Cryonics
- Cryonicists aren’t crazy—they’re just really great, sexy optimists!
- Gregory Benford, Alcor Conference (2002)
Since physical law allows the possibility of nanotechnology and artificial intelligence, we should take their potential development seriously. One result of their successful realization would be the ability to reverse the damage done to human tissues (including the brain) preserved at very low temperatures—a practice known as cryonics. This means that if nanotechnology and artificial intelligence are developed, cryonics will probably work. Nanotechnology pioneer Eric Drexler realized this early on, and argued forcibly for the likely success of cryonics in Chapter 9 of Engines of Creation. (Whether or not those who espouse this view are sexy, as Greg Benford maintains, we leave to the reader to decide.)
Though cryonics is commonly (and understandably, though lamentably) perceived as a fringe practice, the revival of a cryonics patient would (to apply my favorite litmus test) violate no known physical law—and it seems only a matter of time before the requisite technology is developed. Of course, to proceed scientifically we must conduct an experiment, and it has already started: at least two groups in the United States—the Alcor Life Extension Foundation and the Cryonics Institute—offer cryopreservation services to their members, paid for by a relatively modest annual membership fee and a larger cryopreservation fee (payable upon legal death and typically funded with life insurance). Among others, many scientists and technical types think that cryonics has a legitimate chance of success.
Top Ten Favorite Cryonicists
- UC Irvine physics professor and award-winning science fiction author
- Nanotechnology theorist, Georgia Tech professor, and co-inventor of public-key cryptography
- Renowned inventor, author, and winner of the National Medal of Technology
- Nanotechnology pioneer and cofounder of Foresight Institute
- Biogerontologist and founder of the Methuselah Mouse project
- Founder of the MIT AI and Media Labs, Toshiba Professor of EE and CS at MIT
- Extropian artist and former President of Extropy Institute
- Noted philosopher and founder of Extropy Institute
- Molecular biologist and Chairman of Advanced Cell Technology
- Fuzzy logic pioneer and professor of electrical engineering at the University of Southern California
Like most of the people on the above list, I am a member of Alcor, the older and larger of the two main cryonics organizations.
Opposition to cryonics is widespread, of course: almost everyone thinks that it obviously won’t work (i.e., it’s impossible or unfeasible) or that it shouldn’t work (i.e., it’s wrong). Unfortunately, everyone seems to have his own obvious reason! Ralph Merkle’s paper The Molecular Repair of the Brain describes in detail the scientific case for cryonics; Alcor’s FAQ addresses both scientific and ethical issues. My view, in a nutshell:
- Cryonics is possible because it is consistent with physical law.
- Cryonics is feasible because historical and technological trends point toward the development of the necessary technology some time this century.
- Cryonics is ethical because it involves individuals spending their own money in an attempt to save their own lives.
If you believe that you have a valid objection to cryonics, apply this test: could your argument be used against organ transplants in 1940? If not, it is probably new to me, and I’d like to hear your argument. (After all, I reserve the right to be wrong about anything, including cryonics.)
Artificial intelligence
Just as the laws of physics allow the manipulation of matter on the finest scales, so too do they allow the possibility of machines that think. After all, (some) human beings think, and we are made of atoms just like everything else. The only relevant questions center on making a thinking machine—how hard will it be; how long will it take?
There are many scientists and philosophers who argue, for one reason or another, that artificial intelligence (AI) is impossible. What they usually mean is that it must be very hard, and they can’t imagine how to do it—that is, they imply that a problem of practice is a problem of principle. As in the case of nanotechnology, all of these arguments must ultimately fail:
Since brains follow the laws of physics, artificial intelligence is possible in principle.
(Of course, many people reject the premise of this argument: they believe that human beings transcend physical law in some way, perhaps through an immaterial “soul” or “spirit”. Such people may be right, but it is more likely that what we identify as “spirit” is information, which is still fundamentally physical in nature. In any case, there is currently no credible evidence that human beings violate known physical law.)
Artificial intelligence will have even farther-reaching consequences than nanotechnology (among other things, a sufficiently advanced AI would immediately invent nanotechnology if necessary), but the implications are harder to see—we’re simply too stupid to think of all the implications! Nevertheless, there has been much inspired speculation over the years; my favorite is Ray Kurzweil’s book The Age of Spiritual Machines.
