The Future won't look like the present
- From: "whitesickle@xxxxxxx" <whitesickle@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 20:27:56 -0500 (EST)
The Future Won't Look Like the Present
Stephen Hawking is the celebrated Cambridge physicist and author of A
Brief History of Time. The following is an excerpt from Hawking's
reflections prepared for the White House Millennium Council in 1998 and
published in NPQ that year.
Cambridge--Nearly all the visions of the future that we have been shown
from H.G. Wells onward have been essentially static. They show a
society that is in most cases far in advance of ours, in science, in
technology and in political organization. (The last might not be
difficult.) There must have been great changes with their accompanying
tensions and upsets in the period between now and then. But by the time
we are shown the future, science, technology and the organization of
society are supposed to have achieved a level of near perfection.
I want to question this picture and ask if we will ever reach a final
steady state of science and technology. At no time in the 10,000 years
or so since the last Ice Age has the human race been in a state of
constant knowledge and fixed technology. Nowhere is this clearer than
with genetics.
By far the most complex systems that we have are our own bodies. Life
seems to have originated in the primordial oceans that covered the
Earth four billion years ago. How this happened we don't know. It may
be that random collisions between atoms built up macro-molecules that
could reproduce themselves and assemble themselves into more
complicated structures. What we do know is that by three and a half
billion years ago the highly complicated molecule DNA had emerged. DNA
is the basis for all life on Earth. It has a double helix structure,
like a spiral staircase, which was discovered by Francis Crick and
James Watson in the Cavendish lab at Cambridge in 1953. The two strands
of the double helix are linked by pairs of nucleic acids like the
treads in a spiral staircase. There are four kinds of nucleic acids.
The order in which these different nucleic acids occur along the spiral
staircase carries the genetic information that enables the DNA molecule
to assemble an organism around it and reproduce itself. As the DNA made
copies of itself there would have been occasional errors in the order
of the nucleic acids along the spiral. In most cases the mistakes in
copying would have made the DNA unable to reproduce itself. Such
genetic errors, or mutations as they are called, would die out. But in
a few cases the error or mutation would increase the chances of the DNA
surviving and reproducing. This natural selection of mutations was
first proposed by another Cambridge man, Charles Darwin, in 1857,
though he didn't know the mechanism for it. Thus the information
content in the sequence of nucleic acids would gradually evolve and
increase in complexity.
Because biological evolution is basically a random walk in the space of
all genetic possibilities it has been very slow. The complexity, or
number of bits of information that are coded in DNA, is given roughly
by the number of nucleic acids in the molecule. Each bit of information
can be thought of as the answer to a yes-no question. For the first two
billion years or so the rate of increase in complexity must have been
of the order of one bit of information every hundred years. The rate of
increase of DNA complexity gradually rose to about one bit a year over
the last few million years. But now we are at the beginning of a new
era in which we will be able to increase the complexity of our DNA
without having to wait for the slow process of biological evolution.
There has been no significant change in human DNA in the last 10,000
years. But it is likely that we will be able to completely redesign it
in the next thousand. Of course many people will say that genetic
engineering on humans should be banned. But I rather doubt if they will
be able to prevent it. Genetic engineering on plants and animals will
be allowed for economic reasons, and someone is bound to try it on
humans. Unless we have a totalitarian world order, someone will design
improved humans somewhere.
Clearly, developing improved humans will create great social and
political problems with respect to unimproved humans. I'm not
advocating human genetic engineering as a good thing. I'm just saying
that it is likely to happen in the next millennium, whether we want it
or not. This is why I don't believe science fiction like Star Trek
where people are essentially the same 400 years in the future. I think
the human race, and its DNA, will increase its complexity quite
rapidly.
In a way the human race needs to improve its mental and physical
qualities if it is to deal with the increasingly complex world around
it and meet new challenges like space travel. And it also needs to
increase its complexity if biological systems are to keep ahead of
electronic ones. At the moment computers have an advantage of speed,
but they show no sign of intelligence. This is not surprising because
our present computers are less complex than the brain of an earthworm,
a species not noted for intellectual powers.
But computers obey Moore's Law put forward by Gordon Moore of Intel.
This says that their speed and complexity double every 18 months.
Clearly this cannot continue indefinitely. However, it will probably
continue until computers have a similar complexity to the human brain.
Some people say that computers can never show true intelligence,
whatever that may be. But it seems to me that if very complicated
chemical molecules can operate in humans to make them intelligent, then
equally complicated electronic circuits can also make computers act in
an intelligent way. And if they are intelligent they can presumably
design computers that have even greater complexity and intelligence.
This is why I don't believe the science-fiction picture of an advanced
but constant future. Instead, I expect complexity to increase at a
rapid rate, both in the biological and electronic spheres. Not much of
this will happen in the next hundred years, which is all we can
reliably predict. But by the end of the next millennium, if we get
there, the change will be fundamental.
.
- Prev by Date: Popular conceptions of science
- Next by Date: Lamarck, Darwin, and cultural evolution
- Previous by thread: Popular conceptions of science
- Next by thread: Lamarck, Darwin, and cultural evolution
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
