(Part 3 of 4)

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.

(Part 2 of 4)

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)

Public education is bad. This problem has been around for years, and people have complained about it for years, but nobody ever seems to do anything about it. (Sounds kind of like the post office, doesn’t it?) I’d like to mention here a proposal which is not original, but bears repeating. Let’s implement the world’s simplest voucher program: calculate the per capita expenditure in each public school, and instead of giving that money to the school, give an educational voucher in exactly the same amount to the parents of the students.

The most common argument against vouchers is that they “drain resources from the public school system”. Obviously, the WSVP is immune to this argument, since any “drain” is a direct result of parents making choices on behalf of their children. If parents are satisfied with the public education system as it currently stands, nothing would change, since they would simply send their children to the school they currently attend. Given the widespread dissatisfaction with public schools, it is more likely that many parents would choose to send their kids to alternative schools—in which case you might as well argue that Toyota drivers drain resources from Ford.

The WSVP is also immune to populist arguments that the public school system is necessary to provide opportunity to poor people through a redistribution of wealth. By construction, the world’s simplest voucher program is exactly as redistributive as the current public school system.

Why has no school district implemented the WSVP? I think it is a combination of an almost religious devotion to public education combined with incredibly effective teachers unions.

First, for some reason to be counted as a “supporter of public education” is an unmitigated virtue in America—but this conflates education with public education. It’s as if the government ran the grocery stores, and anyone opposed to public grocery stores were branded as being against food.

Second, the teachers unions exert enormous control over the political process, especially through their influence on the Democratic Party. The world’s simplest voucher program would expose teachers to competition from which they have been insulated for decades. The best teachers have nothing to fear, of course, but most teachers are not particularly good. And so they have consistently and successfully blocked any serious attempt to break their monopoly on education.

The time for the WSVP has come. Won’t you join me in supporting it?

(Part 1 of 4)

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.

Sorry for the long hiatus. I was gone for five days for my 10-year college reunion. It was great, but I’ve got a backlog of work for a while.

I’ve got ideas for a lot of new posts, but first I’m going to recycle some of the futurist writing from my personal site. After that, I’ve got a series on politics/economics that is really going to kick things into high gear.