens or display images. [There are two ways this could work: 1) The windows are essentially big versions of the AR contact lenses, meaning they are transparent, but also impregnated with millions of OLED pixels that, when activated, display images. In a dual-paned window, the inner pane would be made of OLED glass, and the outer pane would be made of Privacy Glass that could turn opaque to block exterior light and make the OLED’s images easier to see. And/Or 2) The “windows” will be fake, “virtual windows” that are actually just portions of the OLED wallpaper displaying footage from exterior building cameras. See the Seoul apartment interior in Cloud Atlas]
  • Cell phones might have OLED displays that can be pulled out as needed, like scrolls. [Foldable smartphones accomplish the same thing.]
  • Highly immersive virtual reality will exist. Special gloves will also deliver a haptic element to the experience by allowing your fingers to feel textures and your arms to feel resistance from objects in your virtual environment. 
  • There will be AI doctors that you can access from the privacy of your home and interact with conversationally. They will have realistic-looking human avatars, and will diagnose you correctly up to 95% of the time. 
  • The AI doctors will have your genetic profile and will use that information to aid their diagnoses of you. 
  • People will be able to afford small, handheld devices like the medical tricorders from “Star Trek.” The devices will contain mini-MRI machines, DNA chips and other sensors that will be able to peer inside your body and recognize the the genetic and biochemical signs of many diseases, including cancer. During remote medical exams, you AI doctor will tell you through your wall screen how to use the device on yourself. [I’m skeptical that MRI machines will get that small and cheap by 2030 and still do quality scans.]
  • https://www.quora.com/Are-handheld-MRI-machines-possible
  • Swallowable “smart pills” with tiny cameras could replace colonoscopies. 
  • Your clothing and bathroom fixtures will also contain sophisticated health monitoring devices. [The value of many types of constant health monitoring is questionable. For example, you gain no benefit from testing your DNA every day, or even once every several months. And as health testing gets more frequent, so do the odds of false positives and unnecessary trips to the doctor for further investigation.] If you suffered a major injury, or a catastrophic health incident like a heart attack, the sensors embedded in your clothing and surroundings would detect it and alert EMS. [The problem with “smart clothing” is that the chips and sensors would wear out due to laundering, and to be continuously monitored, you’d need to buy a wardrobe entirely comprised of smart clothes.]
  • Technology will make many aspects of live similar to fairy tale worlds. 

2030-2070

  • Moore’s Law will end, meaning computer cost-performance will not double every 18 months anymore. The doubling time will increase until it is several years long. [Depending on the source, Moore’s Law “died” somewhere between 2016 and 2018.]
  • Computer chips will be made of some material other than silicon. 
  • Augmented reality glasses and contact lenses will be in mass use. 
  • Examples of AR applications: 
    • Ability to see through solid objects by streaming external video camera footage to a person’s AR eyepiece. This would help drivers of buses and tanks, and aircraft pilots, by eliminating blind spots. It would also help people doing many types of repairs since they’d be able to see things like pipes and wires that are hidden by walls. Prospectors will be able to see underground deposits of minerals and water. 
    • Ability to make nonexistent objects appear overlaid on the real world. Architects will be able to see 3D models of structures they are designing. Interior decorators will be able to try out different furnishings and color schemes for rooms before actually buying anything. 
    • Tourism will benefit. Images of restored ancient buildings will be overlaid above their ruins. Virtual tour guides will lead tourists around art galleries and historical sites, providing helpful narration. 
    • Instant translations of text written in foreign languages, such as road signs. [Only useful when traveling]
    • Highlighting of plant species and of trails while hiking. [Only useful when hiking. Reminds me of the “intelligent belt” in The Godwhale that tells the one character to pick up edible substances.]
    • Apartment hunters could drive down the road and see which buildings are for rent along with their prices and amenities. 
    • Constellations in the sky would be labeled. [Few people care]
    • Actors, musicians and performers wouldn’t need to memorize their lines anymore since text would hover in their fields of view. 
    • Virtual lecture halls where you could even ask the instruction questions and get answers. 
    • Soldiers would have the “fog of war” lifted, as they’d be able to see maps and the locations of friendly and enemy forces. 
    • Surgeons would be able to see live MRI scans of patients during operations. 
    • Full-immersion video gaming.
    • [I’m convinced the technology will have niche applications, but skeptical that average people will adopt them for everyday use, unless we’re talking about the far future where the unemployed masses enter the Matrix 24/7. Moreover, I doubt AR eyewear will make smartphones obsolete for decades.] 
  • AR eyepieces will replace cell phones, MP3 players, computer monitors, and most other gadgets. [I’m not sure. The classic problems with AR glasses would still remain.]
  • AR eyepieces will let you do instant “showrooming” in any store. 
  • AR eyepieces sensitive to X-rays could let you see through solid objects. You would need to carry a “flashlight” that emitted X-rays though, which would be hazardous to your health. 
  • There will be portable language translators that work in real-time. 
  • AR eyepieces will display seemingly 3D images, and TVs will be capable of displaying holograms. 
  • TVs will display holographic images without viewers having to wear glasses. The principal hangup to holographic footage is that it contains much more data than 2D footage, so we’ll have to wait until TV bandwidth expands. [Could be a 10,000x data difference https://www.electronicworldtv.co.uk/blog/holographic-tvs-a-possibility-in-the-next-decade]
  • Holographic TV screens might be shaped like domes or cylinders, with viewers under them. 

2070-2100

  • Humans will be able to control physical objects with their minds. 
  • Brain impants and externally worn BCIs (brain-computer interfaces) could monitor a person’s brain activity and read their thoughts. The BCIs would make use of brain-scanning technologies, like EEGs and fMRIs. 
  • Eventually, fMRIs that can see individual brain cells will be invented. 
  • fMRIs will be able to reconstruct a person’s mental images based on their brain activity. This could allow us to use machines to record our dreams, but the footage would be grainy because we imagine things in low-resolution. [See my Prometheus review]
  • Fortunately, intrusive mind-reading at a distance is probably impossible. The subject would need to have brain implants or a head-worn BCI. 
  • Brain scanning machines could serve as reliable lie detectors. 
  • MRI machines the size of cell phones will exist. Some might even come in the form of suction-cup devices that are attached to the patient’s body. 
  • Cheap, room-temperature superconductors will exist, and will be embedded in everyday objects, which will also have small computers and sensors. Humans with brain implants or other BCIs would be able to telepathically control the objects and activate electrical currents in the superconductors, which could cause them to move around thanks to magnetic force. “Telekinesis” would therefore exist. 
  • [This sounds like a particularly shaky prediction since we’re not even sure if a room temperature superconductor can even exist. The theoretical aspect is still unclear. Moreover, there’s no cost-performance improvement trend akin to Moore’s Law that indicates we progressing towards inventing cheap room-temperature superconductors by 2100. Kaku’s prediction that humans will commonly use their thoughts to move objects like pieces of furniture across rooms also seems to, in spirit, clash with the Caveman Principle. Why not just move the chair in front of you by pushing it with your hand?]

Chapter 2 – Future of AI

While AI is genuinely improving, the odds of machines achieving human-level intelligence anytime soon have been overblown by the media, sci-fi movies, and a minority of scientists. Most scientists with relevant expertise don’t expect it to happen for decades, perhaps centuries. 

One of the world’s most advanced robots–ASIMO–can’t even sense and avoid tripping over objects placed in its path. A cockroach can easily do this, which means our best robots are still dumber than common insects in critical ways. 

The structure of the human brain is fundamentally different from the structure of a computer. Our brains are massively parallel, meaning they have trillions of processors working at the same time, but each processor operates very slowly. Computers are serial, meaning they typically have only one processor, but it operates very fast. 
Organizing computers to make “neural networks” the mimic the human brain has proven hard.

Humans also have common sense about the real world and are excellent at pattern recognition, whereas computers are very bad in both. [This book was published in 2011, and major advances were made in computer pattern recognition by the end of that decade.]

The “Cyc” project was started in 1984 to “codify, in machine-usable form, the millions of pieces of knowledge that compose human common sense.” As of 2017, it contained about 1,500,000 terms.

By 2030

  • “Expert systems” will greatly improve and become more common. 
  • There will be machine doctors that you will be able to access from your home and communicate with via natural speech. The doctors will diagnose you with similar accuracy as human doctors. 
  • There will be robot nurses in hospitals that can move around interior spaces unassisted and perform basic patient care tasks, like delivering medications and monitoring humans.

2030-2070

  • “Our world may be full of robots.”
  • Most robots will not be humanoid, and instead will resemble animals like snakes and insects, depending on the needs of their function. 
  • Many of the robots will be “modular,” meaning they could reconfigure themselves for different tasks by changing their body parts. [This kind of dovetails with my theory that the “Ideal Human” might be a giant human brain encased in something like a Mr. Potato Head torso with many ports that robotic limbs and sensors could be plugged into as needed.]
  • [Looking at vehicles and guns as examples, it seems optimal to make a small number of “chassis,” with each chassis being highly modular.]
  • The robots might be made of many, standardized pieces somewhat similar in concept to Lego blocks. Each block would have attachment points for other blocks, and its own sensors, computer and power source. The blocks could join together to make bigger robots of nearly any shape and to do many different types of work. 
  • Robots made of such modular components could be very small or very large and have any arbitrary number of limbs or body configurations. They could pass through a wall by finding a small holes in it, passing their component modules through the hole individually, and then reassembling all modules on the other side of the wall to recreate the robot. 
  • Small robots could do many jobs that humans can’t due to our large size or high labor costs. For example, small robots could crawl over all the rafters and beams of a bridge, checking for wear and spotting problems well before the bridge collapsed. [Like my idea of using insect-sized robots to crawl through the innards of a car or house to find things like the sources of oil and water leaks. Those diagnostics can be very messy, trial-and-error affairs if humans have to do the work.]
  • Noninvasive keyhole surgeries will become the norm in the future, as will “telesurgery.” 
  • Endoscopes used for keyhole surgeries and internal exams will get thinner, and micromachines “will do much of the mechanical work.” [Meaning unclear]
  • “By midcentury, the era of emotional robots may be in full flower.” [There’s no reason to think that intelligent machines won’t someday learn how to at least convincingly mimic human emotions and to take over human jobs requiring empathy and warmth.]
  • The author seems to suggest that emotions and intelligence and inextricable, meaning intelligent machines will necessarily also have emotions. 
  • Robotic pets that have about the same intelligence as cats and dogs and the ability to at least outwardly imitate emotional states will be common. They won’t be able to understand verbal commands that aren’t in their programming. [Progress with understanding human language seems to be progressing faster than he predicted. He’s right to point out that some robots will look exactly like animals, and that “dog-level intelligence” will be achieved before “human-level intelligence”.]
  • The human brain will be mapped. However, it will then take “many decades to sort through the mountains of data,” which seems to suggest that an AI derived from a reverse-engineered human brain won’t be made until after 2070. Consider that the C. elegans brain was fully mapped in 1986, but scientists still can’t make a computer simulation of its brain that functions the same.  
  • In 2009, neuroscientist Henry Markram predicted that a computer simulation of a human brain could be made in 10 years, provided the project to do so got enough funding. The author speculates the costs would be comparable to the Manhattan Project. 
  • Another way to map brains is to cut brains into very thin slices, to use electron microscopes to photograph the cross-sectioned neurons in each slice, and to assemble the resulting data into a 3D computer model of all the neurons in the brain. 
  • Gerry Rubin predicts that the fruit fly brain will be mapped in 20 years (2031), and that will get us 20% of the way towards understanding the human mind. 
  • A human brain has 1 million times as many neurons as a fruit fly brain.  

2070-2100

  • Human-level AI will probably be friendly to humans. 
  • AIs will have failsafes built into them that shut them down whenever dangerous, aberrant, or insubordinate behavior or thoughts are detected. Humans will also be able to say safewords that trigger the failsafes. 
  • Humans will build some robots whose purpose it is to disable or destroy malfunctioning robots. [I agree that there will never be a 100% human vs 100% robot war. Surely, the humans will have some number of non-sentient robots fighting for them that the other side can’t hack or persuade to switch sides.]
  • Human-level AI won’t appear suddenly. It will be preceded by decades of steadily increasing machine intelligence, like roach-level AI, mouse-level AI, and chimp-level AI. Thus, humans will have time to prepare and to develop increasingly sophisticated safeguards at each step that prevent the AIs from taking hostile action against us. [And even if hostile, human-level AI appeared without warning today, the amount of damage it could do would be limited since not everything is controlled by computers, and not all computer systems would be accessible to it. Not everything can be hacked.]
  • The author agrees with roboticist Rodney Brooks’ prediction that humans will cybernetically augment themselves with technology, and the advanced robots of 2100 will be inspired by the human brain and by biological systems. 
  • In theory, it is possible for humans to control robot limbs and even whole robot bodies with their thoughts. A cybernetic brain interface would be needed. 
  • Remote-controlled robots could enable the offshoring of blue-collar work, which would reduce the need for immigration and especially help Japan. 
  • They would also be useful for doing dangerous work, like rescue missions and outside excursions on extraterrestrial bodies (the human astronauts would stay inside protected habitats). 
  • Because what humans find aesthetically pleasing is rooted in our genes, people will reject body enhancements that make them look ugly or strange. [The small minority of people who are today into extreme body modifications would probably embrace all kinds of augmentations. They might even have their own bars and clubs, like something out of Deus Ex.]
  • The author predicts that humans will be open to technologically augmenting their bodies so long as they augmentations don’t make them uglier by conventional standards, and that people will sometimes use remote-controlled robots for work or pleasure, but the Cave Man principle will preclude them from permanently existing in that state. [Has implications for FIVR’s future role.]
  • Human-level AI won’t be created until close to the end of this century. 
  • Even if we have computers with the same raw computational power as the human brain, we might not have the software necessary to make them intelligent like humans. Hardware improvements are relatively smooth and predictable, whereas software advances happen in fits and starts. AI software advances will probably lag hardware advances. 
  • An AGI-based “singularity” or “intelligence explosion” isn’t a given, since we don’t know if a human-level AI would be able to make a smarter version of itself. [This is a weak argument. The history of human evolution contains several instances where one hominid species gave rise to a smarter hominid, and among humans alive today, it’s common for parents to give birth to children that are smarter than they are. And as we decode the human genome, we are discovering which genes code for human intelligence, which in theory could allow us to use genetic engineering to make smarter humans. So if humans are smart enough to make smarter versions of themselves, then a machine with human-level intelligence should also be able to make smarter machines. Also keep in mind that Einstein was human, so he technically had “human-level intelligence,” which means a merely “human-level” AI could be as smart as Einstein, but without dyslexia, with a perfect memory, and able to think 24/7. Most people would deem that “superhuman.”]
  • The high costs of doing brain scans and decoding how the human brain works will also delay AGI. 

