Global futurist and author Jack Uldrich offers essential strategic information on nanotechnology, robotics, biotechnology, RFID and many other future technologies to help you prosper as exponential trends converge at this unique moment in history.
Please enter your name and email:
Recent Blog Posts
Articles Listed by Industry
Health CareManufacturing
Computer/Semiconductor
Telecommunications
Energy
Life Science/Pharmeceutical
Agriculture
Education
Robots
Internet/Information Tech
Finance
Nanotechnology
Retail/Marketing
Automobile/Aerospace
Defense
Aging Services
Other
Articles Listed by Chapter
Chapter 1: The Power of ZenzizenzizenzicChapter 2: Exponential Enablers
Chapter 3: Walk the Escalator
Chapter 4: The Power of Play
Chapter 5: The Spice of Life--Diversity
Chapter 6: Heads and Tails: It's Counterintuitive
Chapter 7: Get in Touch with Your Animal Instincts
Chapter 8: Back to the Future
Chapter 9: Learning to Unlearn
Chapter 10: Doing the Impossible
Other
Archives
July, 2008June, 2008
May, 2008
April, 2008
March, 2008
February, 2008
January, 2008
December, 2007
November, 2007
October, 2007
September, 2007
August, 2007
Industries: Other
Unlearning Death
In 1899, just a few years before the Wright brothers achieved their historic accomplishment, Lord Kelvin—then one of the world’s brightest men and most accomplished scientists—declared heavier than air machines to be “impossible.”
He was wrong. To add insult to injury, Lord Kelvin was proved wrong by a pair of bicycle repairmen from Dayton, Ohio.
A few years ago, a relatively unknown computer scientist, Aubrey de Grey, declared that aging should not be viewed as something which will necessarily ultimately result in death. Rather, he theorized that aging is a disease and should be treated as such.
The outcry from the scientific community was similar to Lord Kelvin’s reaction to human flight. One group of scientists even declared that de Grey’s idea was “so far from plausible that it commands no respect at all within the informed scientific community.”
Well, according to this article in Wired, the idea is now beginning to gain some acceptance within scientific circles.
To be sure, society is still a long way from de Grey’s goal of ending again but, as I have written before, I’d encourage people to not dismiss the idea entirely. For if he is right, it will require society to unlearn a great many ideas which it now holds as dear.
In fact, the scale of unlearning our current paradigm of “death as an inevitability” could make other past historic paradigm shifts—such as the idea that the earth is not at the center of the universe (an idea for which Aristarchus was run out of Alexandria and Galileo was forced to recant under edict of the Catholic Church) or Darwin’s theory of evolution—look like child’s play.
Enjoy this post? Bookmark at the following sites.
I Just Want to Bang on My Table All Day
Although Jump the Curve deals primarily with new and emerging technologies sometimes I just like to highlight ideas which represent certain aspects of the book. In this case, I’d invite you to check out this very short video of a man who is building tables which double as instruments. It is a great example of what I call the “power of play”—or thinking like a child.
Enjoy this post? Bookmark at the following sites.
Artificial Intelligence: It’s Getting Better All the Time
A couple of newsworthy piece have gotten me to thinking about the Beatles’ hit song, “It’s getting better all the time.” The two articles that triggered the connection to the songs’ lyrics are both related to rapidly emerging field of artificial intelligence and I think the saying “getting better all the time” is a phrase we all need to keep in mind as we move into the future.
The first article discusses how intelligent computers can now “see” human traits with an impressive success rate of 82%. In other words, a computer can, with a good degree of confidence, now tell if you are happy, sad, angry or confused. (By way of comparison, I can only wish I was half as accurate in assessing my wife’s many moods.)
At a minimum this suggests that artifical intelligence will become an even more integral component in a host of daily activities, including customer service, computer games and educational software, than it already is. Imagine, for instance, if an educational computer system could tell if a child was confused about a certain concept in biology and then reexplain it to him or her in a way that the child could understand. This compelling future is on the way because such computers are, in fact, “getting better all the time.”
