Monthly Archives: October 2005

Better All The Time #23






Dispatches from a rapidly changing, rapidly improving
world


#23
10/21/05

Take the Better All the Time Challenge! We’re so convinced that you’re
going to like reading good news for a change that we don’t even have to ask
you to read it all. Just read the first two news stories in this week’s Better
All the Time. Those two stories on their own can offset 80% (or more!) of
the gloom found in virtually all MSM reporting.

And if you like what you find in those first two stories, go ahead and
read the rest of the good news we’ve compiled for you at no additional
charge
. Yes, you read that right. How can we offer such an incredible
deal? The answer is simple — volume. There’s more good news every day, and
we’ve got plenty to spare.

FastForward Radio #6

Back from a brief hiatus, FastForward Radio is proud to present an interview with Christine Peterson of the Foresight Nanotech Institute. Christine gives us the latest on what is happening with nanotechnology and what the Institute is doing to spread the word, plus a sneak preview of the Advancing Beneficial Nanotech conference.

fs_ad200x80_04.gif

Bonus material: Phil and Stephen with their own thoughts on what’s next both in the world of nanotechnology:

We also drop a few hints about upcoming episodes of FastForward Radio.

As always, we are showcasing an up-and-coming artist from garageband.com. This week it’s Copper with their song “Turn.”

Don’t miss it!

FastForward Radio #6

Priorities

With genetic engineering, we will be able to increase the complexity of our DNA, and improve the human race. But it will be a slow process, because one will have to wait about 18 years to see the effect of changes to the genetic code. By contrast, computers double their speed and memories every 18 months. There is a real danger that computers will develop intelligence, and take over. We urgently need to develop direct connections to the brain, so that computers can add to human intelligence, rather than be in opposition.

- Stephen Hawking

Kurzweilonomics 101

Tech Central Station columnist Arnold Kling sees Kurzweil’s “The Singularity is Near” as a new theory of economics.

Being an economist, Kling would tend to see many of Kurzweil’s insights in that light. And a sociologist might think the book is about sociology. Cosmologists, biologists, and computer scientists will no doubt see the book as derivative or illuminative of their work. It looks somewhat like a legal treatise to me. Everybody’s right. Most fields of study deserve some credit for moving our civilization forward. And the Technological Singularity impacts us all.

In his column Kling demonstrates that most economists are still depending on linear models to project economic growth.

Economists routinely forecast annual growth in U.S. labor productivity of roughly two percent for the next several decades.

That’s actually worse than linear thinking. We passed that level of annual growth in productivity years ago.

…since 1992, productivity growth has sped up. As this article from the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco points out, “The performance of productivity in the U.S. economy has delivered some big surprises over the last several years. One surprise was in the latter half of the 1990s, when productivity growth surged to average an annual rate of over 3%, more than twice as fast as the rate in the previous two decades. A bigger surprise has been the further ratcheting up…productivity growth averaged around 3.8% for the 2001 through 2004 period.

Kling makes clear that if an exponential growth in productivity holds, many of the fiscal problems that worry us today can be easily paid for by the economy of tomorrow. If the average income moves from $35,000 today to $250,000 in 2025 in real spending power as predicted by the exponential model, then all fiscal problems become manageable. The national debt, social security, medicaid, etc.

Kling is cautiously optimistic:

…I am still not comfortable watching our government accumulate obligations to future entitlement recipients at the current rate. As of now, however, the data on average productivity growth over the past decade is reasonably consistent with the hypothesis that the economy is winning the Great Race.

Read the whole thing.

UPDATE from Phil: The productivity numbers that Kling mentions seem particularly encouraging. I speculated about how encouraging these numbers might be last year in response to some earlier Arnold Kling TCS pieces about productivity.

But what struck me about Kling’s analysis in light of Kurzweil’s book is what it might have to say about the Solow computer paradox. In 1987, economist Robert Solow made his famous observation:

You can see the computer age everywhere but in the productivity statistics.

For years, productivity lagged while industries were being computerized. While the new technology should, in theory, have brought about marked increases in productivity, those increases were not forthcoming. No shortage of theories were offered up to account for the productivity lag, including what might be called the Tetris/Porn theory. But hindsight now shows us that the lag was a temporary one, and productivity really does seem to be growing in leaps and bounds as a result of the computer revolution.

In an e-mail exchange, I asked Kling whether these productivity numbers mean the end of the Solow computer paradox. He said that many economists agree that it does, including Brad DeLong, but that Solow himself may be maintaining a skeptical position on the matter. Time will tell. Meanwhile, Kling recommends this as a good backgrounder on what’s been happening with productivity.

I Hate to Be a Worrier

It’s just not my usual style. However, I couldn’t help but pause for a moment upon reading this (via Paul Hsieh):

Tiny black holes could soon be made on demand in particle accelerators, but shortly after their birth, they might blink out of existence. In the 14 October PRL, a team proposes a mechanism for this vanishing act: The space around these black holes could wrap upon itself and bud off, forming a new baby universe that is invisible to us. Such an event might signify the existence of extra dimensions beyond the three we are familiar with and might give clues to the properties of the extra dimensions.

Tiny black holes, baby universes, extra dimensions–these are my kind of people. Still, I can’t help but wonder…

What if the tiny black hole doesn’t fade into it’s baby universe on schedule? I mean, I realize that it’s tiny but it’s also a BLACK HOLE. Haven’t they been known to like, swallow things? Like planets? I’m just asking.