Chapter 3 – Future of medicine

By 2030

  • The cost of gene sequencing will decrease enough for many average people to get their full genomes sequenced. From it, they will derive useful information about genetic health conditions they may have. 
  • As more human genomes are sequenced and more genetic information becomes available for computer cross-referencing, the locations of more genes coding for specific traits (including genetic diseases) will become known. 
  • A better understanding of the human genome will also assist detectives, since they will be able to generate accurate CGI facial reconstructions of unknown people by sequencing scraps of their DNA found at crime scenes. 
  • You will talk to AI doctors via the wall screen in your house. 
  • Your bathroom [presumably the mirror and toilet] will have sensors that can detect your disease symptoms, including cancer. 
  • Nanoparticles will be used to deliver anti-cancer drugs directly to cancer cells in your body. Chemotherapies in which a patient’s body is flooded with such drugs, and they attack many healthy cells, will be obsolete. 
  • It will be possible to grow new human organs, derived from a specific person’s DNA, and to implant the organs into that person without risk of rejection. [This looks headed for failure.]
  • A human urinary bladder was grown in a lab for the first time in 2007, and a windpipe in 2009. [Time showed that these results were not as impressive as claimed. Research “Dr. Paolo Macchiarini,” who was a pioneer in tissue engineered windpipe transplants when this book was written, only to be revealed to be a fraud within a few years.] 
  • “Within five years, the first liver and pancreas might be grown…”
  • Chemistry Nobel Prize winner Walter Gilbert predicts that, in a few decades, it will be possible to use a person’s DNA to create almost any organ for him in a lab.
  • A major roadblock to therapeutic cloning is infusing the synthetic organs with capillaries. These blood vessels are microscopic, and hence too small to be created using molds. 
  • A major roadblock to stem cell therapy is controlling the differentiation and mitosis of the stem cells. Very subtle and poorly understood chemical messages sent between cells determine how their neighbors develop. 
  • “Pixie dust” is a powder made of human extracelluar matrix. If applied to the stump of a severed finger, it allows the body to slowly regrow the fingertip. 
  • Human cloning will be possible, but almost never used. Interested people might be parents looking to replace a dead child, or rich old guys looking to make worthy heirs. 
  • The creation of the first human clone will probably trigger a wave of anti-cloning laws being enacted, and ethical outrage from many people. It will mirror the reaction to the first Test Tube Baby. In time, the novelty will wear off, people will see the clones act no different from anyone else, and laws and attitudes will relax. 
  • Cancerous tumors typically have tens of thousands of different mutations, so it take many years of study to determine which genes can make cells cancerous. 
  • There will not be a cancer cure by 2030, but we will have better, cheaper ways of detecting cancer earlier, when it is easier to treat. 
  • By 2050, it might be possible to slow down the aging process, extending human lifespan to 150. 

2030-2070

  • Gene therapy will probably be in common use as a cancer treatment. 
  • “Designer babies” will be born. Genetic engineering can influence many human traits, including intelligence, physical strength, and baseline happiness level. 
  • Richard Dawkins predicts that, by 2050, it will be possible to feed genomic data into a computer and to have it generate an accurate virtual rendering of the organism’s appearance. 

2070-2100

  • Richard Feynmann predicted that human aging would be cured someday, and medical immortality achieved. Dr. William Haseltine agreed.
  • The rising rate of breast cancer could be due to women having fewer children, since estrogen increases breast cancer risk, and the hormone’s levels decrease during pregnancy. 
  • Twin studies prove that human lifespan is partly genetic. The specific genes that code for lifespan will be identified as more human genomes become available for medical research. 
  • By 2100, technologies needed to grant medical immortality may exist. 
  • “In five or six or seven years, there will be drugs that prolong longevity.” -Christoph Westphal, 2009
  • “The nature of life is not mortality. It’s immortality. DNA is an immortal molecule. That molecule first appeared perhaps 3.5 billion years ago. That selfsame molecule, through duplication, is around today.” – Dr. William Haseltine
  • A battery of different therapies and personal practices will allow for human life extension:
    • Grow and surgically implant new organs and tissues to replace older ones as they wear out. 
    • Ingest a cocktail of enzymes meants to slow aging and mutations at the cellular level.
    • Use gene therapy to manipulate genes responsible for aging (slow it down)
    • Maintain a healthy lifestyle (good diet and exercise) 
    • Use nanosensors to detect diseases like cancer at their early phases and treat them.  
  • GM crops will allow Earth to support a much larger population.
  • Richard Dawkins believes portable, full-genome sequencing kits will exist someday, and that it will be possible to clone extinct species. 
  • Computers might also be able to analyze the genomes of humans, chimps and other primates to deduce the genetics of the “Missing Link.” Such a hominid could then be created in the flesh by assembling its DNA in a petri dish and implanting it in an ovum. 
  • The Neanderthal genome has been sequenced using fragmentary DNA recovered from the bones of several Neanderthals, and it might be possible to resurrect them. 
  • Extinct animals for which we have DNA samples, such as woolly mammoths and dodos, could be resurrected through cloning. 
  • Extinct animals for which we lack DNA samples, such as dinosaurs, can’t be resurrected, but we could make “proxy species” by analyzing the genomes of living species that descended from the dinosaurs. 
  • With very advanced genetic engineering, we could make hybrid animals and beasts like chimeras. 
  • Clones of long-dead humans could be made using DNA recovered from their entombed bodies. 
  • All communicable human diseases won’t be cured by 2100. 
  • It’s unlikely that people will want to genetically engineer their children to be freakish in any way. [Small numbers of mentally ill parents might.] There will be little financial incentive for geneticists to research or develop alleles for weird traits because demand for them will be low. 
  • The human race will not have split into different species thanks to genetic engineering or natural evolution. 
  • As genetic technology gets cheaper and more advanced, small groups and even individual people will gain the means to make biological weapons. Airborne AIDS would be a nightmare that could result from gene splicing. 
  • It might be possible to build machines capable of synthesizing microorganisms from scratch based on digital genetic data alone. 
  • Nations will continue to resist using bioweapons for fear of fratricide; it would be too easy for the infection to spread from the enemy back to whoever used it. 

Chapter 4 – Nanotechnology

Around 2020, Moore’s Law will end, and if a replacement for silicon computer chips isn’t found by then, “the world economy could be thrown into disarray.”

  • Richard Feynman famously believed that nanomachines could be built with the right level of technology, but he also thought it would be very difficult. 
  • We can already use scanning tunneling microscopes to move around individual atoms. It is possible and doesn’t violate any laws of physics.

By 2030

  • Nanoparticles could revolutionize cancer treatment. They contain cell-killing chemicals and are 10 – 100 nm in diameter, which makes them too big to diffuse into healthy cells, but small enough to pass through the abnormally large pores on many cancer cell membranes. The nanoparticles accumulate in cancer cells and release their loads, killing them but sparing the surrounding healthy tissue.
  • Nanoparticles with surface structures designed to be complementary to cancer cell antigens are another option. 
  • Nanoparticles made of metal (e.g. – titanium, gold) can accumulate inside cancer cells and then be externally heated with infrared lasers or vibrated with external magnets, to destroy the cancer cells. 
  • Cancer will be detected early and treated with nanoparticles. 
  • Medical micromachines and nanomachines could be used to move through a person’s blood vessels and precisely zap cancer cells and arterial plaques, deliver drugs to specific cells, or even do surgery. The machines would navigate using simple computers and/or magnetic and laser signals beamed from outside the person’s body. 
  • DNA microarrays/chips will be small and cheap, and will allow people to do at-home testing for many types of cancer. 
  • Microarrays/chips that test for proteins that are hallmarks of different diseases will also be available and will have the same personal health applications. 
  • [The author is wrong to predict that people would do the at-home tests every day. Such a high rate of testing would raise the odds of Type 1 errors and needless hospital visits to confirm misdiagnoses. I doubt there would be any benefit for healthy people to take tests for cancer or other major diseases more often than once every six months or even once a year.]
  • In 2007, Gordon Moore predicted that his eponymous Law would end in 10-15 years. [He was right.]
  • We will be forced to start making computer chips out of something other than etched silicon wafers if we want them to keep getting faster. 
    • Stacking silicon-based chips to make “3D chips” offers only a temporary solution since problems with heat dissipation limit how high the stacks can get before the chips melt. Components at the centers of the chip stacks wouldn’t get enough air flow to cool them down. 
    • Using X-rays instead of UV light rays to etch ever-smaller features on silicon chips could also wring out more of a performance boost from the material, though there are large technical challenges to using X-rays for this. 
    • Ultimately, silicon chips will hit a “bottom limit” once their feature sizes are 5nm small, at which point quantum tunneling of electrons will start happening. 
    • Arranging silicon chips into groups of parallel processors that work together could also prolong the silicon paradigm, but the difficulty of doing this is monumental since breaking up computation tasks, shunting the fragments to different processors, and then reassembling the processed data at the end is extremely hard. There is no general set of instructions for programming computers how to do this with any type of task; human programmers can only do this painstakingly and for specific tasks. 
  • Graphene-based computer chips could exist someday, and their transistors could be only 1 atom thick–the smallest possible size–but the technical challenges to manufacturing them are very high. [The author doesn’t explicitly say that these issues will be solved by 2030, so his mentioning of graphene computer chips isn’t a prediction for that year.]
  • Quantum computers could also be built someday, if major technical hurdles relating to “decoherence” can be overcome. 
  • Optical computers
  • Quantum dot computers
  • DNA computers

2030-2070

  • By 2050, many manmade objects will look the same as today, but will have special material properties and will be “smart” thanks to tiny computers and sensors embedded in them. 
  • “Programmable matter” will also be in common use. The basic unit of such matter will be tiny, modular robots called “catoms” that will be no bigger than grains of sand and will be able to reorient themselves with respect to each other, forming almost any shape. 
  • If your house were full of programmable matter, you could do things like transform a piece of furniture into something different, or convert your child’s old toy into whatever faddish, new toy he wanted.
  • A roadblock to this is the fact that catoms would cohere to each other weakly, so objects made of them would be fragile. [Also, individual catoms might be fragile, meaning an object made of them would slowly “waste away” as its components broke and fell off.]  

2070-2100

  • Molecular assemblers (e.g. – nanomachines that can build things from the bottom-up) don’t violate the laws of physics, and the existence of ribosomes and enzymes are proof of concept. However, it will be extremely hard for us to create molecular assemblers with the sorts of capabilities people like Eric Drexler envision. 
  • In theory, an MRI machine could be built that is powerful enough to see individual cells, so it could be possible in the future for people to get “body scans” that recorded the locations of all their cells as digital data. [This point is debatable: https://www.quora.com/Radiology-Will-MRI-technology-ever-reach-the-resolution-to-image-individual-neurons]
  • Put together, the aforementioned facts and the rate of improvement for the relevant technologies suggest that we might be able to build Star Trek-style replicators by the end of this century. [Even then, it will still be cheaper and more optimal to make most objects through “top-down” macro manufacturing methods we use today. Not every object must be super-strong or made to atomic levels of precision.]
  • The “Gray Goo” doomsday scenario is unlikely to happen, partly because nanotechnology is advancing so slowly that regulators will have time to enact the necessary safety measures. 
  • If replicators become widespread, and, along with other technologies and government policy, let all people have their material needs met, then society will probably split into a large group of loafers and a small group of innovators who work hard pursuing their passions. [This may have been what Federation society was like in “Star Trek.” Not even 1% of its citizens joined Starfleet.]

Chapter 5 – Future of energy [This is the weakest chapter so far]

In 1956, American petrochemical engineer M. King Hubbert famously predicted that U.S. oil production would peak around 1970 and then start declining. He proved right, which fanned fears of global “Peak Oil.” [Hubbert’s prediction about the peaking of U.S. CONVENTIONAL OIL production was the only big thing he got right. His predictions about U.S. natural gas production and global fossil fuel production proved far too pessimistic. Unconventional oil production in the U.S. also sharply ramped up in the 2010s, allowing total U.S. oil production to surpass the 1970 peak.]

The consensus among experts that the author spoke with is that global oil production had either already peaked or was at most 10 years away. [This book was published in 2011.] “The average price of oil will continue to rise over the long term.” [Oil prices have in fact dropped about 50% since 2011.]

By 2030

  • The likeliest successor to fossil fuels is a solar/hydrogen energy economy. [Solar is rapidly growing, but hydrogen is stalled.]
  • Wind power can’t supply all of the world’s energy needs for several important reasons. 
  • The amount of electricity made by solar panels has rapidly grown and will keep doing so. 
  • Electric cars are becoming practical. 
  • Laser technology for uranium enrichment could be perfected, lowering enrichment costs but also raising the risk of nuclear proliferation. [Since the book was published, the leading laser enrichment company, Silex, has been mostly stuck in neutral with the technology due to high costs and uncertain demand.] 
  • Advanced, suitcase-sized nuclear bombs could be developed. 

2030-2070

  • The climate will have significantly changed by 2050 thanks to global warming. “…by midcentury, the situation could be dire.”
  • [Listing of Worst Case Scenarios but no mention of their statistical unlikelihood.]
  • Several geoengineering projects have been proposed to counteract global warming, but none have gotten serious funding. If the problem gets bad enough, this might change by midcentury. 
  • By midcentury, the world will be in the “Hydrogen Age.” 
  • Hot fusion power plants could be everywhere, providing limitless amounts of electricity and no pollution. 
  • “Tabletop fusion” reactors might also be possible to build. 

2070-2100

  • Room temperature superconductors will probably have been discovered. [Why does he think so? Is there a trend like Moore’s Law?]
  • Up to 30% of electricity generated at a power plant is lost during transmission. Power lines made of room temperature superconductors would eliminate those losses. Wind turbines in the middle of America could provide electricity to New York. Nuclear power plants could be relocated to remote areas. 
  • Magnetic field lines can’t penetrate superconductors (the Meissner Effect), so cars with magnets on their bottoms could float over streets made of superconductors. The vehicles would still have to overcome air friction, so they’d need backward-facing engines of some kind. 
  • Maglev trains also float over their tracks, but the system doesn’t use superconductors, it uses simple magnets, oriented so their forces repel each other. Trains with superconductors could be much cheaper to build than today’s maglev trains. 
  • Superconductors would also allow us to shrink MRI machines to the sizes of shirt buttons. 
  • [The author doesn’t present any trend data to back his claim that room temperature superconductors will be invented by 2100, or that they will be cheap enough by then for these applications.] 
  • Space-based solar power beamed to Earth as microwaves could be real. However, space rocket launch costs will need to decline as much as 99% for solar satellites to become feasible. This probably won’t happen until the end of this century. 

Chapter 6 – Future of space travel

By 2030

  • Better telescopes (mainly space-based) will have revealed the locations of thousands of planets outside our solar system. Hundreds of those will be similar to Earth in size and composition. [Note that the author doesn’t say that we will know if these planets harbor life–he merely says we will be able to see that they are rocky and the same size as Earth.] 
  • A space probe will probably be sent to Jupiter’s moon, Europa. 
  • The Laser Interferometer Space Antenna (LISA) satellite system will be in space, and its ability to detect gravity waves could reveal what existed before the Big Bang. [Since the book’s publishing, LISA’s launch date has been pushed back until at least 2030]
  • Micrometeor impacts and radiation are so bad on the Moon that a permanent manned base would need to be built underground. [The author doesn’t actually say that there will be a manned base on the Moon by 2030.]

2030-2070

  • It’s unlikely that any off-world bases will be self-sustaining until late this century, or even until the 22nd century. [Agree] Like the ISS today, any bases we build on the Moon or Mars will be net resource drains on Earth until then, not assets. 
  • Space tourism could exist, though it will be very expensive.  
  • Breakthroughs may have dramatically reduced space launch costs. One candidate technology is laser propulsion, in which a powerful, ground-based laser shoots beams at the underside of a craft that is dripping water. The beams vaporize the water, causing a series of small explosions that propel the craft upward into space. 
  • Another candidate is the “gas gun,” which is a vertical howitzer that uses pressurized gas instead of gunpowder to accelerate objects to escape velocity. Due to the intensity of the G-forces, it could only be used to launch robust, unmanned craft. 
  • Another candidate is the “slingatron.” [Sounds impractical] 
  • All of those space technologies are longshots that will need decades of R&D to determine their feasibility. The odds of any succeeding can’t be calculated now, but it’s possible that any one of them could prove practical and sharply reduce the costs of launching things into space. 