Nanotechnology
Nanotechnology—also called molecular manufacturing—is the precise manipulation of matter at the atomic and molecular level. Mature nanotechnology will bestow almost magical powers on its possessor:
- The pollution-free production of any material structure consistent with physical law, at virtually zero cost
- Palm-size computers vastly superior to current supercomputers
- Nanomedicine capable of curing all known diseases and ailments, including aging, leading to indefinite lifespans in a state of permanent health
- Many things we haven’t thought of yet
Because of nanotechnology’s far-reaching implications, many people have difficulty accepting its feasibility. Before dismissing nanotechnology as mere fantasy or science fiction, it is important to note that most of our contemporary technology already approaches magical levels by historical standards: manufactured goods are incredibly plentiful and cheap compared to those in (say) antiquity; today’s palm-size computers have already surpassed early room-size computers; modern medicine has already achieved miraculous results in the curing of disease and the extension of healthy human lifespan. In many ways, nanotechnology represents the next logical step.
The web is an incredibly rich source of information on nanotechnology, including the classic visionary book on the subject. Some good places to start:
- There’s Plenty of Room at the Bottom: a famous talk by physicist Richard Feynman on the small-scale manipulation of matter, given at Caltech during the 1959 meeting of the American Physical Society
- Engines of Creation: Eric Drexler’s articulate and accessible introduction to nanotechnology (alluded to above), built on the foundation of Feynman’s vision
- Ralph Merkle’s nanotechnology page: a brief introduction to nanotechnology with lots of links to further information
- Foresight Nanotech Institute: an organization dedicated to preparing society for anticipated advanced technologies (especially nanotechnology)
Crazy futurist stuff
Warning: may cause future shock
I’m interested in a variety of (possibly not-so-)crazy futurist stuff. Most of it falls under the category of “transhumanism”, a philosophy that emphasizes the value of human beings (as in classical humanism) together with the transformative power of technology (which may eventually allow humans to transcend their current biological and cognitive limitations). The World Transhumanist Association FAQ is an articulate and mind-bending introduction to transhumanism and related ideas, and it greatly repays careful study and contemplation. My favorite brand of transhumanism is extropianism, which emphasizes the spontaneous emergence of order and the importance of individual liberty.
The Two Big Things in this area (in my view) are nanotechnology and artificial intelligence. In both cases, there is an essential theme:
Many proposed advanced technologies (including nanotechnology and artificial intelligence) are consistent with physical law. Their successful realization is hence a problem of practice, not principle—and therefore probably a matter of when, not if.
Often, arguments against the “feasibility” of nanotechnology and artificial intelligence—that is, against the possibility of the short-term development of these technologies—imply that the technologies themselves are impossible. This is reminiscent of early arguments against heavier-than-air flight or rocketry: well-meaning scientists and engineers pointed out that, e.g., a heavier rocket would need more fuel, which would further weigh down the rocket, requiring still more fuel, etc., etc. These arguments were perfectly correct, since the technical barriers were indeed high, but they obscured the underlying issue: no physical principle prohibits the existence of airplanes or rockets. Eventually, advances in technology answered all their objections, and many ended up looking foolish.
Of course, simply because a technology is possible doesn’t mean that it will be developed on a reasonable timescale. Making timelines and projections is a tricky business, but there are many reasons to believe that the technology envisioned by transhumanists will arrive some time this century. A good web resource on this subject is Ray Kurzweil’s essay on the Law of Accelerating Returns; I also highly recommend Kurzweil’s books The Age of Spiritual Machines and The Singularity Is Near. I would be surprised if Kurzweil’s predictions are correct in their details, and he may be off by decades in some of his bolder claims, but he marshals convincing arguments in support of his central thesis: our naïve linear intuition leads to systematic underestimates of exponential technological change. As a result, many dramatic technological advances will happen much sooner than most people expect.
Oil Depletion and the Law of Diminishing Returns
Most people—including, lamentably, both most scientists and most politicians—don’t have a good understanding of economics, and as a result there is much confusion on the subject of oil depletion—sometimes called (in rather alarmist fashion) “peak oil”. My own thinking on the subject was sparked by David Goodstein, a physics professor at Caltech (where I got my physics Ph.D.). Goodstein is a principal exponent of the view that oil production will peak very soon (within one or two decades), and has expressed his view clearly in lectures and in his book, Out of Gas: The End of the Age of Oil. Goodstein is a clear thinker and an accomplished scientist, and he makes a compelling case; I am inclined to believe his claim that, at least when considering conventional sources and proven reserves, we are “running out of oil”. And yet, unlike him, I am not particularly worried. How can this be?