The same is true with regard to computer models that can now predict what word you are thinking. This article discusses the work researchers at Carnegie Mellon are now doing in applying fMRI technology to scan the brains of users. Although the computer model currently only tests for 60 words and is just 75% accurate it, too, is “getting better all the time.”
Now consider what will be possible when artifical intelligence can create a computer that can not only read our facial expressions but also our minds. It almost blows your mind, doesn’t it?
No? Then perhaps this article, entitled ”Scheme to Let Robot Take Over Brain-Computer Interface” will. It discusses how researchers at CalTech have created a miniature robot which is using sophisticated algorithms to more effectively place brain-neural chips inside the brain.
As one researcher says, “the idea of actually putting this in the human brain is far off,” but both the underlying robotic technology and algorithmic software are “getting better all the time.” It is only a matter of time before computers can really get inside your head.
Enjoy this post? Bookmark at the following sites.
Get There Early: A Book Review
Recently, I had some time to kill in an airport and as I am wont to do in such situations I strolled into the bookstore. It was my good fortune to stumble across the book, Get There Early: Sensing the Future to Compete in the Present by Bob Johansen of the Institute for the Future.
I highly recommend it for anyone interested in the future. Among some of the key points I took away from the book were:
1. Uncouple the art of forecasting from prediction. As I stated in this piece a few days ago the future is unknowable, but this doesn’t diminish the importance of forecasting. It does, however, suggest that all of us should take everyone’s predictions with a healthy dose of salt. As Voltaire said, “Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.” It is good advice to heed when contemplating the future. Far too many variables are at work to predict the future with much accuracy.
2. Don’t adopt a fixed mind-set. Related to this point was the author’s warning against adopting a fixed mind-set with regard to the future. Too often, people with a particular mind-set see only things that fit their pre-conceived worldview. For example, I tend to be very optimistic about the future. (A case-in-point is this piece I wrote on human longevity.) Therefore, it is all that much more important for me to guard against fitting all future technological advances into this optimistic mind-set.
3. Think the unthinkable. Some of the strategies the author offered to protect oneself against the latter problem was to work on “thinking the unthinkable” as well as learning to “hold multiple realities in your mind at the same time.” To use my own thinking on longevity as an example, it would behoove me to actively consider reasons why people in the future might have shorter life-spans or how the future of longeveity might be asymmetrical. That is: some people might live longer, while others could have shorter life-spans. (Interestingly, we are already seeing signs of this future as life expectancy rates in the deep South are actually decreasing due to obesity, diabetes and other lifestyle-related diseases.)
4. Learn to become “comfortable with being uncomfortable.” Johansen makes a compelling argument that in the future—due to growing complexity—leaders will need to “focus less on solving problems and more on managing dilemmas” (and even “trilemmas” and “multiliemmas.") A couple of his proposed suggestions include: “reflect more, and respond less.” All too often, people—especially leaders—have a bias toward action. That is all fine and well unless, of course, of action is wrong. Bottom-line: The future is going to be very fluid and people will need to work hard at staying flexible. His solution: ask a lot of questions; think before acting; and learn to embrace ambiguity.
All told, the book offers a wealth of other tools and concrete examples to help the reader become more effective forecasters. Again, I highly recomend it.
P.S. The inside of the book cover is worth the price of the book alone. It offers a visual map of the Institute for the Future’s latest 10-year forecast.
Related Posts
Our Accelerating Future
Dangerous Curves Ahead
Exponential Evolution
A Useful Analogy for Thinking About the Future
Think 10X, Not 10%
Einstein, Intel and All the Rice in China
Do You Believe in the Tooth Fairy
How to Turn 2 Cents into $5.36 Million
Embracing Change
Jack Uldrich is a writer, futurist, public speaker and host of jumpthecurve.net. He is the author of seven books, including Jump the Curve and The Next Big Thing is Really Small: How Nanotechnology Will Change the Future of Your Business. He is also a frequent speaker on future technology and future trends, nanotechnology, innovation, change management and executive leadership to a variety of businesses, industries and non-profit organizations and trade associations.