2070-2100

  • A space elevator might be built. However, there are major technical roadblocks to overcome:
    • Only carbon nanotubule fibers have the necessary strength-to-weight ratios to make the space elevator. Several paradigm shifts in manufacturing techniques need to happen before we can make tens of thousands of miles of carbon nanotubules that are flawless down to the atomic level. 
    • The risk of collision between the space elevator and satellites would be very high, and the elevator would need to be able to move around to dodge them, meaning it would probably need to be tethered to a ship floating in the ocean, and the elevator’s upper segments would need thrusters.  
  • A Mars outpost will probably exist.
  • An outpost in the Asteroid Belt will probably exist. 
  • Only token numbers of humans will live outside of the Earth. Mass colonization of space will not be underway.
  • Probes will probably have explored some of Jupiter’s moons.
  • A serious effort will be underway to send our first probe to another solar system. 
  • Antimatter engines are not prohibited by the laws of physics. The real limitation is the high cost of synthesizing antimatter. Making just a few trillionths of a gram costs $20 million. 
  • An asteroid made of antimatter would be a game-changer. [But what about the effects of frequent collisions with interstellar dust particles made of normal matter?]
  • Antimatter won’t be cheap enough for propulsion applications until the end of this century. 
  • Nano-sized Von Neumann Probes could be used to explore and colonize the galaxy. Small size would make it easy to accelerate them to relativistic speeds using gravitational slingshotting around Jupiter or something like a particle accelerator. When they reached their destinations, they could start making copies of themselves. 

Chapter 7 – Future of wealth

By 2030

  • Computers will get so small and cheap that they will be integrated into everyday objects. They will be so omnipresent that the word “computer” might fall out of use since people won’t think of data computation services as coming from discrete physical devices. [I don’t see how this is a prediction about “future wealth.”]

2030-2070

  • Machines will take over jobs that involve repetitive physical or mental labor. 
  • Human workers will need to provide things machines can’t in order to keep their jobs. Workers with strong “people skills,” creativity, leadership, and other idiosyncratic human traits won’t lose their jobs. 
  • The best lawyers will still be humans. 
  • Juries will not be automated, since the law requires that juries be composed of the “peers” of the defendant being tried for a crime. 
  • [Problematically, many jobs that bank heavily on these human traits, like artists, comedians, and jurors, are low-paid. And because of simple supply and demand, the pay will drop further as more people enter those fields. Also, the necessary traits are unevenly distributed in the population, meaning not every person can switch to being a comedian, warm-hearted therapist, or painter once their old jobs are automated.]
  • Changes in the music retail paradigm caused by the rise of the internet mean that the music market will be democratized in the future, with middleman “gatekeeper” record companies and music moguls withering away, and average listeners deciding which artists succeed or fail. Poor, unknown singers and bands will be able to rise to the top more easily by selling their songs over the internet cheaply. 
  • Newspapers will continue declining, but won’t disappear because eventually, people will see the downsides of the atomized editorial news/conspiracy theorist podcaster paradigm, and they will crave reputable, unbiased news sources. 
  • Lifelike, computer-generated actors won’t exist because the nuances of the human face and its expressions are too hard to model. [This prediction will almost certainly be wrong.]

2070-2100

  • A state of “perfect capitalism” will arise, in which firms have perfect information about the needs and preferences of customers, and customers have perfect information about the prices and quality of goods and services offered by firms. People will see fewer ads that don’t appeal to them, and prices and profit margins for everything will be lower.
  • Augmented reality eyewear will let consumers see information about products before buying them, and to quickly do price/quality comparisons to find the best deals. [AI will do the number crunching.]
  • Firms will also be able to buy highly detailed customer data and to adjust their marketing strategies and prices accordingly. 
  • It won’t cost more money to have clothes and other types of objects custom-made instead of buying standardized shapes and sizes. “In the future, everything will fit.” 
  • Computation will be thought of as a commoditized utility service like electricity or piped water. People will no longer get their computation services from expensive boxes full of electronics that they buy for personal use and keep in their houses or pockets. Computation service will be remotely accessed through the cloud, using tiny, cheap devices embedded in the environment. [Or implanted in peoples’ bodies.] Any wall will be able to turn into a computer display screen in an instant. 
  • The Internet will not evolve into a means of mass surveillance. “Today, Big Brother is not possible.” [Events since 2011 show that the jury is still out on the internet’s long-term direction.]
  • Commodity goods and natural resources are getting cheaper over time and will continue to do so. As such, “commodity capitalism,” which is the trading of simple goods, will fade in importance, and “intellectual capitalism” will rise to the fore.
  • “Intellectual capitalism” refers to the production and trading of goods and services that have value because of uniquely human cognitive effort. New computer algorithms, films, video games, and inventions are all products that can only be created by careful human thought. [I think the author is overestimating how long humans will have a monopoly over these kinds of products. Most Hollywood films are so formulaic that AIs could soon write their scripts, and 100% CGI actors could star in them.]
  • The future is up for grabs, meaning developing nations could rise to the forefront of power by copying the West’s technology and the best aspects of culture and governance, and today’s rich, established countries could be second-tier. But the author makes no firm predictions beyond that general observation. 
  • Singapore is the best example of a country that rapidly developed thanks to a highly competent and technocratic government that identified and copied the best attributes of the West. 

Chapter 8 – Future of humanity

We are headed to become a planetary civilization. 

On the Kardashev Scale, we are now a Type 0 civilization. 

We will be a Type 1 civilization in 100 years, based on extrapolations of economic growth trends. [This is wrong. In Kardashev’s 1964 science paper, he set the Earth’s then-current level of energy expenditure (4×10^19 ergs/second) as the threshold for a Type 1 civilization. In other words, humanity has been a Type 1 civilization since 1964 at the latest. The paper also said nothing of there being a “Type 0” civilization.]

If the long-term global economic growth rate is 1%, then we will achieve Type 2 status in 2,500 years. With a 2% growth rate, it will happen in 1,200 years. [It depends on how fast we can build a Dyson Swarm. Even their component satellites are self-replicating, it will take many years to mine the raw materials to make enough of them to surround the Sun, and then to move them into the right positions in orbit. Several hundred years is a good estimate.] 

Evidence of our transition to a Type 1 civilization:

  • The rise and ubiquity of the Internet. This provides a universally accessible platform for low-cost communication and access to information. 
  • The rise of English as the world’s common language. [Computer translation technology will accomplish the same thing.]
  • The economy is increasingly globalized, and super-national trade blocs like NAFTA and the EU have formed. [Events since 2011 has stalled the expansion of international free trade and of trade blocs.]
  • The rise of a global middle class, whose values and outlooks are broadly similar and peaceful, regardless of which nation they live in. When people have a stake in society (e.g. – good job, money, property, a family), they become risk-averse and much less likely to support revolutions or big wars since they have so much to lose. 
  • Culture is increasingly globalized and homogenized, with people across the world consuming the same films and music and wearing the same styles of clothes. Local cultures will still survive though, and people will be “bi-cultural.” 
  • International sports events like the Olympics command more attention than ever. 
  • Environmental problems and disease outbreaks are increasingly viewed as global problems that countries by default work together to address. 
  • Low-cost plane travel and the swelling global middle class have allowed for a massive increase in international travel for tourism, work, and study. This gives more people exposure to foreigners, building bonds of affection and making it harder for them to go to war. 
  • Lower birthrates mean that parents value their children more as scarce resources, and don’t want to risk them dying in wars. [The rise of killer robots will fix that. A country’s military strength will decouple from its human population size.]
  • Nation-states will still exist in 2100, but they will be weaker than today. 

Our transition to a Type 2 civilization

  • Won’t happen for thousands of years. Since we will have existed as a planetary civilization for so long by that point, we’ll probably have ironed out the differences that put us at odds today, and we will be much more peaceful by the time we achieve Type 2 status. 
  • Once this status is attained, our civilization will become immortal since there is no known natural force that can destroy an advanced, multiplanetary civilization. [Agreed, though we might still be able to destroy ourselves through warfare or some kind of manmade accident, or be destroyed by aliens.]
  • We will have colonized all the celestial bodies in our Solar System and possibly built a Dyson Sphere. 
  • We will have colonized nearby star systems. 

What our civilization will look like when it has Type 3 status

  • We will have explored most of the galaxy, probably through use of unmanned, self-replicating probes.
  • We might be able to derive energy from the fabric of space-time itself. (“Planck energy”) This could also allow for the creation of wormholes that would effectively enable superluminal space travel.
  • Type 3 civilizations might already have a presence in our Solar System or even on Earth itself. They could be here in the form of very small probes that we overlook or lack the technology to detect. The Fermi Paradox is resolved if you assume aliens have this kind of technology. 

We will probably detect advanced alien life this century thanks to better telescopes. 

The discovery of intelligent alien life will be one of the most important events in human history. However, it won’t change things as quickly as many people expect. For example, if we learn about the existence of aliens by intercepting one of their radio transmissions, and it turns out the transmission was not meant for Earth, it will indicate that they don’t know we exist. There will be no imperative to send a signal back, meaning we could take our time deciding on our next step. It will also probably take decades for our response to reach them. 

Alternatives to the Kardashev scale

  • Carl Sagan’s scale is based on how many bits of information a civilization processes, and its increments are based on orders of magnitude (e.g. – A “Type C” civilization processes ten times as much information as a “Type B” civilization, and so on down the alphabet).
  • Freeman Dyson believed that advanced aliens would build spherical structures around their stars to capture all of the light and turn it into energy. Some waste heat would be emitted, so he suggested that “stars” that only emitted infrared light were probable locations of alien civilizations. 

As a civilization gets bigger and more advanced, it will generate more waste, including waste heat. If left unchecked, this would lead to their home planets and even their solar systems becoming uninhabitable. Thus, we can expect advanced civilizations to be much more efficient at resource usage than we are today. 

“Today, the Internet, with all its faults and excesses, is emerging as a guardian of democratic freedoms.” [In 2019, it is increasingly viewed as a means to spread government surveillance, extremism, and disinformation. Funny how things change.]

Democracies only work well if voters are well-informed and rational.  [But isn’t that true of any type of government? For example, dictatorships only work well if the dictators are well-informed and rational.]

Chapter 9 – A day in the life in 2100

You have hundreds of hidden sensors in your bathroom mirror, toilet and sink that scan you for illness. 

You have an AI personal assistant named “Molly” that can handle conversational speech, answer your questions intelligently, and complete tasks for you. You interact with Molly through your wall screen. 

You “wrap some wires around your head,” allowing you to use your thoughts to control the technology in your house. 

A robot chef is in your kitchen. 

You have augmented reality contact lenses that show you internet content. You watch the news:

  • There is a Mars colony. 
  • Preparations are underway to send nano-sized probes to other star systems. 
  • Extinct species are being resurrected using cloning technology. 
  • A space elevator is operational. 
  • Fusion power plants have existed since 2050.
  • Manhattan is surrounded by dikes due to higher sea levels, and one is leaking. 

You telepathically summon your self-driving car and tell it to drive you to work. [Clever and likely to hold true.]

The car hovers above the ground thanks to roads made of room-temperature superconductors. 

You work at a civil engineering company. In the lobby of your workplace, a small laser scans your irises from a distance to verify your identity. You don’t need an ID badge. 

Your augmented reality contact lenses and telepresence technology makes the conference room seem full of people, most of whom are actually somewhere else. You have a group meeting and discuss the dike leak. 

Several coastal cities across the world have been abandoned due to rising sea levels. Manhattan survived thanks to its dikes.  

The group realizes that an underwater maintenance robot probably went haywire and drilled the hole in the dike. A decision is made to fix it with a different underwater robot that is remote-controlled by a human.

After work, you return home and use your wall screen to do a video call with your robot doctor. It tells you that the sensors in your bathroom diagnosed you with pancreatic cancer this morning. The doctor prescribes you nanoparticles to kill the cancer cells. 

You run a smartphone-sized MRI machine over your abdomen to make a 3D scan of your internal organs, and the doctor sees it immediately. 

You have a holographic TV system in your living room that lets you watch sports games immersively. It looks like the players are running around you. 

Human genetic engineering is common.  

Molly helps you set up a date with a woman named “Karen.” Both of you have online dating profiles. 

You can use your wall screen to virtually explore places in the real world. You use this ability to “go shopping” at a local mall and to see if a robot dog is for sale there. You find it, and decide to drive to the actual mall to buy it because you are bored and want to get out of your house. 

Large numbers of robots of different shapes and sizes are roaming public spaces, mostly doing labor. 

The robot industry is bigger than the car industry. 

Robots still lack human levels of intelligence, creativity and humor. 

You try on suit jackets at a shop until you find the one that looks the best. You send an online order to a local textile factory to make that suit for you, but tailored to your exact body measurements. It will be delivered to you by the end of the day. 

At the supermarket, your AR contact lenses display price comparison data over all the items on the shelves and highlight the bargains. 

You return home. Most of your furniture is made of programmable matter, so you can change its appearance at will. You pick a new home decor motif and verbally order Molly to change everything. It takes about an hour for the process to complete.  

Medicines that can slow the aging process have existed for many years, and it’s common for adults to be much older than they look. 

You were born in 2028 and were genetically engineered in vitro to have a longer lifespan. That feature, coupled with medical interventions you had later in life, has resulted in you having a body of someone who is 30 even though you are 72 years old. 

FIVR gaming and tourism exists. 

You visit Europe with Karen, and while touring the ancient ruins of Rome, your AR contact lenses generate real-looking images that show what the area looked like in its prime. 

The Italian speech of the people you encounter is subtitled in English across your field of view by your contact lenses. 

You don’t need a paper map to find your way around Rome because your contact lenses display lines and arrows that tell you where to go. 

Ageless people don’t feel pressure to get married or have children. You’ve never passed either milestone. 

You and Karen agree to have a child, and contemplate genetically engineering it. 

“The Third Wave” — The most accurate futurist book I’ve read

I just finished Alvin Toffler’s The Third Wave, which was published in 1980, and think it is the most accurate futurist book I’ve read. I don’t have the time right now to write a full summary of his thesis or a list of predictions he got right (but I will in a future blog post), so I’ll just say that Toffler believed the world was transitioning between Industrial-Era “Second Wave” institutions (social, economic, and political) and Postindustrial “Third Wave” institutions, that the transition would be drawn-out, and that a mature Third Wave civilization would be more humane, freer, cleaner, and flatter in its distribution of political power and wealth.

Some of Toffler’s most noteworthy correct predictions include:

  • The loss of public consensus over politics and values as entertainment media and news media decentralized and fragmented thanks to new technologies. For example, as the number of TV channels increases, the number of TV news stations will also multiply, and will cater to increasingly specific tastes, and the “Big Three” broadcasters (ABC, CBS and NBC) will lose their near-monopoly over what information and opinions are relayed to average Americans.
  • The rise of the internet, and the consequent rise of email, social media, and teleworking.
  • The rise of the “internet of things.”
  • The possibility that anti-Soviet uprisings in Eastern Europe could happen, and trigger a breakup of the USSR along ethnic lines.
  • A resurgence in the popularity of authoritarian, populist leaders and political parties in many countries as confused and fearful citizens become frustrated with the growing ineffectiveness of their increasingly obsolete Second Wave governments and afraid that disorder is growing.
  • A pervasive, lasting sense among Westerners from nearly all walks of life that the political system is broken, and that “something else” needs to be created to better manage the needs of the postindustrial era.

Some people say the Bible “speaks to them,” in the sense that the book’s passages always seem to offer specific advice for handling whatever life problems they’re having at the moment, and my experience slowly reading The Third Wave over the last two years of global political tumult left me with the same, eerie feeling. I recommend everyone read it to appreciate what a farsighted and thoughtful man Alvin Toffler was, to see how the current political, cultural, and economic dysfunctions bedeviling the West have their origins in changes that started in the late 1970s or earlier, and to learn about potential reforms we could enact to fix those dysfunctions.

My only complaint about the book is that its predictions stop at the current era, so while it makes for an eerily prescient read, it gives little insight into what will happen next. Alvin Toffler died in 2016, and I badly wish he were alive today, in his prime state of health and mind, so he could make more predictions about the next 50 years. He might have been the best futurist of the 20th century.