Or what if the tiny black hole drops off into its little universe on schedule, are we sure the process is through? We don’t really have much of an idea as to the dynamics of relationships between universes, now do we? Is it possible that if you send something into another universe, some kind of equilibrium insists that something else comes back? Sure, it would probably be benign and, of course, “tiny” but then again… we don’t really have any reason to assume either of those things. Something huge and nasty might come back. Something tiny and nasty might come back.

There are a lot of options.

Finally, have the scientists planning these tests read this book?

The scientists in this story try something equally inoccuous-sounding, but they accidentally trigger the destruction of the universe. Oops. Who knew?

Sure, it’s just science fiction. But very recently, any talk of tiny black holes and baby universes would have been science fiction, too.

UPDATE: Thanks to reader Cole Kitchen for getting me straight on which Greg Egan book I was thinking about.

RSS Feed Fixed

For some time, we’ve been getting complaints that our RSS feed doesn’t work. This was due to a typo in the site’s main template page. I think I have corrected the problem. For those interested in subscribing to The Speculist, the address is:

https://www.blog.speculist.com/index.xml

What Is It?

You tell me…

bunker.jpg

Alien spacecraft? No.

Proposed design for Mars lander? Nope.

New ride at Walt Disney World? Sorry. Thanks for playing.

It’s a bunker, folks. That’s right, 74 square feet of safety from…well, whatever you’re scared of:

The Bunker is an aerodynamic, monolithic reinforced concrete structure capable of withstanding monster hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, fires, blizzards, military and terrorist attacks and extreme water pressure for underwater applications.

Available in above ground, underground, and underwater models.

(Via Distractech.)

The Lake Wobegone Effect and Technology

According to US Today, we’re getting to where as many as a third of us are early technology adopters:

Twenty-nine percent of U.S. households are likely to be early adopters, according to an exclusive county-by-county analysis of consumers’ buying habits by USA TODAY and the Claritas marketing research firm. Eleven percent of the USA’s 3,141 counties have at least 29% of households that are early adopters. Though these households are most heavily concentrated in metro areas, early adopters live throughout the nation.

Wow, at the rate we’re going, pretty soon we’ll all be early adopters. But let’s have a look at what USA Today says makes an early adopter:

Making phone calls on the Internet.

Replacing landline phones with cellphones.

Using Wi-Fi networks outside homes or offices.

Buying a home theater, a personal digital assistant, a digital video recorder, a high-definition TV or a cellphone-PDA device.

Six and half years ago, when I first moved from Malaysia back to the US, I made daily calls to my then-girlfriend Suraya using a cutting-edge service called “Voice Over IP” offered by an Israeli company called Net2Phone. Was I an “early adopter” of that technology? I like to think that I was, but by 1999, Net2Phone had already been offering their service for three years.

To call someone placing a phone call over the Internet in late 2005 an “early adopter” is to redefine that term. Mike at TechDirt comments:

Once you hit 30% on something, it certainly sounds like it’s gone pretty mainstream. Perhaps they need to rethink what qualifies as early adoption at this point. Things like VoIP, mobile phones and WiFi no longer seem quite so cutting edge.

Exactly. Technologies used to be developed and accepted at the kind of glacial pace that would allow mainstream media to sniff them out five or six years in and then “announce” that they are “coming.” This would appear no longer to be the case. By the time the MSM gets wind of these things, they’re already here. Rather than declaring us all to be “early adopters” of technologies that are already established, maybe USA Today wants to start looking at true early adopters of technologies that really are on their way in.

Fab technology, for example.

USA Today and other MSM folks could learn all about these kinds of technologies by reading blogs. But they’re probably waiting for blogs to get past this awkward early adoption phase.

Barking up the Wrong Tree

An activist group has been organized in California to ban pet cloning. Henry Miller comments on TCS:

The improbably named Jennifer Fearing recently penned a tirade against animal cloning. The rant was stimulated by the announcement from South Korean scientists of the first cloned dog, an adorable puppy called Snuppy who is genetically identical to a sweet Afghan hound named Tai. Mistrusting scientific progress that uses animals, Fearing finds the development dark and unsettling.

Ms. Fearful er, Fearing knows that her moral suasion will not prevail, so she and other members of something called Californians Against Pet Cloning are pushing for legislation “to ban the retail sale of cloned and genetically modified pets.” Beyond being paternalistic and misguided, such a stricture is preposterous. All of the more than 150 recognized dog breeds are derived from a wolf-like ancestor. Picture standing side-by-side a timber wolf, a Chihuahua, and a Great Dane, and tell me that’s not genetic modification at work.

The almost supersititous stigma that surrounds cloning of any sort is going to be a tough obstacle to overcome, but I can think of one thing that might do it — the affection that pet owners have for their little friends. Ultimately, I expect that both pet cloning and pet cryonics will be huge industries.

clonedpups.jpg

It's the Flea's Knees

In today’s Guardian:

A type of rubbery material based on the protein that helps fleas jump could be used to repair damaged arteries, Nature reports today.

But it gets better. Kurzweil AI spins it like this:

Future versions of the material could be used to make resilient human spare parts, including spinal discs and artificial arteries.

How about giving us knees that would allow us to jump distances proportional to what fleas do? If I had a set of those, I could jump to work every day. Okay, maybe it would take three or four hops, but still.