Enjoy this post? Bookmark at the following sites.
Think Outside the Box … Way Outside!
Personally, I despise the saying “Think outside the box.” Nevertheless, as a result of exponential advances in technology people will need to learn to “jump the curve” in order to envision how different the future will be. To this end, I’d refer you to the graph to the right. If you are inclined to “think outside the box,” please think way outside the box—because this is where we will be living in the future.
Related Posts
Our Accelerating Future
Dangerous Curves Ahead
Exponential Evolution
A Useful Analogy for Thinking About the Future
Think 10X, Not 10%
Einstein, Intel and All the Rice in China
Do You Believe in the Tooth Fairy
How to Turn 2 Cents into $5.36 Million
Embracing Change
Jack Uldrich is a writer, futurist, public speaker and host of jumpthecurve.net. He is the author of seven books, including Jump the Curve and The Next Big Thing is Really Small: How Nanotechnology Will Change the Future of Your Business. He is also a frequent speaker on future technology and future trends, nanotechnology, innovation, change management and executive leadership to a variety of businesses, industries and non-profit organizations and trade associations.
Enjoy this post? Bookmark at the following sites.
Jack Uldrich Speaks on the Future
Enjoy this post? Bookmark at the following sites.
It’ll Make Vacuuming a Breeze
Check out this cool video of a levitating couch (no kidding). At $10,000 a pop it’s still pretty expensive, but it should make vacuuming under it a breeze.
Enjoy this post? Bookmark at the following sites.
Unlearning the Future
The future is unknowable. There are far too many variables for even the most foresighted individual or powerful supercomputer to accurately forecast what tomorrow—let alone next year or the next decade—will look like with precision. Nevertheless, this fact neither discounts the importance of forecasting, nor does it diminish the work that those individuals (myself included) try to do in discerning what the future might hold in store.
I would, however, like to submit that anyone inclined toward thinking about the future should be open to the idea of unlearning, which I define as “the unique skill of jettisoning old knowledge in order to accomodate newer and more relevant information.”
A case in point is this new study suggesting that global warming may not be worsening hurricanes. Now, before anyone gets too not and bothered by the real or perceived flaws in the study’s methodology, I’d like to make clear that it is not my contention that this study is the final word on the topic. Rather, I simply want to highlight it as an example of how continued advances in the development of better and more sophisticated supercomputers, algorithms and ubiqitous sensors are likely to lead to more situations in the future where scientists and researchers produce results that question and challenge conventional wisdom. (To this point, ever since Hurricane Katrina many people have come to believe that there is a direction connection between global climate change and the frequency and severity of hurricanes, and often this belief has lead them to predict that more hurricanes are in our future.)
The job of forecasters and futurists, however, is to be receptive to contradictory information—especially when it challenges fundamental beliefs or assumptions about the future.
History is littered with examples of yesterday’s dogma being mocked and ridiculed by the next generation. There is no reason to think that many of our most cherished beliefs won’t be similarly mocked and ridiculed in the future.
One way to avoid this fate is to have the courage to “unlearn” things whenever new and compelling information becomes available.
Interested in other posts on the topic of unlearning? Check out these articles:
Unlearning the Tipping Point
Learn to Ask New Questions
Does the Pharmaceutical Industry Need to Unlearn?
Is the Health Care Industry prepared to Unlearn?
Learning to Unlearn: Case Study #1
Examples of Unexponential Thinking
Jack Uldrich is a writer, futurist, public speaker and host of jumpthecurve.net. He is the author of seven books, including Jump the Curve and The Next Big Thing is Really Small: How Nanotechnology Will Change the Future of Your Business. He is also a frequent speaker on future technology and future trends, nanotechnology, robotics, RFID, innovation, change management and executive leadership to a variety of businesses, industries and non-profit organizations and trade associations.