Until I get around to writing a more in-depth summary and critique of The Third Wave, enjoy my detailed notes on the book. My own comments are also included throughout the notes in square brackets.

Alvin Toffler
1928-2016

The Third Wave [book notes]
By: Alvin Toffler
1980

Chapter 1 – Super-Struggle
First Wave: Agricultural society (lasted thousands of years)
Second Wave: The Industrial Age (lasted 300 years and is now ending)
Third Wave: Post-Industrial Age
Characteristics of Third Wave
-Renewable energy
-New types of goods manufacturing that obsolete factory assembly lines
-Non-nuclear families
-“The electronic cottage”
-Different types of schools and corporations
-Many bureaucracies will become obsolete and collapse
-Weakened nation-states
-Will create a need for more democracy and greater, more complex modes of citizen involvement with decision-making
-Fusion of the producer and consumer into a “prosumer.”
-Will be a more human era than any in human history
Mistakes people make when they think about the future
-Assume rate of change is linear, not exponential.
-Assume existing economic and political structure won’t change.
-Basically, they just imagine that the present world will be bigger or more expansive in the future.
-The stagflation, oil shocks, Iranian revolution, and rise of Islamic terrorism in the 1970s have eroded much of the American optimism about the future, and a growing number of people think the future will be apocalyptic [inflection point from the optimism of the 1960s Space Race era?].
Predictions of “a bigger version of the present day” or of apocalypse are both products of lazy, linear thinking, and lend themselves to passivity: If the future will be fundamentally the same as today, then we need to prepare to change anything. If the world is doomed, nothing we can do will help, so we should do nothing.
The decades ahead could be violent and turbulent as people struggle to adapt to the Third Wave, but a more peaceful, better world will come in the end.
Seemingly unconnected world events are actually all manifestations of the transition from the Second to Third Wave.
The First Wave
-The Agricultural Era
-Started around 8,000 BC when the first humans discovered how to grow crops
-Human lifestyle became sedentary instead of nomadic, the first towns and cities were established, and population sharply grew.
-The “wave” started in the Middle East and spread outwards in every direction.
The Second Wave
-The Industrial Era
-Started in 1650-1750 AD in northern Europe as the first factories were built.
-Enabled unparalleled material abundance for people.
-The wave spread outwards in every direction.
The Third Wave
-The Postindustrial Era.
-Started in the Western world [probably the U.S.] around 1955 and is now spreading outward.
-Problematically, many parts of the world still haven’t completed the transition to Second Wave. The wave fronts are colliding in those places and causing especially bad turbulence.
The uncertainty created by the transition to the Third Wave creates social disorder and scrambled political alliances.
The Second Wave has a interconnected network of institutions (political, economic, and social) designed to serve its needs. Vested interests within those power structures–both on the right and left wings–are fighting the transition to the Third Wave, thereby fueling most of the disorder and conflict in the world.

Chapter 2 – The Architecture of Civilization
Characteristics of the First Wave societies
-“Primitive” people were hunter-gatherers who lived in small, nomadic groups.
-“Civilized” people had agriculture and lived in fixed settlements.
-All “Civilized” First Wave societies, wherever they were in the world, shared some basic qualities:

*Land was the basis of the economy, life, culture, family structure, and politics.
*Life was organized around the village
*There were simple divisions of labor corresponding to different castes and classes (leadership, priest, warrior, slave). People were usually born into a caste for life.
*Power was authoritarian.
*The economy was decentralized, meaning each community made everything it consumed.

Instances where the First Wave and Second Wave societies collided
-American Civil War
-Japanese Meiji Restoration
-Russian Revolution
[But in how many other cases was the transition peaceful?]
During the First Wave, humans got all of their power from local, renewable sources (e.g. – burning firewood, windmills, animals for transportation and farming)
Second Wave countries get their energy from distant, nonrenewable sources (fossil fuels extracted at specific locations and transported elsewhere)
Factories, mass production, and consumerism also rose during the Second Wave.
During the Second Wave, the transit system vastly improved (thanks to paved roads, railroads, canals, and better cargo vehicles), which supported much more trade and more predictable flow of goods.
Institutions and lifestyles that changed during the 1st to 2nd Wave transition
-Family structure: During the 1st wave, extended families (parents, kids, siblings, grandparents, cousins living together) were the norm because people were rooted to the land (a family would live in the same town for hundreds of years). Household burdens were shared. The rise of factories meant that families had to be mobile and to strip themselves of non-productive members. The nuclear family (parents and kids only) became the new standard. The government took over tasks that used to be handled by family members (babysitting, education, elderly care) so the able-bodied people could toil.
-Education: Public schools were structured to fulfill the needs of factory owners, and to instill in students at a young age the qualities of punctuality, obedience, and proficiency doing rote work. The subjects taught in Second Wave public schools (reading, writing, math, history) were also enormous social goods that improved the fabric of society. However, the aforementioned “covert curriculum” has also existed all along for its own purpose.
-Corporations: During the 1st Wave, private businesses existed, but almost all of them were small and were sole proprietorships or partnerships that died with their original creators. Corporations, in which multitudes of unrelated people all own shares of a company, became the 2nd Wave norm because they could raise more capital and absorb losses better. They are also effectively immortal since new stock owners can replace old ones who sell off or die.
-Socio-sphere: Social groups multiplied and copied qualities of the factory. The example used is musical orchestras, which increased in size, internal complexity, and specialization. The socio-sphere evolved in parallel to the techno-sphere.
-Communications: Post offices, mail routes, telegraphs, telephones, and mass media newspapers were invented in the Second Wave. The mass media model of info distribution was the same as the factory model of goods production: Something was centrally made, standardized, and distributed to consumers. No customization.
“The techno-sphere produced and allocated wealth; the socio-sphere, with its thousands of interrelated organizations, allocated roles to invidivuals in the system. And the info-sphere allocated the information to make the entire system work.”

Chapter 3 – The invisible wedge
The Second Wave split apart production and consumption.
During the First Wave, the vast majority of humans lived in small, semi-isolated communities. People locally produced almost everything they needed to consume. Either they made it in their households or traded with other people in the village or small city.
Long-distance trade was almost nonexistent because of poor roads, slow ships, and the inability to preserve foods during long journeys.
For these reasons, there was no incentive for humans to work harder to make food or goods surpluses. Surplus stuff would just rot, pile up in the village, or be confiscated by aristocrats or slave owners. There was little incentive for technological innovation.
The Second Wave turned this arrangement on its head. Trade became global, and most local effort in any given city was devoted to making goods or services for trade to somewhere distant.
The meaning of the market
-Divorcing production from consumption meant that markets had to be created to match producers with consumers and supply with demand. Consumers could no longer self-satisfy by making the goods and services they needed for themselves.
-This change to the basic structure of the economy had monumental benefits and drawbacks. The benefit was that markets were self-reinforcing, meaning their very existence automatically engendered expansion, which raised standards of living for everyone like never before in human history. The drawback was that participating in Second Wave markets was dehumanizing for people. They had to take on careers they had no interest in to satisfy whatever the market was demanding. Participation was mandatory because the people couldn’t produce vital goods and services for themselves anymore–those things had to be bought at the market.
-Participation in markets necessarily meant that all goods and services had to be priced, which changed the way people thought about the fruits of their own labor. A “commodified” way of thinking also crept into human relationships, leading to more transactional relationships, less personal loyalty, and weakened community bonds.
-“Markets” are not synonymous with “capitalism”–markets also exist in socialist countries. However, instead of price signals being used to allocate economic resources, central planners do it. Similarly, in capitalist countries, there are some minorities of producers and consumers who are especially powerful and who have outsized shares of control over how the economy allocates resources.
-In all Second Wave economies–whether capitalist or socialist–the basic economic tension is between consumers and producers: Consumers want low prices for goods and services, and producers want high wages. In many cases, the same people who are Consumers are also Producers.
-Marx was wrong to conclude that class struggle is the basic animating force of history and politics. He rightly observed capitalism’s many defects, but his alternative was just as bad.
The Sexual Split
-Gender roles and personalities also diverged thanks to the Second Wave.
-In First Wave societies, families spent all their time together working the land and taking care of the house. They worked as a unit and could do each others’ tasks. Gender roles were less sharply defined.
-In the Second Wave, men went to work outside the home in factories and offices while women stayed at home doing housework, as they did during the First Wave.
-“This division produced a split in personality and inner life. The public or collective nature of factory and office, the need for coordination and integration, brought with it an emphasis on objective analysis and objective relationships. Men, prepared from boyhood for their role in the shop, where they would move in a world of interdependencies, were encouraged to become ‘objective.’ Women, prepared from birth for the task of reproduction, child-rearing and household drudgery, were taught to be ‘subjective’–and were frequently regarded as incapable of the kind of rational, analytic thought that supposedly went with objectivity.”
-Oppression of females still existed in the First Wave.

Chapter 4 – Breaking the code
Most conflicts in Second Wave societies ultimately derive from six basic features of those societies:
1) Standardization
During the Industrial Era, factories, workplaces, aptitude tests, products, prices, and school curricula were all standardized for the sake of efficiency and order.
Mass media and public education also standardized dominant languages in countries, pushing minority dialects and languages like Welsh into near-extinction.
Barter was replaced with set prices.
2) Specialization
While the Second Wave encouraged standardization/harmonization of culture and language, it encouraged the opposite in labor.
The old ways of using skilled craftsmen to make things were abandoned in favor of low-skill laborers specialized to do different tasks on an assembly line because the new way was dramatically more efficient.
Multitudes of new, knowledge and skill specialized professions were created during the Second Wave.
3) Synchronization
Daily schedules were synchronized to keep the factories running at peak efficiency: Time is money since idle machines can’t make anything, and assembly lines require every worker to be present.
Punctuality became very important, and children were conditioned starting at a young age to tell time and to show up to school at certain times.
The “9 to 5” daily work schedule became the standard.
4) Concentration
People and jobs used to be spread out evenly across the countryside. In the Second Wave, the population was concentrated into cities, and jobs were concentrated in factories.
Similarly, for the first time, criminals were concentrated into big prisons, insane people into asylums (they used to be taken care of by their families), and children into large schools.
Energy sources also went from distributed and local (wood) to concentrated (fossil fuel deposits).
5) Maximization
Simply put, an obsession with bigness and growth (of national landmarks, economic statistics, and other superlatives). It derived from the Industrial Era observation that factories got more efficient as they grew in size.
Maximization has led to the assumption that growth is good in itself, and as a result, government have mindlessly adopted any policies that promote GNP growth and many large companies build ever-bigger factories.
6) Centralization
Economic resources were centralized during the Second Wave as the first big companies (railroad companies are used as an example) came to be. They had much larger numbers of workers and money than any previous companies.
Political power was centralized as national governments grew at the expense of local ones. This happened in Free and Communist countries.
Control over the financial system was centralized as each country created a central bank to issue government bonds, print money, and regulate other banks. Even capitalist countries could practice limited central planning thanks to central banks.
These six features of Second Wave societies arose from the cleavage of producers from consumers and are self-reinforcing.
The leaders of Second Wave institutions who only know how to play by these six rules will either adapt to the new ways of doing things in the Third Wave or be sidelined.

Chapter 5 – The technicians of power
In First Wave societies, the power structure is very simple and undisguised: the king, royal family, and church clergy were in charge.
In more complex Second Wave societies where there are larger numbers of powerful entities (government, businesses, religions, banks) with large numbers of members, it’s less clear who the power players are. This has given rise to the use of “They” to refer to the amorphous group of people who are running things.
Governments and companies are so large and have so many specialized parts that no one person can understand everything they do. The people with power are the “Integrators”–the people within the large organizations who manage, organize, and make high-level decisions. They include Presidents, bureaucrats, and managers.
Marx was wrong to think that having the state and ultimately the people themselves take ownership of the means of production would result in a fair society. Just like in capitalist countries, the government and big firms were so big that they needed managers. Political, economic and legal power inevitably concentrated among them. Lenin, Trotsky and Mao all went on record about the ill consequences of this once they saw it happening in their respective Socialist countries.
Whether the means of production are owned by a Board of Directors, by private stockowners, or by all citizens, those owners won’t be able to exercise real control over the means of production since they won’t understand how the big firms operate or what political and economic forces are at play. There will always be a need for “Integrators,” and they will inevitably accrue power to themselves.
Government has steadily grown in size, authority and power in all countries during the Second Wave. Ironically, this has actually helped private industry and sped up economic growth, since the government has the resources, ability to survive without making profits, and long-term time horizon that even the biggest companies don’t.
Government helps private industry by building important public works (highways, railroads, ports, canals, telecommunications networks, other utilities networks like natural gas lines), by setting and enforcing national-level standards, codes and laws to ensure a predictable market environment, and by funding science and technology research (particularly via the military).
Government-run public schools also prepared citizens to work for private companies.
While Western politicians gin up votes by talking about reducing the size of government, they almost never do because they understand it would hurt the economy.
Whether a country is capitalist or communist, the same bureaucratic pyramids will arise–out of necessity–in government, the economy, the entertainment sector, and in other areas of civil society.
Successful revolutionaries who take over countries might temporarily dismantle said bureaucracies, but in time, they always find it necessary to rebuild them. This is part of why their supporters so often become disillusioned.
In the Third Wave, this top-down, bureaucratic order will be replaced by one that is flatter, where decision-making is shared, and where decisions are made more democratically and in a more anticipatory fashion.

Chapter 6 – The hidden blueprint
The political systems of all industrial countries are essentially the same.
When Second Wave revolutionaries overthrew First Wave elites, the former created constitutions and governments that melded ideas from both eras.
-Basing elections on geography (i.e. – each state or district has one elected representative) instead of class, occupation, ethnicity, or sexual identity reflects the centrality of land to the lives of First Wave people. Land was wealth and people seldom moved.
-The assumption that educated, high class people should serve in government owes to the fact that most First Wave people were illiterate and ignorant.
In all Second Wave countries, governance is structured as follows (the “universal represento-kit”):
1) Individuals who vote
2) Parties that collect those votes
3) Candidates who win the most votes and become representatives
4) Legislatures where those representatives make laws.
5) Executives who suggest laws to the legislature and enforce laws passed by it.
These governance structures exist even in communist countries, and within countries they exist at national and local levels.
Thanks to trade and globalization, the actions of any one national government can affect many governments elsewhere.
Second Wave governance systems are fairer and more humane than what came before them, but they are still not nearly as democratic as most people think.
Elections defuse tensions, preempt mass protests, and give voters the sense they’re in control over the government. In fact, bureaucrats, political lobbyists and other elites are always in control.
No matter whom the people elect to office, their behavior in office almost always conforms to preexisting norms, and real change almost never happens.
Labor union leaders have been assimilated into the broader governance structure and orthodoxy. Even unions don’t represent average people any better than politicians do.

Chapter 7 – A frenzy of nations
Third Wave forces will challenge the integrity of nation-states and impel regional independence movements.
During the First Wave, humans lived in a patchwork of innumerable towns, counties, cities, and tribal areas, each with their own sets of laws and customs. Travel was also very slow.
The lack of common laws and standards and fast means of travel were major impediments to the economy and to kings exercising authority in far-flung parts of their lands.
The Industrial Revolution sharply accelerated the emergence of nation-states:
-Expensive factories and infrastructure projects could only be paid for by larger polities of people. City-states, counties, and small kingdoms were pressured to band together to pool their resources.
-Industrialization made it possible for the first time to produce large, local surpluses of goods and to transport them to distant markets before they deteriorated (spoiled). The increase in trade led to a greater awareness of rest of the world and [for reasons unexplained] the emergence of national identities.
-The higher levels of commerce that the industrial revolution made technically possible could only be sustained if laws and product standards were harmonized and if transit infrastructure was built. This meant that the patchwork of small polities had to be replaced by much larger nation-states, which would set uniform laws and standards and coordinate big infrastructure projects over larger areas.
Convincing people to give up their old identities and political loyalties and to accept the nation-state, the myth of unique national self-identity had to be manufactured.
Nation-states expanded in the 1800s until they hit barriers (geographic barriers, other nation-states comprised of unassimilable people [usually thanks to language differences]). Technological limitations on communications and transit also curtailed sprawl beyond a certain point.
Nation-states funded railroad projects because they helped to symbolize the power of the nation and because they had practical value as means to transport troops.