The answer begins with (a variation on) the law of diminishing returns, which says that people tend to exploit the best sources of a material first, so that over time the quality of these sources tends to decrease. (This formulation of diminishing returns is slightly different from the definition you might find in an economics textbook, but the two are closely related.) For example, copper miners first seek out the richest and most accessible ores, and switch to inferior ores only when the best sources have been exhausted. The law of diminishing returns might seem obvious, and it should. Unfortunately, commentators often fail to mention by far the most interesting aspect of this law: despite the law of diminishing returns, the price of material goods tends to decrease over time! Virtually all resources are cheaper now than they were in antiquity, for example. The reason for this is simple, yet profound: the productivity of human labor tends to increase fast enough to overcome diminishing returns. The result is that, despite diminishing returns, human beings are materially much better off now than our ancestors were, simply because we are so much more productive. It is worth reflecting on how remarkable this is, and how contrary it is to our naive intuition.
The second part of the answer lies with free markets and the price system. In a free market, as a material resource becomes depleted, its price rises (for a fixed quantity demanded). The increasing price provides an incentive to search out new sources of the material, to develop new technology to extract the resource in a new way, or to find a substitute for the resource. There is, of course, no guarantee that these new sources will be found, that the requisite technology will be developed, or that a suitable substitute will be found, but the historical evidence is unambiguous: humanity has never “run out” of any resource (or failed to find a suitable substitute) when free markets have been allowed to operate. Quite the opposite—since price is fundamentally a measure of scarcity, and prices (in inflation-adjusted dollars) of material goods have decreased over time, we are forced to conclude that we have more now of virtually everything.
Consider now the case of oil. When oil production peaks, its supply will begin to decrease; as a result, for a fixed (or growing) quantity demanded, the price will increase. As the price climbs ever higher, the incentive to exploit currently marginal oil sources (such as tar sands) will increase; sources unprofitable at $40/barrel might be highly profitable at $100/barrel. (As an aside, please understand and reject the nonsensical pseudo-thermodynamic arguments against tar sands and the like. For example, the so-called energy return on energy invested [EROEI], which supposedly makes tar sands unviable, is not fixed by physical law, but rather is a function of the technology used in extraction. Some sources of oil today, including many deep-sea deposits, had an EROEI less than one using the technology of twenty years ago, making their extraction uneconomical at the time. It is perfectly possible for a resource with an EROEI less than one now to have an EROEI greater than one in the future.) If, as has happened historically, improved technology more than compensates for the inferior quality of new oil sources, then the price of oil will eventually drop below the price that originally provided the incentive to develop the technology.
Of course, in a physical sense there must be a finite amount of oil, so if we continue to consume oil we must “run out” eventually. Luckily, oil is not the only source of energy; whether or not we run out of oil is irrelevant if we can find substitutes for its uses. Unfortunately, current “alternative” energy sources are not price-competitive with petroleum; fortunately, as scarcity forces the price of oil up they will become so. Moreover, the incentive to invest in, say, solar energy will be much higher if oil is trading at $100/barrel than it is at $40/barrel. As a result, if history is any guide, when oil is sufficiently expensive these incentives will lead to some major breakthrough in one or more alternative sources of energy, and ultimately the price of energy will actually decrease, as it has for centuries.
(I should note that petroleum has costs not reflected in its current price, most notably the cost of pollution and the taxes spent on military efforts to maintain stability in the oil-rich Middle East. It would probably be a step forward to include these costs in the price of oil somehow, such as a special tax on gasoline. Alternative sources still wouldn’t be price-competitive, but the cross-over point would certainly come sooner.)
Improvements in the productivity of labor, as the result of specialization and improving technology, have always allowed humanity to overcome the law of diminishing returns. It is possible that oil will be the exception; perhaps no one will figure out how to make tar sands a viable resource, or perhaps a “major breakthrough” in alternative energy won’t occur. Given the historical evidence, though, the onus is on those who think oil is different from other resources to prove their case. Moreover, for those who are optimistic enough to think that disaster might be averted somehow, the onus is on them to show that their preferred solution is better than the one provided by free markets and the price system.
When allowed to interact in free markets, human beings have shown a remarkable ability to overcome all manner of challenges, including the supposed depletion of natural resources. I am therefore sanguine about our prospects of thriving, even as we run out of oil.
Subscribe