Enjoy this post? Bookmark at the following sites.
Of Death & Taxes: Government 2.0
Benjamin Franklin once wrote, “In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes.” Well, last week I explained why death’s gripe might be loosening, and this week I’d like to take a quick look at how our tax burden could soon be reduced.
In the editorial section of today’s Wall Street Journal there are two articles that speak to how emerging technologies could dramatically lower government expenditures—and, by extension, help lower taxes.
The first is piece by Brian Carney explains how unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) could soon replace a majority of jet fighters. What is most noteworthy is that in addition to placing fewer pilots at risk, the cost of a UAV (or drone) is $4.2 million as compared to $350 million, which is the cost of a next-generation F-22 fighter. Better still, UAV’s don’t suffer from fatigue nor do they require generous pensions after they are retired.
Advances in robotics offer similar chances to cut our bloated defense budget. Robots are soon expected to be able to drive vehicles and, eventually, even ships and submarines. If so, the rational for our sizeable army and navy will soon be called into question.
Technology’s benefit is not limited only to defense. As Gordon Crovitz explains is his piece, ”From Wikinomics to Government 2.0,” the Internet and Web 2.0 technologies are transforming everything from how citizens are combating crime (and thus cutting down on police budgets) to better managing their neighborhoods.
The real benefits of new emerging technologies, though, can be found in the areas of education and transportation. Innovative teachers are now employing Curriki to constantly update their curriculum; advances in electronics—such as Amazon’s new Kindle—should help render textbooks obsolete; and the open-courseware movement that MIT and other elite universities are pursuing should make education less expensive by making content freely available to anyone with Internet access.
In the area of transportation, roads, bridges and mass transit systems are all expensive to build and operate. The innovative use of sensors and satellite technology might, however, allow users to more efficiently use our existing roads; and super high-speed bandwidth capability—in combination with improved video and virtual reality technology—should make working from home even more practical in the near future.
The bottom-line is that there is absolutely no reason why government should cost more in the future. People, especially government officials, need to start thinking differently about how to innovatively employ technology to better address today’s existing problems.
Looking for some other innovative ideas about how technology can save taxpayers money? Check out these past posts:
Embracing Change
The Future is CheapThe Future of Education is Now!
The Future of College
The Future of Kid’s Health
Jack Uldrich is a writer, futurist, public speaker and host of jumpthecurve.net. He is the author of seven books, including Jump the Curve and The Next Big Thing is Really Small: How Nanotechnology Will Change the Future of Your Business. He is also a frequent speaker on future technology and future trends, nanotechnology, innovation, change management and executive leadership to a variety of businesses, industries and non-profit organizations and trade associations.
Enjoy this post? Bookmark at the following sites.
Is Evolution Exponential?
When Charles Darwin first proposed writing his landmark book on evolution, The Origins of Species, his editor suggested writing a book on pigeons because, in his words, “Everyone is interested in pigeons.” Fortunately, Darwin chose to ignore the advice. I am reminded of the story because even though Darwin’s theory was proposing only that species make modest, incremental changes over long periods of time, it was—and in many circles still is—a revolutionary idea.
What then happens if evolution is not just incremental in nature but rather exponential? That, too, is a revolutionary idea—especially since it could impact us within our lifetimes.
Well, we are now approaching a time when this exponential theory of evolution will be put to the test.
If you accept the notion of evolution, you will agree that the earliest life appeared on earth approximately 4 billion years ago. Complex cellular organisms showed up 2 billion years ago, and the first multicellular organism about 1 billion years ago. The first reptiles and dinosaurs made their appearance 300 million years ago; the first primates 40 million years ago; homo sapiens appeared 160,000 years ago; Cro-Magnon man 40,000 years ago; and modern civilization as we know it began about 10,000 years ago.