Chapter 8 – The imperial drive
European colonialism actually started when Europe was still a First Wave civilization.
Before the Industrial Revolution, Europe wasn’t able to do much trading with its colonies. Booty that the Spanish and Portuguese took from the New World was enough to enrich their royal families, but the lives of average people living in Spain and Portugal barely benefited.
But once Europe industrialized, colonialism became much more profitable (spurring more expansion) and sharply altered their economies.
Mercantilism arose thanks to factory manufacturing and the ability to move goods around the planet quickly. European countries took over more primitive parts of the world, extracted their natural resources, and paid for it with finished goods made in Europe. The finished goods were sometimes made with the same raw materials the foreign people had shipped to Europe. Colonies were captive markets.
Racism also encouraged whites to take over as much of the nonwhite, First Wave world as they could. They tried to euphemize it as benevolent work to civilize inferior races of people.
David Ricardo’s theories about comparative advantage and the concomitant need for specialization and free trade to optimize the economy were soon accepted as gospel, and led European countries to create empires and hegemonies that conformed to Ricardo’s theories about how economic activity could be optimized.
However, his theories presuppose that all of the participants in the markets are equally informed and that no one is coercing anyone else. In reality, the deck was stacked heavily towards European and American colonialists against their colonial subjects or new First Wave trading partners when agreements were struck. The whites were money savvy, lawyerly, and often used the threat of military force. The non-whites barely had a clue and agreed to unfair deals to sell their labor and resources as below-market rates.
Ricardo’s precondition of free trade was also unmet since colonial powers practiced merchantilism, which sealed off their markets from trading with members of other colonial power blocs.
Much of the time, the raw materials the colonialists wanted–like chromium or oil–had no value to the non-European people because they hadn’t industrialized yet and couldn’t make use of it. As such, they unwittingly accepted sub-market prices for them. This put them at a crucial, long-term disadvantage and also impelled colonialists elsewhere to pressure other exploited people who had the same resource to sell it for the same price or lower so they could be competitive with the first supplier.
This phenomenon could be called “The Law of the First Price.”
[But even though the Europeans were more savvy, how could they have known what the fair price for such commodities was given that they also had limited knowledge of things like local wages in the First Wave countries? And no one can blame them from asking for the lowest prices possible. It’s the rational thing to do.]
European and American colonialists preached free trade, but didn’t truly practice it. The trading arrangements they created were unfair and exploitative, and large amounts of wealth flowed from poorer First Wave countries to their own.
Colonialism disrupted the local economies, social systems, and self-sufficiency of First Wave societies and tied their fates to the trade whims of the West. The interaction with stronger and more advanced First Wave people also instilled a sense of inferiority in Second Wave people, which persists to this day and hampers their growth.
Right after WWII, America filled the global power vacuum left by the ruination of the other industrialized countries. The U.S. created the Bretton Woods system, which solidified its economic and political influence.
-The IMF required members to peg their currencies to the U.S. dollar. This prevented debtor nations from using currency inflation to repay money they owed to the U.S. or World Bank.
-The World Bank loaned money to countries to build infrastructure. At first, the loans were all to European countries to repair the damaged caused by WWII. Later, the loans were to less developed nations to build more advanced infrastructure. Importantly, membership was only granted to countries that were in the IMF and abided by the GATT.
-The GATT required members to lower trade barriers against all other members, and it provided a venue to settle trade disputes.
Lenin hated colonialism and genuinely believed it was a purely capitalist phenomenon that would disappear once the world became communist. Time would show he was mistaken. Even centrally planned economies are still subject to the same economic incentives as capitalist ones. For example, even under communism, economic efficiency is desirable, and central planners can calculate which production method is the least resource-intensive. The USSR used money and was still part of the global money system. Thanks to those things, the Soviets behaved unfairly towards other countries just as the capitalists did, for instance demanding and getting unprofitably low prices for commodities purchased from smaller countries.
After WWII, the Soviets also pillaged Eastern Europe and Germany, and forced their new communist governments to agree to unfair trade and political treaties. This behavior was the same as a capitalist colonialist.
The USSR forced the countries of Eastern Europe into an economic, trade, and monetary arrangement that was more rigid and more controlled than what the U.S. created with Bretton Woods. The Communist analog was “COMECON.” The USSR forced its participants to economically specialize in different things and to submit their development plans to the USSR for approval.
Without colonialism, the West would have industrialized much slower because commodities would have been more expensive.
The “Second Wave mentality” holds the world back from transitioning to the Third Wave.

Chapter 9 – Indust-reality
Second Wave civilization also spawned a unique worldview, set of values and way of thinking that its people internalized. The author calls this “Indust-reality.”
Both capitalists and socialists believe that man should hold dominion over nature, and that nature exists to be exploited. Both have caused massive ecological damage for the sake of industrialization.
All Second Wave nations believe in Darwinian ideas about evolution and survival of the fittest, with humans being the pinnacle of Earthly life.
This way of thinking of course heavily tainted white peoples’ views on race and helped justify their colonial activities. They believed they were superior, and that their place in the world was therefore to conquer, lead, and even exterminate lesser races.
All Second Wave nations believe in the idea of progress. The world is becoming a better place, chiefly thanks to industrialization. [Was true in the 1800s and early 1900s, but today, many people in the Developing World are declinist]
First Wave people had no way to precisely measure time, so they used units relevant to their daily experience. “The time it takes to cook rice” would have been an example of a unit of time.
During the Second Wave, units of time were precisely divided into seconds, minutes and hours, and the world agreed to divide itself into time zones.
First Wave notions that history is cyclical and/or repeating (especially common to Buddhists and Hindus thanks to their belief in reincarnation) were replaced by the Second Wave notion that time is unidirectional and linear.
The idea of time being linear also made the theory of evolution more plausible.
During the Second Wave, notions of distance and physical space were also standardized into units of measure. This was because space was at a premium in cities, and it had to be carefully managed.
Standardized units of distance like meters replaced imprecise First Wave units like “a day’s walk.”
Street grids, which in the First Wave were very irregular since they were based on landscape contours and the vagaries of flowing human foot traffic, were replaced by straight streets and 90 degree angles.
Buildings also assumed square or rectangular shapes.
The appearance of the constructed human environment became more standardized and full of straight, parallel lines and perpendicular lines.
Prevailing beliefs about the nature of physical matter also changed from First to Second Waves. While thinkers like Democritus had theorized the existence of atoms in ancient times, the idea was largely ignored until the Second Wave, when scientists did experiments that proved it was true (and that pure Elements could be isolated in the lab).
The Second Wave also developed new ideas about the nature of matter and causality, which diminished any need to invoke God or supernatural forces to explain why things happened. It became accepted that all physical objects were made of atoms, and that they interacted with each other according to the Laws of Gravity and of other forces. If God existed, he could be comfortably placed at the very margin of our universe as its Prime Mover, and not the active force shaping and determining every event and interaction.
This notion of reality led Second Wave people to think of the universe as tidy, fundamentally predictable, and subject to engineering. Unfortunately, it also led them to ignore things that were non-quantifiable and to punish imagination.

Chapter 10 – Coda: The flash flood
The Industrial Revolution was caused by synergy of many different things (such as the exhaustion of Britain’s timber forcing a switch to coal). However, the fission between consumer and producer was the biggest single cause.
The more that consumer and producer are separated in time and space, the more complex a society becomes.
[The author summarizes the last few chapters.]
Critics of the Industrial Era’s abuses and excesses often make the mistake of romanticizing what came before. However, all evidence suggests that First Wave societies also lived in misery, and that in some ways, life was better for people living in Industrial Era tenements and slums.
However, in some ways, the Second Wave was worse than the First Wave:
-Industrial pollution is more pervasive and long-lasting. We might have permanently damaged the environment during the Second Wave.
-The race-based slavery, forced population transfers, and colonization resulted in suffering and death unparalleled in the past. The psychological scars haven’t healed among nonwhites who suffered from this.
Several factors are conspiring to end Second Wave civilization:
-The environment can’t absorb more industrial damage, so economic growth will be hampered by the need to do so cleanly.
-Cheap energy and cheap commodities are disappearing, which will also constrain the spread of Industrial society. [Low fossil fuels prices in 2017 and the ongoing industrialization of China seem to disprove this claim.]
-Second Wave countries are also facing insitutional and cultural upheaval, as bureaucracies and the services they provide crumble [aging infrastructure in the West] and as homosexuals demand rights and the nuclear family becomes less common.
-Second Wave people are experiencing widespread dissatisfaction with their jobs, with the structure of their lives, and with themselves. There is a pervasive yearning for some kind of personal and cultural change, even if most people can’t articulate what is wrong and what they want to make different.

Chapter 11 – The new synthesis
The author worked in Midwestern factory assembly lines from 1950-55.
Futurists commonly err by extrapolating existing trends into the future as straight lines on a graph. In reality, trends can’t be counted on to reliably continue on like that, and they could stop, reverse, or hit inflection points and exponentially explode at any time.

Chapter 12 – The commanding heights
OPEC was formed in 1960 in reaction to Exxon and other oil big Western companies cutting the amount of money they were willing to pay foreign countries for oil. OPEC was a counterweight to Western power.
During the Third Wave, the world will switch from centralized, non-renewable energy sources like fossil fuels to decentralized, renewable sources like solar panels.
Oil is a finite natural resource, so it will run out. Most likely, this will take the form of several successive supply and price shocks. [Probably wrong, though Toffler was making this prediction in 1980]
However, once the oil is gone, the world will switch to cheap, clean, abundant energy. The end of oil will be painful, but it won’t mean the end of energy.
Coal usage could theoretically be increased to compensate for declining oil and gas reserves, but coal produces a lot of air pollution and contributes to global warming. [Toffler was one of the few people aware of this so early]
Nuclear power is an equivocal option due to its high costs and dangerous waste problem. It is also a totally centralized energy source, which doesn’t fit with the Third Wave model.
Possible alternative energies that will displace fossil fuels:
-Solar photovoltaic panels
-Windmill-carrying high-altitude balloons
-Biomass waste combustion (burning trash to make energy)
-Geothermal
-Solar concentrator
-Hydrogen-powered vehicles and planes
Better batteries will also make electric cars practical.
Toffler predicts a breakthrough in some alternative energy technology in one or two decades (1990 – 2000). [That didn’t happen.]
The fossil fuels industry, utilities companies, mining companies, and unions representing workers in those sectors are all Second Wave entrenched interests who lobby politicians to block the switch to alternative energy.
Enlightened consumers, environmentalists, scientists, and entrepreneurs represent Third Wave forces pushing for change.
The costs of fossil fuel energy are rapidly rising, and soon they will be so high that a switch to alternatives will be unavoidable. [This was a common view in the aftermath of the oil shocks of the 1970s. When Toffler wrote this book, oil prices were still very high. However, the price of oil actually crashed in the mid-1980s and stayed low until 2001. Because of this, and because it took longer than Toffler estimated to bring down the costs of solar PV panels, the switch to alternative energy has taken much longer than he guessed.]
The decline of heavy industries in the American Rust Belt and counterparts in Europe, and the rise of high-tech economy clusters like Silicon Valley is the economic aspect of the transition from the Second to Third Wave. This started in the 1950s.
Electronics and computers together form a new, Third Wave industry that is poised for massive expansion.
Personal computers are about to hit the market and will someday be in every home. Other future technologies will include:
-Climate and soil sensors for farms
-Heartbeat sensors built into clothes
Fiber-optic cables will replace copper phone wires, lowering the energy requirements by a factor of 1,000.
In general, integrated circuits can do the same tasks as older analog technologies with much greater energy efficiency. The coming energy crisis will impel the development of these new technologies. [Toffler ends his future prediction winning streak.]
Launching payloads into orbit will become much cheaper thanks to the Space Shuttles [not true], and space-based manufacturing will begin. [Still hasn’t happened]
Space mining and the construction of space stations for humans are being seriously considered.
Aquaculture and seabed mineral mining could begin in the mid-80s and will mirror man’s exploration of space.
Undersea bases and even colonies could take advantage of free real estate and energy (tidal, thermal currents, wind).
Floating cities are also possible for adventurers and groups of like-minded people (or ethnicity) who want their own countries.
Genetic technology also has major future implications.
-Enzymes in car exhaust systems will monitor pollution levels. [Is he talking about a catalytic converter?]
-Genetically engineered bacteria could filter bits of precious metal from the seas.
-Genetically engineered humans
-Human organ cloning (each person would have “backup” organs stored somewhere)
-New disease cures
-No need for oil to make plastics
-New ways to synthesize natural organic products like wood and wool.
-Genetically modified food crops that will need fewer fertilizers and pesticides and be able to grow on poorer soils. This will benefit farmers in poor countries much more than the Green Revolution’s earlier methods and technologies did.
Accidental releases of genetically modified microorganisms could become a threat.
Third Wave technologies will present new threats and risks
-Electronic smog [?]
-Information pollution [?]
-Space warfare
-Genetic leakage [?]
-Climatic intervention [geoengineering by one country over the protests of others?]
-Manmade earthquakes
Luddites who are afraid of these perils will become more vocal during the Third Wave, and politicians may ride to power by stoking their fears.
“Techno-rebels” are an emerging group of people who don’t want to stop technological improvements, but instead who want new technologies to be more humane. They generally heed the Precautionary Principle, are against nuclear power, are environmentalist but not Luddites, and favor technologies that decentralize power and can be used by average people. They will grow in number over time.
During the Third Wave, energy production will get cleaner and more decentralized, resource usage will get more efficient and less wasteful more generally speaking, and pollution will decrease.

Chapter 13 – De-massifying the media
The Second Wave saw the rise of the mass media: a handful of newspapers, magazines, radio stations, and TV stations that shaped public opinion. They greatly expanded the knowledge and content that was available during the First Wave, but they still presented a limited picture of the world and engendered conformity.
In the 1970s, newspaper readership in the U.S. and Britain started dropping. [It sounds like the author is referring to the daily newspapers]
Meanwhile, the number of subject-specific and ethnicity-specific magazines and radio stations have increased. Media is becoming “de-massed” and more catered to special interests. [This trend continued once the Internet became commonly available.]
CB radio is getting more popular, and it might cannibalize normal broadcast radio’s share of listener attention among people driving their cars. [This didn’t pan out.]
The Big Three American TV broadcasters–ABC, CBS and NBC–are rapidly losing market share to other, more specialized TV channels.
Cable TV is also rapidly growing in viewership and is another indicator that TV entertainment content is getting more diverse and more tailored to niche groups of people and niche topics.
Fiber-optic cables will replace copper for cable TV.
Cable TV designed for two-way communication will also become popular.
-In Japan, the Hi-Ovis interactive TV system was trialed in the late 1970s. Each participant had a TV camera and microphone mounted to their TVs so they could communicate with the broadcaster and do videoconferencing. Users can also enter codes [not said how] that tell the broadcaster to play certain programs just for them, at any time. [Precursor to Pay-per-view or Video on Demand]
-In the U.S., Warner experimented with the Qube two-way cable system, which also allowed users to send messages to the broadcaster, for instance indicating whether they liked what they were watching. [Like and Dislike videos]
Video games are also de-massifying the media since they are, by nature, customized for each user and interactive, and because they subtract from the time people have to view mass media.
VCRs will allow people to record TV programs and watch them when they want instead of when the network wants them to, and VCRs and camcorders will allow people to produce and distribute their own content.
Satellites will allow smaller TV channels to beam content across the country, bypassing the crowded, limited TV broadcast network.
“Commercial television will no longer be able to dictate either what is watched or when it is watched.”
Third Wave consists of “blip culture,” meaning the new media bombards people with “blips” of content and information that aren’t in the easy-to-follow narrative format of the Second Wave, and the blips aren’t part of a cohesive whole. From smaller and more specialized content producers, people receive conflicting bits of information and values, which many people can’t reconcile.
People will also share more content directly with each other, which is part of what the “information society” title is meant to convey.

Chapter 14 – The intelligent environment
Some animist religions hold that inanimate objects have spirits in them. Computers are, in a way, making this a reality since they are inanimate objects, but alive with energy and information.
Personal computers will soon be in every household.
Telecomputing Corporation of America offers a product package called “The Source,” [a simple version of today’s internet] which has the following:
-Access to a network containing news updates, financial data, educational programs, hotel reservation programs.
-The network also allows users to communicate directly with each other, to play virtual board games with each other, to send emails (including mass emails) to other users, and to participate in topic-specific bulletin boards.
As computers get still smaller, they will become embedded in everyday objects, optimizing the efficiency and performance of all kinds of manmade objects. [Internet of Things]
-Monitor and curtail heat waste in a home. [A programmable thermostat?]
-Attenuate the detergent load and other settings of washing machines to optimize their performance.
-Automatically activate different appliances in the home at certain times to preemptively meet the human occupants’ needs. (For example, turn on the coffee maker right before the human typically wakes up in the morning)
Alan P.Hald described the future potential of this technology in the short story “Fred the House.”
Intelligent machines and AIs distributed throughout the environment (such as in houses and cars) raise the following questions about the future and counterpoints:
-Will pervasive use of electronics and computers give the government more avenues to spy on and control people, [Well, at least from the perspective of 2017, it seems the answer was Yes.] or will the distribution of computing power make it easier for people to thwart government control [cyptocurrencies and VPNs]?
-Will machines “take over,” or will humans find ways to stay ahead with enhanced intelligence and creativity, and find ways to keep the machines down with something like Asimov’s Three Laws of Robotics?
-“It would be naive to assume that the cards are stacked against the human race. We have intelligence and imagination we have not yet begun to use.” –Pg 161
Computers that can recognize up to 1,000 spoken words already exist, and in 5 – 20 years, their vocabularies might be large enough to make them the default means of human-machine communication.
Illiterate people are excluded from the Second Wave job market, even though many of them have normal intelligence. In a future where computers are everywhere in the environment and they can understand human speech, literacy’s value will decline.
“[Various types of workers] may be able to function quite adequately on the job by listening rather than reading, as a voice from the machine tells them, step by step, what to do next or how to replace a broken part.” [The “Jennifer Unit”; a Borg drone?]
Computers will also be able to crunch vast amounts of data impossible for any one human, and to find causal linkages between things that no one thought of. [“Big Data”]
The richness and interactivity of one’s environment shapes childhood brain development. If the future world is embedded with computers, sensors and devices that intelligently interact with people, then it might raise average intelligence, particularly among children. (Quote by Dr. Donald F. Klein is cited)
Before the invention of writing, the body of human knowledge was in a constant steady-state because things were always being forgotten and relearned. Mass literacy was a second inflection point in the growth of human knowledge. The third inflection point will owe to data being stored in computers and sensors being everywhere in the environment, recording all events. Our civilization will achieve “total recall.”
Computers will be programmed to think in unorthodox ways and to recombine existing knowledge in strange ways that humans would have never thought to do. This will lead to “a flood of new theories, ideas, ideologies, artistic insights, technical advances, economic and political innovations…” It will accelerate the pace of change in many domains.

Chapter 15 – Beyond mass production
The author visited a Hewlett-Packard electronics factory in Colorado and found an environment that represents the future of such work:
-No spatial separation between workers–everyone works in a single huge bay [Open concept office?]
-Relatively quiet
-Relaxed attire standards, so rank is not evident by appearance
-Ability for workers to choose their own hours
It sharply contrasted with the rigid, authoritarian, and uncomfortable environment the author experienced when he worked at a Second Wave factory as a young man.
“The essence of Second Wave manufacture was the long ‘run’ of millions of identical, standardized products. By contrast, the essence of Third Wave manufacture is the short run of partially or completely customized products.”
Manufactured goods are also of greater diversity and are more common to be made in short production runs.
-The U.s. makes jet fighters in runs as small as 10. [This trend certainly didn’t continue, as the massively expensive F-35 shows.]
-There are more car models than ever.
-Custom printed T-shirts
The custom tailoring of clothes could someday be cheap and ubiquitous, and standard sizes might disappear. It will be possible to upload one’s body measurements into a computer and transmit it to a clothes factory. Computers could also deduce the best clothing fit for a person by scanning video footage of him or her.
Manufacture is also “de-massifying.”
Producer and consumer will become tightly integrated once more and consumers find easy ways to transmit their changing style and product preferences to producers.
Computer-aided design has allowed many manufactured goods, such as cameras, to be made with fewer moving parts. Greater use of integrated circuits to replace analog machines will continue this trend. [Digital cameras]
The death of the secretary?
-Increasingly, people work in office environments.
-While this is often said to herald the “postmodern economy,” it is really an extension of the Second Wave era. Most offices are factory-like environments where repeatedly people do small units of deadening work. There is also a hierarchy, with “high-abstraction” workers (scientists, engineers, and managers) at the top, and “low-abstraction” ones (secretaries) at the bottom.
-Word processors, optical scanners, high-speed printers, micrographic equipment [microfilm and microfilm readers], fax machines, and computers are about to enter the office workplace and radically change the workflow process. It could lead to “paperless offices” in the future.
-Those technologies will drastically simplify the process of writing and circulating memos at work. Secretaries won’t be needed anymore.
-The author used a word processor to write the second half of this book, which made him grasp the technology’s potential.
-Computer dictionaries will check written files for spelling errors.
-Electronic mail [the shortened term “e-mail” apparently didn’t exist yet] will be used to transmit written files; they won’t need to be printed out for circulation.
-Electronic mail will threaten the Post Office’s business in the future. Already, some big companies have set up electronic mail systems to send messages between workers and facilities.
-Typing and keyboards will eventually be obsoleted by continuous speech recognition. [This prediction came half-true, as of 2017. The problem with talking to your computer is that is sacrifices your privacy since everyone can hear what you’re doing.]
-High-ranking office people will have to dictate or type their own correspondence since they won’t have secretaries anymore.
When factory automation started in the 1950s and 60s, many economists predicted mass unemployment, but it didn’t happen. [A different picture emerges if one only looks at U.S. factory employment from WWII-Present] New jobs were created, and the same will be true after the computer and office automation revolutions, though it can’t be said what those jobs will be.
Automation is just one factor affecting human unemployment. [It’s true the computer and internet revolutions didn’t increase net human unemployment, but it’s much less clear if this will still be true once machines have become truly intelligent. At that point, humans would lose their cognitive advantages over machines. They lost their physical strength advantage long ago.]

Chapter 16 – The electronic cottage
Technology will soon allow people to work from their homes, which will have major impacts on company structures and population distribution.
Skeptics of this should remember that pre-Industrial people would have found it equally nonsensical if a futurist had told them they would someday be working OUT OF their homes in factories. For almost all of human history, people worked locally alongside their families. Going to distant, centralized locations to work alongside strangers has only been going on a short time and is odd.
The author interviewed the heads of several advanced tech factories, and they said anywhere from 1/3 – 3/4 of their workforce could telework. Some could even telework without benefit of home computers.
“The electronic cottage” describes a technology-enabled home workstation that would allow people to telecommute. It would include a ‘smart typewriter,’ fax machine, computer, and teleconferencing equipment.
High-ranking, high-abstraction workers would be less able to telecommute since they need to frequently meet with other people. Not all jobs are amenable to being done remotely.
Across the developed world, there is a transportation crisis largely thanks to people commuting to work using inadequate road and rail capacity. Long commutes strain peoples’ health and cost individuals and their companies money. Putting telecom equipment in peoples’ houses so they can work from home is a cheaper and better alternative.
Gas shortages and high gas prices will intensify the need for telecommuting. [A rare, wrong prediction, and clearly influenced by the events of the 1970s.]
Telecommuting uses less energy than mass transit at 100% capacity, and will also allow workplaces to physically shrink, lowering real estate costs, climate control bills, and security costs.
Telecommuting could make families closer since members of the family will be around each other more, could strengthen communities since people wouldn’t move whenever they switched jobs (just use home PC to work for the new company) and they’d be able to put down roots in one place, and could geographically decentralize energy demand and also supply.
If telecommuting became popular, some industries (computers, electronics) would flourish, while others (cars, oil, paper makers, USPS) would shrink.
“Rather than a world of purely vicarious human relationships, with an electric screen interposed between the individual and the rest of humanity…one can postulate a world divided into two sets of human relationships–one real, the other vicarious–with different rules and roles in each.” [The anonymity of the internet indeed encourages very different personal behavior than the real world does. However, the smartphone revolution has led to the frequent, literal interposition of electric screens between individuals and the rest of humanity. The author didn’t predict that, but to be fair, neither did anyone else right up until the day the iPhone was introduced.]
If even 10% of the American workforce teleworked, the country’s economy, cities, ecology, family structure, values, and politics would be altered beyond recognition. It could happen in as little as 20 year. [As of 2017, only 2.8% of U.S. workers telecommute at least half of the time. The practice is still growing in popularity among workers and employers, but it simply hasn’t grown as fast as the author predicted it would.]

Chapter 17 – Families of the future
The nuclear family became the standard because it suited the employment needs of the Second Wave. It is being eroded away by high divorce rates thanks to the transition to the Third Wave. [Divorce rates stabilized in the 1990s.]
Keeping the nuclear family the default family arrangement would require forsaking over 20 years of technological, social, and economic progress to return Americans to a 1950s standard of living and values. It’s impossible.
At the time of the book’s publishing, only 7% of the U.S. population lived in an ideal nuclear family (working husband, stay-at-home wife, and two young children).
The numbers of single people living alone, unmarried couples who cohabit, and couples who have decided not to have kids are rapidly increasing.
At the turn of the century, families were child-centric, as lifespans were so short that parents typically died shortly after their children left the house.
Single-parent households and mixed households where two divorcees with kids marry are rapidly becoming more common.
In the Third Wave, no single type of family (extended, nuclear, single-parent, mixed, other) will predominate, and almost all will be socially accepted.
[The author suggests 15% of the workforce might spend all or some of its working hours at home within 25 years (the year 2005). It proved too optimistic an estimate.]
Telecommuting could benefit most marriages since spouses would have more time together, even if they were both occupied with work. However, it would damage a minority of marriages since it would just provide more time for personality clashes. First Wave families spent almost all their time together, and many were dysfunctional and abusive.
Expectations people had of marriage have changed over time thanks to different demands put on the family unit.
-First Wave: Since families were work units, adults wanted to marry spouses who were physically robust and disciplined. Physical attractiveness was not a primary criterion, and emotional love was not as important.
-Second Wave: With work life separated from home life, older priorities shifted. People now wanted spouses who were physically attractive and who seemed able to provide emotional support. Love became essential for a marriage.
-Third Wave: With NON-PHYSICAL work again returning to the home, people might start seeking out partners who are smart enough and technically skilled enough to succeed in the future economy, while still possessing all the good qualities people expected during the Second Wave. [As of 2017, this is either true or close to coming true. Note the phenomenon of women not wanting to marry men with inferior levels of education and/or income, and the general recognition that the romantic arena is more competitive and demanding than ever.]
Once parents work from home, children will have direct exposure to their parents’ work, instead of it being a mysterious, unseen activity that happens at a distant workplace.
Child labor laws (which the author says were put in place to protect adult wages) might be rolled back once children are able to do non-physical work from home. [Unsure about this. The more time a child spends working, the less he spends studying, which translates into worse grades and test scores and poorer college prospects. The more knowledge-based the economy gets, the more important higher education is to personal success.]
Allowing children to participate in the information economy and in services would also reduce juvenile delinquency since it would give them things to do. [Contradicted by the fact that the labor force participation rate among 16-18 year olds is extremely low.]
Some families that telework will also evolve into “electronic expanded families” through the incorporation of unrealted people into their corporations. This could be thought of as a commune founded for common financial benefit. [Teleworking has become more common, but there has been little if any movement towards spouses purposefully adopting the same jobs so they can literally “work together” while at home.]
Family law and social mores should be changed to ease the transition to non-nuclear family arrangements.
It might become common for couples to be hired onto jobs together. They would work outside their homes.

Chapter 18 – The corporate identity crisis
For 300 years, Second Wave nations and corporations steadily integrated the world economy. Wars and economic depressions proved temporary setbacks.
From WWII until the 1970s, affluence sharply and steadily increased in both Communist and Capitalist countries, and it appeared both sides had nailed the formulas to economic growth.
However, at the time of this book’s writing, the world is undergoing economic upheaval, and the old order (exemplified by Bretton Woods, the U.S. precious metals standards, commodities prices, and Stagflation) is breaking down. This crisis is different.
Even heads of the world’s biggest corporations feel powerless.
Currency speculators are destabilizing major national economies.
Stock trades also now happen in fractions of a second thanks to computers.
The pace of economic activity and of business evolution is accelerating: Product life cycles are shorter, fads are more common, price changes are more frequent, and job turnover is faster. Company heads have to endure near-constant change.
The de-massified society
-Mass production of standardized products is no longer satisfactory to consumers since they are becoming more diverse (in terms of needs, values and lifestyles) and demand different things.
-Jobs are likewise becoming more specialized and workers less interchangeable, again because society and its consumer demands are becoming more diverse and complex.
-Across the Western world, populations are becoming more racially and ethnically diverse due to immigration, and minorities are demanding more rights and recognition.
Average people are increasingly mistrustful of big businesses and corporations and hold them responsible for a variety of social and environmental problems. Popular pressure is mounting for corporations to show more civic responsibility.
The number of government regulations that corporations must comply with (employment rights, worker safety, environmental) is also mushrooming and sapping their time and money.
Standards of behavior and ethics for businesses and their leaders are also rising.
In sum, its harder and more complicated for businesses to exist in the Third Wave than it was in the Second Wave.
It’s now common for big companies to evaluate the social and environmental impacts of their decisions. In some cases, this is just pure P.R., and the analyses are made up or change nothing, but it other cases, it is a bona fide part of their business process.

Chapter 19 – Decoding the new rules
There is a generational disconnect between those raised during the Second Wave and those raised during the Third.
The younger generation is less punctual, less conformist, and less interested in standard, 9-5 corporate jobs. The younger generation also achieves life milestones (marriage, childbirth) later.
Flextime, an arrangement where workers have staggered start and finish times each workday and can structure their schedules within generous limits, is becoming popular and is challenging the Second Wave’s fixation with Industrial Era punctuality.
Night shifts are also becoming more popular, and more business are staying open late or 24/7. In sum, more people are shedding the standard 9-5 daily rhythm.
Asynchonized daily schedules will make it harder for people to socialize, so a computer-based social networking system that informs users of their friends’ whereabouts and availability will be created. [Sounds like shared Google Calendars]
The switch to customized work schedules will ease burdens on the roads and utility services, as demand peaks will be smoothed out over the length of each day.
VCRs and cassette tapes will allow people to watch their favorite TV shows on their own schedules. [On-demand video]
660 tech people participate in a simple internet-like system called the Electronic Information Exchange System. They use personal computers to link to it, and can interact with each other in real-time if they want.
Computers have gotten so fast that it is impossible to synchronize people to them as it was to synchronize Second Wave machines to the pace of human factory laborers. As the Third Wave progresses, human workers will create their own rhythms, and punctuality will become less important.
This will really just be a return to how things were in the First Wave, before factories and cities and before anyone was punctual.
Life could actually be more enjoyable with more relaxed work schedules and less attention to punctuality more generally speaking.
As jobs, lifestyles, tastes, and politics, become less standardized, people will think less alike. Social isolation and loneliness will also worsen.
Companies are becoming more decentralized, meaning different units and more independent (and in charge of making their own profits), and the staff hierarchy is transforming from a waterfall into a matrix, where the typical employee is a member of multiple work groups at once, and reports to multiple supervisors.