Thinking about this much progress over such an extended period of time is difficult. Years ago, Carl Sagan, the famed astronomer, offered up a “cosmic calendar” to make such progress more comprehensible to the layperson. He asked that they imagine the entire history of the universe as being compressed into a single year.
Under this scenario the year would begin on January 1 with a bang—the Big Bang. Nothing much would then happen in our corner of the universe until about August when the sun would make its appearance. The earth itself wouldn’t show signs of any life until November—when the first multicellular organisms begin wiggling about. Dinosaurs show up around Christmas Eve. At 10:15 AM on December 31, apes would appear; humans would begin walking upright at 9:24 PM; modern civilization would appear at 11:59:20; Rome would fall at 11:59:57; and the Renaissance would occur just one second before midnight.
Rather amazingly, everything else—the printing press, the steam engine, electricity, the computer, the Internet, the human genome project, stem cell research, nanotechnology, etc—would be squeezed into the last second. From this perspective, I would argue that evolution can thus be seen as yet another exponential trend.
So what does it mean? If you accept the premise that each additional doubling of an exponential trend contains as much change as all the previous doublings combined, then it means that humans in our present form are not be the endpoint of humanity but merely a steppingstone to the next evolutionary stage.
Related Posts
10 Reasons We Will Live to 1000
Don’t Incrementalize Yourself into the Future
Dangerous Curves Ahead
Exponential Evolution
A Useful Analogy for Thinking About the Future
Think 10X, Not 10%
Einstein, Intel and All the Rice in China
Do You Believe in the Tooth Fairy
How to Turn 2 Cents into $5.36 Million
Embracing Change
Jack Uldrich is a writer, futurist, public speaker and host of jumpthecurve.net. He is the author of seven books, including Jump the Curve and The Next Big Thing is Really Small: How Nanotechnology Will Change the Future of Your Business. He is also a frequent speaker on future technology and future trends, nanotechnology, innovation, change management and executive leadership to a variety of businesses, industries and non-profit organizations and trade associations.
Enjoy this post? Bookmark at the following sites.
What Does the Future Smell Like?
What will the future smell like? On the face of it, it sounds like a silly question but I believe that by thinking about the question we might be able to glean some insights into the future.
The other day I was in Las Vegas to give a speech to the Food Marketing Institute and it was my good luck to have the opportunity to sit in on a presentation by Martin Lindstrom who is one of the world’s leading branding experts.
His talk was absolutely fascinating and he spent a good deal of time discussing how important the sense of smell is too branding. (To this point, if I say “Crayola” crayon or Play-Doh my guess is that many of you can almost smell those products’ unique scents).
More interesting, however, Lindstrom discussed how certain smells conjure up different emotions for people of different generations. For example, if you were born before 1930 you are likely to enjoy the smell of hay and manure; and if you born before 1960 the smell of freshly cut grass conjures up positive feelings.
Advances in technology, however, have since rendered these smells less popular to younger generations. Due to the immense popularity of the automobile, few of us any longer have much contact with horses and, when we do, we don’t particularly care for the smell of their waste product. With regard to freshly cut grass, it was Lindstrom’s contention that people born after 1960 tend to associate the smell with the chore of working and it is therefore less enticing.
I can’t speak to the intellectual validity of these arguments but it is an interesting thought exercise to consider how the future might change the public’s emotional response to certain smells—as well as how future technologies or products might create new popular scents. For example, if fuel cell technology or biofuels become popular might the smell of gasoline be universally reviled in the future? Could global climate change cause future generations to loath the smell of wood-burning fires or the scent of freshly cut pine trees? Or, perhaps, if self-cleaning and odor neutralizing nanomaterials become the norm could the scent of Johnson & Johnson’s baby powder lose its allure?
I don’t know. I also don’t know if new robots, high-powered electric cars or any number of yet-to-be invented products and technologies might have their own unique scents; but I’d be interested in your thoughts on what some smells of the future might be, or on how you think our current association with certain scents might change over time.
Enjoy this post? Bookmark at the following sites.