Chapter 20 – Rise of the prosumer
Starting in the 1970s, new medical devices such as at-home pregnancy tests and automated blood pressure cuff machines became commercially available. Their existence marks a shift in how health care is thought of: average people are now empowered to take some of their care into their own hands.
During the First Wave, people produced everything they needed, and there was very little outside trade. People were “prosumers” (producer-consumers).
During the Second Wave, work done to satisfy one’s own needs was overshadowed by work done to satisfy other people, to the point that prosumer work was excluded from official economic statistics. This was a mistake, as unpaid prosumer work–mainly household labor done by stay-at-home wives to ensure the next generation of people is fully functional–is vital to the entire economy.
The proliferation of free or low-cost self-help groups and support groups represents a restructuring of the socio-sphere.
The do-it-yourselfers
-AT&T was forced to automate the process of long-distance phone calling in the 1950s because they couldn’t hire enough human operators to meet demand.
-The 1973 Arab Oil Embargo forced gas stations in the U.S. to convert to self-service to save money.
-ATMs are replacing human bank tellers.
-Human store clerks are disappearing, and customers are now doing the work of finding their own merchandise, moving it through stores, and bagging it.
-Ordinary people are doing repair and maintenance work on their home appliances, thanks to appliance companies providing repair guides and 1-800 numbers for technical advice.
‘Made possible by advances that have driven down the cost of long-distance telephoning, it suggests future systems that might actually display step-by-step fix-it-yourself instructions on the home television screen as the adviser speaks…such systems would reserve the repair mechanic only for major tasks…’
-Home assembly of furniture is becoming more popular, partly thanks to the rising relative cost of handyman labor. [IKEA was highly successful]
Computer-aided design (CAD) is a new method of designing and making manufactured goods.
In the future, people will be able to use their home PCs to design custom clothing for themselves and to transmit orders via telephone lines [“the internet”, even though he never uses that term] to automated garmet factories.
It will become less common in the future for people to have full-time jobs. More time will be spent at leisure or getting educated. This trend will be accelerated by the rise of dual-paycheck households. [The opposite of this happened. As incomes rose, so did materialism, meaning people just spent more and never got off the “treadmill”.]
A new do-it-yourself ethos and better home technologies will allow people to cheaply assemble cars, clothing and other goods. [If anything, average peoples’ knowledge of cars has DECLINED since this book was written.]
The author describes something very similar to a 3D printer that could use digital files as instructions for making custom clothes.
Economic models need to include prosumer labor. Productive, profitable labor that people do for themselves outside the workplace should be counted towards GDP.
The global market has almost reached peak size and complexity. The world will save large amounts of time and money in the future since it won’t have to expand it any farther.

Chapter 21 – The mental maelstrom
‘Never before have so many people in so many countries–even educated and supposedly sophisticated people–been so intellectually helpless, drowning, as it were, in a maelstrom of conflicting, confusing, and cacophonous ideas…Every day brings some new fad, scientific finding, religion, movement, or manifesto…We see a mounting attack on establishment science. We see a wildfire revival of fundamentalist religion and a desperate search for something…to believe in.’
The culture war is part of the broader war between the Second and Third Waves.
The environmentalist movement is probably the sharpest example of this Wave-driven cultural conflict. A few decades ago, almost no one cared at all about protecting nature. Today, its protection is enshrined in law, popular culture, and even business community practices.
There is a growing consensus that Earth is more fragile and closer to destruction than was previously believed.
Our understanding of biology, the history of evolution, and of our uniqueness in the cosmos has also been shaken by recent scientific discoveries.
Human genetic engineering might become possible.
The people who shape Third Wave culture and thinking are pessimists, whereas their Second Wave counterparts are optimists. The difference first appeared in the 1950s with the “beats,” and continued with the hippies of the 1960s.
Pessimism became chic in Hollywood quickly, as evidenced by the replacement of the brave, masculine heroes of 1930s and 1940s films with the alienated anti-heroes of the 1950s and 1960s, who sometimes met with ill fates.
Technology began to be portrayed as a force for evil rather than good, mainly because of its impact on nature. The Second Wave’s faith in progress and the perfectibility of man was replaced by the Third Wave’s cynicism and gloomy view of the future.
Third Wave people began seeing humanity as a blight on the planet, crowding out other species with our growing population, and consuming non-renewable resources.
The Third Wave notion of “progress” is more complex and multifaceted.
This century’s discoveries in theoretical physics and astronomy (such as Einstein’s Theory of Relativity) have upended our notions of what “space” and “time” really are.
The population’s distribution and mental orientation changes with each Wave:
-First Wave: People lived in small farming settlements and ancient cities that were small by our standards. Few ever left the communities they were born into.
-Second Wave: People moved into cities to work in factories. They were highly mobile, as they had to move between cities to chase jobs.
-Third Wave: Big cities will stop growing, while small- and medium-sized cities will grow. Peoples’ orientations will be simultaneously local and global. [Note that big cities will still grow in developing countries because they are still Second Wave]
‘As advanced communications proliferate and we begin to shift work back into the electronic cottage, we will encourage this dual focus, breeding large numbers of people who remain reasonably close to home, we migrate less often, who travel more perhaps for pleasure but far less often for business–while their minds and messages range across the entire planet and into outer space as well. The Third Wave mentality combines concern for near and far.’
Satellite maps of the Earth’s surface that clearly show details like roads, buildings and even subterranean features will become publicly available. We’ll be able to use maps compiled at different times to see how things have changed.
An outgrowth of WWII was the “systems approach” way of thinking, which has spawned many new technologies. The systems approach looks at a problem as an integrated whole, where all the different components interact with each other. It is at odds with more simplistic, specialized Second Wave thinking.

Chapter 22 – The crack-up of the nation
Nation-states are losing authority (and in some cases, territory) thanks to ethnonationalism of minorities and to transnational organizations.
Throughout the world, wherever there are ethnic minority enclaves where the residents feel “cheated” or “disrespected” by the majority ethnicity, there is also usually a separatist movement. Such movements exist in the following places:
-Corsica
-Brittany
-Scotland
-Wales
-Belgium
-Southern Germany
-Quebec
The Soviet Union also has secessionist movements in Armenia and Georgia.
‘It is impossible to gauge the full intensity of separatist sentiment in various parts of the U.S.S.R. But the nightmare of multiple secession movements must haunt the authorities. If war were to break out with China, or a series of uprisings suddenly exploded in Eastern Europe, Moscow might well face open secessionist or autonomist revolts in many of its republics.’
The U.S. also has weak secessionist movements in California, Texas, and a few other states.
The nation-state is under internal stress because the Third Wave is de-massifying society, populations are becoming more diverse and demand different things, minorities are asserting their rights at last, and governments aren’t adapting their governance models to adapt to the change in demand.
Businesses are much more nimble, and constantly monitor changes in customer preferences and alter their products or create new ones to suit changing tastes.
The nation-state is also under external stress since many problems are now continental or global in scope, making it impossible for any one country to fix them. One example is currency trading, which can wreck a country’s economy if enough money is moved overseas. Another is pollution, which can easily drift over borders.
‘The new global communications system further opens each nation to penetration from the outside. Canadians have long resented the fact that some 70 U.S. television stations along the border telecast programs to Canadian audiences. But this Second Wave form of cultural penetration is minor compared with that made possible by Third Wave communications based on satellites, computers, teleprinters, interactive cable systems, and dirt cheap ground stations.’
Billion-dollar transnational corporations are rich than many countries and challenge their authority. Their supply chains and operations span more than one country.
Transnational cultural and religious movements are also growing. [They’ve always been around, though.]
‘We can expect the next decades to be torn by struggle over the creation of new global institutions capable of fairly representing the prenational [colonized groups and minority ethnic groups] as well as the postnational [people in rich countries who are members of or want to expand the power of transnational organizations] peoples of the world.’
The world will never be run by transnational corporations that have supplanted all governments. The world is too messy and diverse a place for one organization to rule over, and Third Wave corporations will be less heavyhanded, anyhow.
‘This simplistic image is based on straight-line extrapolations from Second Wave trends: specialization, maximization, and centralization.’
For the same reason, a single world government will not arise.
Instead, world governance will be performed by a complex matrix of national governments, supernational governments, international treaties, transnational corporations, and international nonprofit groups.
This complexity will impel the U.N. to consider whether it should admit representatives of ethnic groups, regions, religions, and corporations alongside nation-states. [Hasn’t happened yet.]

Chapter 23 – Gandhi with satellites
The political and economic turmoils of the late 1970s were growing pains of the transition to the Third Wave.
Second wave international organizations that preserved the wealth and power the rich countries at the expense of poor ones–such as the IMF, GATT, World Bank, and COMECON–will weaken thanks to the Third Wave.
The Second Wave solution to global poverty is to encourage poor countries to copy what rich countries did in the past and to industrialize. Aside from the Asian Tigers and a few other countries, this model has failed.
Iran is one example of failure. Opening their market to investment and focusing on building infrastructure enriched Western companies who took advantage of cheap labor and lived like kings in Iran. The country also had a corrupt, hierarchical culture, meaning the new wealth was mostly captured by families that were already rich and powerful. Little was done to improve the lives of average Iranians. Extreme, visible wealth inequality enraged the masses of people and fueled the 1979 Revolution.
Oil and Islam were minor but real contributors to the revolution. [The author might be underestimating this.]
In the 1960s and 70s, the rich countries of the West fell into near-chaos, deep self-doubt, and pessimism, as they were rocked by strikes, blackouts, crime waves, civil disobedience, energy shocks, and a new awareness of environmental degradation.
-The sudden riches of the Arab states cast into doubt the Western notion that national wealth always had to be preceded by a period of hard work and slow build-up. [This was a very special case that doesn’t really challenge the old model.]
-Established industrial countries like the U.S. and France also began to worry about upstarts like Japan, Taiwan and China competing with them through trade.
Instead of copying the Second Wave model, some Western foreign aid agencies started encouraging people in poor countries to focus on small farm agriculture. This means the spread of technologies meant to facilitate First Wave labor, like pedal-powered rice thresher.
The Indian government used economic planning to encourage small farmers to stay on their land and use First Wave techniques to slow down migration into the cities.
Even if the aims of these projects are noble and are sometimes defensible as responses to past mistakes, they are still inappropriate.
Samir Amin: ‘[Labor-intensive techniques are now in vogue] thanks to a medley of hippie ideology, return to the myth of the golden age and the noble savage, and criticism of the reality of the capitalist world.’
At the Paris Exposition of 1855, a competition was held between human threshers and four threshing machines. The best machine was 123 times faster than a human. Even that long ago, primitive machines were vastly better than humans. It’s unfair and obtuse for rich countries to impel poor countries to totally eschew better technology and to focus on the First Wave paradigm.
Maoist China made the biggest attempt to push the First Wave paradigm to its limits, and the result was mass famine and eventual stagnation.
Most First Wave countries can’t be rushed into the Second Wave paradigm since it would mean, among other things, dispensing with conservative values, ethnic/tribal self-identities, and old customs. [This is definitely why Communism inspired a widespread rebellion in Afghanistan.]
However, since First Wave economies and lifestyles are more similar to those of the Third Wave, it may be possible and better for poor countries to skip the Second Wave altogether. Similarities include:
-Population decentralization
-“Appropriate scale”
-Renewable energy
-Working from home
-Prosumption
More appropriate technologies for First Wave development could include:
-Bio-gas power plants that burn human and animal waste to make energy. They would be scaled to serve one village or small town apiece.
-Solar-powered desalination plants.
-Sugar cane grown for use in a biorefinery to make ethanol fuel for local people. [By far, the greatest development success story since this book was written was in China, which actually did copy the Western development model by transitioning to the Second Wave and then the Third.]
Other predicted developments:
-Controlled-release fertilizers [fertilizer particles have impermeable coatings that slowly dissolve over many days or weeks] will cut nitrogen use in farm fertilizer and will be affordable by 1996. [Unsure what the state of things was in 1996, but the prediction seems to be true as of 2018.]
-Nitrogen-fixing grains will also be available by 1996. [This prediction failed. As of 2018, geneticists are still trying to make cheap GM crops that can fix nitrogen.]
-Newer strains of seeds will give 25-50% higher yields, and drip irrigation systems will be in widespread use. [Both true as of 2018.]
-First Wave countries would do better to building microelectronics factories instead of large metal foundries, since demand for the former will be stronger in the future than for the latter. [This turned out half-true. Starting in the late 1990s, there was a sharp increase in demand for metals like steel and aluminum as China industrialized, and it didn’t ease up for 15 years. Of course, production of microchips also soared over the same period.]
-Microelectronics enable the decentralization of production and human population. City population growth will slow and less strain will be put on transit networks. [As of 2018, this hasn’t happened yet. Across the world, cities are growing and getting more expensive, and commute times are lengthening. Teleworking has grown slower than Toffler predicted.]
-“It now appears [that China] can integrate new manufacturing techniques into their [agrarian, First Wave] society without moving entire populations.” –Ward Morehouse [This was completely wrong. The population transfer from China’s countryside to its cities from 1980-present has been one of the greatest migrations in human history, and China’s undemocratic government did a good job managing it.]
-It might be a better use of money in the future for countries to invest more into telecommunications networks and less in transportation networks.
Toffler imagines a scenario where these technologies allow First Wave villages to stay intact and self-sufficient. None of their people would migrate into the cities, and they could prosper by teleworking and building advanced, small-scale or medium-scale facilities nearby to support higher-yield farming, clean energy production, and manufacturing.
A shorthand descriptor for this scenario is “Gandhi with satellites” since it fuses traditional, village-based lifestyles with suitable high technologies.
Unemployment rates in poor countries are very high, and it might be impossible to ever get them as low as they are in rich countries. Letting poor countries adopt economies where people work part-time and spend most of their time at prosumption might be the strategy best-suited for them. [This might be the weakest chapter of the book.]
The Second Wave classroom-based mass education model is probably obsolete.
Third Wave civilization isn’t yet fully formed, so we don’t know exactly what it will look like.

Chapter 24 – Coda: The great confluence
Third Wave civilization will be radically different from its predecessor.
The transition to the Third Wave will be scary, turbulent and at times violent. However, Third Wave life could be more decent and peaceful than today.
Nuclear power will prove to be a costly mistake.
Summary of Third Wave life:
-Greater diversity of energy sources that are more efficient than today’s sources and mostly clean
-There will be greater resource abundance thanks to the discovery of substitutes for exhaustible resources.
-The handful of dominant media outlets will fall and be replaced by multitudes of smaller outlets that cater to more narrow interests.
-“Looking far ahead, television will give way to ‘indi-video’–narrow-casting carried to the ultimate: images addressed to a single individual at a time. We may also eventually use drugs, direct brain-to-brain communication, and other forms of electrochemical communication only vaguely hinted at now.”
-“The giant centralized computer…will be supplemented by myriad chips of intelligence, embedded in one form or another in every home, hospital, and hotel, every vehicle and appliance, virtually every building-brick. The electronic environment will literally converse with us.”
-Factory jobs will become easier and more humane.
-Factories will relocate outside of cities. [This happened, resulting in the “Rust Belt”]
-In office workplaces, the use of paper will decrease, but not disappear, [True] and rote tasks like data entry and secretarial work will diminish.
-Schools will need to change their curricula and teaching styles to give students the skills and knowledge to function in the brainier, more nimble Third Wave workplace. Higher education will grow more important.
-Teleworking will become common.
[Skipped over a few pages of summary of the book.]
Third Wave civilization won’t be perfect, but it will be better than its First- or Second Wave predecessors. It could be called a “practopia”–a practical world that is better than the present, but falls short of utopia or dystopia.
There is no single cause for the rise of the Third Wave.
Third Wave societies will look different in different countries.
Conflict between classes, races, genders, religions, and regions won’t disappear during or after the transition to the Third Wave.
Society will become more diverse (de-massification), and the pace of historical change will accelerate.
Overwhelmed people will suffer “future shock.”

Chapter 25 – The new psycho-sphere
Symptoms of the Second Wave’s nearing end:
-Social problems such as mental illness, antisocial behavior, and substance abuse are growing across the modern world.
-Violence and perceptions of how bad it is are worsening in the Western world. People are more afraid and paranoid.
-Cults and self-help gurus are becoming more popular.
There is a growing problem of loneliness and social isolation thanks to the decline of traditional communities.
A strong, but temporary sense of community arises during disasters and social uprisings.
Rising social diversity makes it harder for people to get along and worsens social isolation. The more that people are empowered to cultivate themselves as individuals, the fewer people there are with whom they share much in common. Disagreement gets more common, leading to fewer real friends, lower-quality relationships, and fewer marriages. [Humans probably aren’t meant to live like this. Consider how we lived in tribes for the first 95% of our species’ existence. There was no diversity, and the tribes were made up of large, extended families.]
Ways to decrease social isolation:
-Offer financial incentives for adult children to take care of their elderly parents directly instead of putting them in nursing homes. [Not as good of a solution as it sounds. What if the parent and child have a poor relationship, or the parent constantly judges and second-guesses everyone else in the household?]
-Culturally normalize homeschooling and give parents a greater say in what is taught at their local schools. [At least the first reform has been accomplished.]
-Schools and companies should encourage more teamwork. For example, part of a student’s grade should be based on the class’ overall performance or on the performance of a long-term, intra-class team the student is assigned to.
-There should be programs that make it easy for retired people to be part-time mentors to the young. They would teach whichever life skill they had.
-Create better matchmaking services for single people, such as video dating.
Telecommuting and the internet [even though the author doesn’t use that term, but is clearly envisioning it] could benefit the social fabric:
-If people telecommute, they’ll have more time to spend with their families, especially if both parents telecommute.
-Telecommuting will allow people to spend more time in their communities, allowing them to bond with their neighbors and to patronize local businesses.
-The internet will allow people who are shy in face-to-face situations to voice their opinions and ideas. It will also allow people with rarefied interests to find one another and form communities.
Humans need structure in their lives to be happy. Having predictable responsibilities to other people and time commitments gives people a sense of purpose and satisfaction. People become distressed when they have nothing at all to do.
One appeal of heroin addiction is that it provides aimless people a structure to their lives. Each day is spent trying to secure money, evade the police, and do drugs. They also join a unique clique of people (other heroin users).
Cults are popular because they satisfy these needs among lonely or troubled people.
-Community: Cult members lure new recruits by being (initially) very friendly and engaging to them. This is very effective on lonely people.
-Structure: Cults have rules and often mandatory duties that members must abide by.
-Meaning: Cults always have some religious or social element at their cores, which give members a sense of higher purpose.
Cults are bad, but people shouldn’t be ashamed or afraid to reach out for help if their lives seem chaotic and meaningless.
-There should be professional life coaches and life organizers who help clients get their personal, financial, and professional lives in order and to tackle long-overdue tasks.
-Schools should teach more practical life skills to young people.
-The government could license and monitor “semi-cults” that provide the structure and orthodoxy of many existing cults, but where abuse and brainwashing are prohibited, and recruits are allowed to quit without consequence.
-A revived version of the Civilian Conservation Corps could be created for young people. They would live in Army-like barracks environments and would receive sub-minimum wage salaries, but would also be paid money only for college or technical training. The Corps would have a wide variety of duties, including cleaning up trash, providing paramedic services, or helping the elderly.

Chapter 26 – The personality of the future
What form will the “new man” of the Third Wave take?
In many past eras where the world seemed on the brink of change, people famously predicted the rise of some type of “new man” to fit the new era:
-The “American Adam”
-Hitler’s “Aryan superman”
-Trotsky’s future socialist man
There won’t be a “Third Wave man” per se, but certain personality traits and ways of thinking will be encouraged and hence will become more prevalent.
Children and childhood in the Third Wave
-Society will value children less in the future because of the shifted focus to the swelled ranks of the elderly, and because there will be more single mothers and they’ll have less time for parenting. [This proved mostly wrong. In the Western world, parents have actually grown more obsessive of their children since this book was written. Even as average work weeks lengthened are more mothers got jobs, the amount of time middle-class parents spent with their kids actually grew. Parents sacrificed personal time and sleep. Poor single mothers might be the exception. And while the money devoted to caring for the elderly has grown, the amount of time their children spend caring for them has not, and most old people are just sent to nursing homes.]
-Adolescence will shorten and many children will be put to work sooner, helping their telecommuting parents around the house. [This prediction is also wrong. Adolescence has gotten longer in “Third Wave” countries and it’s common for people to not have adult lifestyles until their late 20s. Telecommuting also hasn’t grown as rapidly as the author predicted.]
-However, for others, adolescence will not shorter and might grow longer thanks to unions of various stripes locking minors out of the workforce and keeping the duration of mandatory education the same so teachers won’t lose jobs.
The ideal Third Wave worker will be someone who is self-motivated, able to learn new things, but still obedient.
Workers will increasingly demand jobs that allow them more work-life balance (in particular, reasonable commutes) instead of just more money. [Doubtful that this came true. The average U.S. commute time is probably higher now than in 1980.]
A problem with jobs in the postmodern area is that they typically involve dealing with abstractions (numbers, symbols, etc.), leaving workers with a sense of disconnection from the fruits of their labors. This could explain the rising popularity of hands-on hobbies that fill that need, such as gardening and making crafts.
The personalities of the sexes will become more alike as more women enter the workforce and have to adopt male “objective” thinking, and as more men telework and have to adopt female “subjective” thinking. [The prediction is kind of vague, but the sexes did get more similar for various reasons.]
The de-massification of the media and the rise of two-way multimedia communication will make people more aware of their individuality, and they will demand recognition for it. [Social media definitely made people more narcissistic.]
Media might get so interactive in the future that people will be able to talk to characters in their favorite TV shows and influence their actions in some way. [Yes, probably.]

Chapter 27 – The political mausoleum
Second Wave government structures can’t govern Third Wave people.
Today, the U.S. government seems badly paralyzed by indecision and partisan logjams. Laws are passed and then repealed in a fickle manner, which mainly hurts corporations.
Companies pay fortunes in compliance and reporting costs to the government (mainly the IRS).
Governments across the Western world seem impotent and gridlocked. Even insiders speak of a sense of powerlessness. [Sounds like 2018.]
Average people are also losing faith in their own governments’ ability to get useful things done, and done on time. [Sounds like 2018.]
Third parties have sharply risen in popularity as citizens lose faith in their older, stale parties. [Sounds like 2018.]
Across the world, people have lost respect for their governments and feel there is a power vacuum. [Sounds like 2018.]
In Britain and Italy, far-right political groups with thuggish tendencies have been recently created. [Sounds like 2018.]
The political instability will continue in the 1980s and 90s. [The Eastern Bloc certainly destabilized in the 1980s, and Russia remained unstable in the 1990s, but the West prospered during those two decades.]
If a major petrostate like Saudi Arabia were to collapse, or a new Middle East war were to erupt, there’s little reason to assume from recent experience that the world’s key leaders would respond appropriately.
In the U.S., an authoritarian cult figure could gain political power.
“This craving for a masterful, macho leader is voiced today by even the most well-meaning of people as their familiar world crumbles, as their environment grows more unpredictable and their hunger for order, structure, and predictability increases.”
Racist political groups and terrorist groups have arisen in America and Western Europe, along with their equally odious counterparts on the far left. [Sounds like 2018.]
Much of authoritarianism’s appeal derives from the mistaken notion that it is an efficient form of government. In fact, it is less efficient than democracy. Nazi Germany didn’t allocate its wartime resources as well as Britain, and the USSR is laden with waste, inefficiency and torpor.
The current crisis of governance isn’t thanks to poor-quality leaders, it is thanks to the outdated government structures they labor within.
Most governments remain structured around the needs of the early nation-state era, when countries had large amounts of control over their own territories, and they didn’t have to deal with so many problems that spanned borders, such as pollution or currency trading.
Within governments, expertise is also stovepiped into different, specialized agencies that don’t share information with each other and even unwittingly negate each others’ efforts.
The pace of world events, trend shifts, and of change more generally speaking have quickened so much that governments designed during the Second Wave can’t keep up. They are obsolete.
Political parties and advocacy groups have also “de-massified,” meaning they are smaller but greater in number and more specific in purpose. They also tend to exist for shorter periods than their Second Wave predecessors did.
‘[In many countries there is a] revolutionary challenge posed by the Third Wave to obsolete Second Wave institutions–too slow to keep up with the pace of change and too undifferentiated to cope with the new levels of social and political diversity.’
‘In a mass industrial society, when people and their needs were fairly uniform, consensus was an attainable goal.’
Government officials at all levels routinely endure ‘information overload’ because they are faced with so many different issues requiring fast decisions. Mistakes and suboptimal choices are the inevitable, routine results.
In the future, malevolent leaders will tempt people to surrender their freedoms in exchange for stronger government.

Chapter 28 – Twenty-first century democracy
Though the author greatly admires the U.S. Constitution, he believes it has become obsolete, and the U.S. should adopt a new constitution and form of government suited to the needs of the Third Wave.
Transitions to Third Wave political systems could involve bloodshed, but the costs of not changing will be even higher.
Consensus is to hard to get and interest groups are so ephemeral that the core principle of Western governance, that the majority should rule, should be abandoned. The will of the minorities is more important.
‘We need new approaches designed for a democracy of minorities–methods whose purpose is to reveal differences rather than to paper them over with forced or faked majorities based on exclusionary voting, sophistic framing of the issues, or rigged electoral procedures. We need…to strengthen the role of diverse minorities yet permit them to form majorities.’
Voting in favor of something doesn’t convey the strength of a person’s support for whatever it is, or what they would be willing to accept in exchange for a “no” vote. [The 2016 U.S. election was a perfect example of this: the two presidential candidates were deeply unpopular, and large fractions of the votes both received were cast by reluctant people, many of whom simply wanted the other candidate to lose.]
Ideas for an effective Third Wave political system:
-Opinion polls should be more complex, and should solicit answers that indicate the respondent’s strength of support or opposition to something, as well as what tradeoffs he is willing to make to switch sides.
-Adopt cumulative voting to protect the will of minorities.
-Switch to ephemeral, issue-specific political parties.
-Appoint “diplomats” or “ambassadors” to negotiate (and break) alliances between different minority groups. There might be a central venue for them to meet.
-Empower minorities to govern themselves more by giving them legal authority to run their own youth courts.
Sortition should be used instead of elections to assign people to some positions of power. The process would ensure that minorities were represented in proportion to their shares of the population.
Sortition is used to select jurors and to pick citizens for military service during drafts. It is not an alien process.
Another option is to keep the existing elected legislatures, but to add a body of randomly selected citizens that would have equal voting power (50/50) to the legislature on each issue. The randomly selected people wouldn’t have to gather in one place like the legislature and instead could vote electronically from their homes. This would undermine the power of professional lobbyists.
Whatever option is chosen, the goal should be to “de-massify” the political system by distributing political power more evenly.
Another needed Third Wave political reform is the institution of “semi-direct democracy”
-Since elected representatives have become ineffective at brokering deals on the behalf of their constituents (largely due to information overload), the constituents should start doing it for themselves.
-The biggest downside to popular referendums is that average people can vote based on temporary emotions and passions, and later regret their choices. For instance, Americans might have voted to drop a nuclear bomb on Hanoi during the most frustrating times of the Vietnam War.
-Possible antidotes to that risk include “cooling off periods” before referendums can be held, mandatory second referendums on important issues, and only allowing citizens who have sat through educational training on an issue to vote in a referendum about it.
-Any technological barriers to voting in a direct democracy will fall in the future.
-Voter petitions could be used to force Congress to create committees on issues average people think are important.
Decision making power must also be shifted from the national level to the local and international levels. International issues can’t be handled properly without international organizations and treaties.
More economic decisions, in particular, should be made at the sub-national level.
“Decision load”
-Understanding the concept of “decision load” is crucial to understanding the history and future of democracy.
-Decision load refers to the frequency and complexity of decisions that a government must make to effectively serve its people.
-During the First Wave, the decision load was low since progress was slow and little about the world changed. A tiny clique of elites could effectively run a tribe or ancient nation.
-Democracy arose during the Second Wave because societies got so complex that the decision load outstripped the abilities of the old governing cliques. Decision-making power had to be spread out among a larger number of people by necessity.
-Democratization was a gradual process in which political rights (including the right to vote) and political jobs were slowly expanded to bigger and bigger shares of the population as the decision load slowly grew. [This suggests that a powerful AGI with a near-perfect understanding of real-time and future human needs could effectively govern a country.]
-Thus, democracy is not a matter of choice, but a matter of necessity. A society will stagnate if its government’s ability to make decisions is outstripped by the quantity and complexity of decisions it has to make.
-We may be on the edge of another wave of democratic expansion.
The “super-struggle” underpinning so many problems in the world is principally between people who want to preserve the political systems created during the Second Wave, and people who want to replace them with Third Wave political systems that will decentralize power more and hence result in expanded democracy.
Traditional political parties dating to the 20th century or earlier, such as the U.S. Republicans and Democrats, are not actually that different from each other, and they are united in their overarching mission to preserve obsolete Second Wave government institutions.
Forces of the Second Wave
-Against increased minority rights, direct democracy, decentralization of power, regionalism, and diversity.
-Oppose the de-massification of schools.
-Support obsolete energy policies [Is it considered backwards to oppose nuclear energy thanks to overblown, unscientific fears about safety?] and downplay ecological problems.
-Deify the nuclear family.
-Preach nationalism while denouncing any moves to make the international order fairer.
Forces of the Third Wave
-Want more direct democracy, stronger minority rights, and are willing to experiment with new forms of government.
-Favor weakening existing bureaucracies and less standardization of public schools.
-Support decentralized, clean energy production.
-Are tolerant of non-nuclear family arrangements.
-Want the world economy to be more fair and just.
There are still more Second Wave supporters, and they are likelier to be in positions of power.
Third Wave supporters are more diverse and come from the left and right wings of the Second Wave spectrum. They are unconscious of the shared strains in their thinking, other than being aware that the current system is hopelessly broken and needs replacement.
Political systems are the most desperately in need of change, but the prospect of doing so is deeply frightening to most people. The longer the world lumbers on with Second Wave governments, the greater the risk of violence will get.
However, there are reasons for optimism that leaders and activists will enact the necessary reforms before it is too late:
-The number of educated people is greater now than ever in human history.
-People travel more and have access to more information than ever before.
-More people than ever have the personal spare time to participate in politics.
Again, a Third Wave government should be based on three basic principles:
-Minority power
-Semi-direct democracy
-Decision division (decentralization of power and empowerment of average people)
A long-term campaign of public debates and discourses should be started to alert the general public to the need for political change, to solicit and analyze their reform ideas, and to build some kind of coalition.
Career politicians won’t enact Third Wave reforms unless a critical mass of their constituents forces them to. The involvement of average people is critical.