Recently in Final Project Category

I was responsible for the following sections/sub-sections:

• Socio-Technical Analysis
• Professional Support of Thesis: Dr. Massimiliano Vasile
• Professional Support of Thesis: Dr. Gary An
• Future Technologies and Applications of Thesis

Below is an iPaper document containing my contributions. If you would like a good old-fashioned PDF, you can grab it from here.


Note: There will probably be a few minor changes made to my parts at some point tomorrow, but I would guess that this is 99.43% representative of what’s actually submitted.

[As mentioned in some of my previous blog posts, my group's final presentation will be focused on science fiction and its ability to predict future technologies. My specific part of the presentation will focus on more recent predictions of technologies that are expected within the next century.]

Assuming that science fiction is, in fact, an accurate indicator of future technology (which we believe to be true, as supported by my group members, Chris and Rolland), what fun innovations should we expect to be seeing within the duration of our lifetimes? Here are a few examples of predictions, mostly taken from Trivia-Library, made by the likes of Brian Aldiss, James Blish, D.G. Compton, Hugo Gernsback, Joe Haldeman, Robert A. Heinlein, Jules Verne and H.G. Wells:

• Automatic clothes-making machines, which obtain the user's measurements and produce on the spot
• Gene therapy as preventive medicine
• Weather Control
• Temperature-controlled couches
• Moving conveyor roadways
  
• DNA repair/replacement
• Sound bombs
• Electromagnetic tube elevators, no cables
  
• Computers that translate 10 languages simultaneously
• Computers hook directly into students' minds for accelerated learning
• Suspended animation for extended spaceflight
  
• Human life-span predicting machine
• The cosmiflyer, a 6-in. cosmic power generator strapped to one's back, is used for short-distance aerial transit
• Sound waves employed to expand vegetable cells (and man's food supply) a thousand times over
• Thought recorders
• Nuclear satellite bombs
• Iridium wire spirals at street corners, change night into day
• Ultrahigh-frequency electronic baths to remove dirt and other foreign particles from the human body
• Underwater air guns using glass electric shells that shock their prey
• The "stasis field," a special kind of force field, renders all radiation, electricity, light, and magnetism inert (including the atom bomb) and makes conventional weapons obsolete
• Manipulation of matter at the atomic scale, combining elements to build custom molecules and providing the world with new materials and medicines
• Electronic glass pane air-conditioning units
• Wireless and synthesized 3D viewers, allowing individuals to interact and conduct business with people not really there (but seem to be)
• Anticrime devices, which render felons rigid and helpless for 15 minutes
• Amplifiers that will pick up sounds in a house 20 mi. away
• Individual force fields enable the adventurous to sleep nude in snowstorms
• Faster-than-light spaceships
• Laser weapons
• 3D tape recorders
  
• Total absorption of radar waves, a radar cloaking device
  
• Amputated limbs and damaged organs can be regrown from their stumps
• Transatlantic rocket flights and commercial rocket travel
• Permanent settlements on the moon
  

Exciting, is it not? While I expect that some of these concepts will take decades to become reality (weather control, commercial rocket travel, iridium wire spirals that turn night into day), several hardly seem unrealistic (automatic clothes-making machines, gene therapy, sound bombs, human life-span predicting machines). As suggested by the article "Where Has All the Sci-Fi Gone?", it's becoming more and more difficult for writers to make incredibly futuristic claims. Because information technology grows at an exponential rate (see video below - it's long, but informative), the more we advance, the harder it becomes for writers/futurists to keep pace. To add insult to their injury, we (the audience) have become accustomed to this accelerated rate of development, so the bar for shocking/impressing us has also risen. Despite these disadvantages, though, we still feel that science fiction is a legitimate tool for predicting future technologies for some time.


While there are certainly no shortage of predictions to explore, I find the most interesting area of future technology to be that of singularity...

According to Arthur C. Clarke, a famous science fiction author, inventor and futurist (whose works have foreshadowed technologies such as video phones, e-mail, space travel, laptops, and cloning), artificial intelligence will reach human levels by the year 2020, marking the existence of two intelligent species on earth - one biological, one non-biological. Another renowned inventor and futurist, Raymond Kurzweil, who has his own extensive list of predictions and was featured in the above video, estimates the following timeline (courtesy of Wikipedia):

• 2010 - Supercomputers will have the same power as human brains
• 2020 - Personal computers will have the same processing power as human brains
• 2030 - Mind uploading becomes possible - Nano-machines could be directly inserted into the brain and could interact with brain cells to totally control incoming and outgoing signals. As a result, truly full-immersion virtual reality could be generated without the need for any external equipment
• 2040 - Human body 3.0 comes into existence. It lacks a fixed, corporeal form and can alter its shape and external appearance at will via foglet-like nano-technology. Organs are also replaced by superior cybernetic implants.
• 2045 - The Singularity
• $1000 buys a computer a billion times more intelligent than every human combined. This means that average and even low-end computers are infinitely smarter than even highly intelligent, unenhanced humans.
• The Singularity occurs as artificial intelligences surpass human beings as the smartest and most capable life forms on the Earth. Technological development is taken over by the machines, who can think, act and communicate so quickly that normal humans cannot even comprehend what is going on. The machines enter into a "runaway reaction" of self-improvement cycles, with each new generation of A.I.s appearing faster and faster. From this point onwards, technological advancement is explosive, under the control of the machines, and thus cannot be accurately predicted.
• The Singularity is an extremely disruptive, world-altering event that forever changes the course of human history. The extermination of humanity by violent machines is unlikely (though not impossible) because sharp distinctions between man and machine will no longer exist thanks to the existence of cybernetically enhanced humans and uploaded humans.
• Post-2045 - "Waking Up" the Universe
• The physical bottom limit to how small computer transistors can be shrunk is reached. From this moment onwards, computers can only be made more powerful if they are made larger in size.
• Because of this, A.I.s convert more and more of the Earth's matter into engineered, computational substrate capable of supporting more A.I.s. until the whole Earth is one, gigantic computer.
• At this point, the only possible way to increase the intelligence of the machines any farther is to begin converting all of the matter in the universe into similar massive computers. A.I.s radiate out into space in all directions from the Earth, breaking down whole planets, moons and meteoroids and reassembling them into giant computers. This, in effect, "wakes up" the universe as all the inanimate "dumb" matter (rocks, dust, gases, etc.) is converted into structured matter capable of supporting life (albeit synthetic life).
• Kurzweil predicts that machines might have the ability to make planet-sized computers by 2099, which underscores how enormously technology will advance after the Singularity.
• The process of "waking up" the universe could be complete as early as 2199, or might take billions of years depending on whether or not machines could figure out a way to circumvent the speed of light for the purposes of space travel.
• With the entire universe made into a giant, highly efficient supercomputer, A.I./human hybrids (so integrated that, in truth it is a new category of "life") would have both supreme intelligence and physical control over the universe. Kurzweil suggests that this would open up all sorts of new possibilities, including abrogation of the laws of Physics, interdimensional travel, and a possible infinite extension of existence (true immortality).

Pretty heavy stuff, right? And the scary part is that these futurists have exceptional track records when it comes to predicting future technologies. Could singularity really be just around the corner? And is this how the events following will unfold? Is this what we want? Do we even have the ability to change the outcome? Is it a matter of technological determinism or social constructivism?

I don't have the answers to these questions, but I do believe that these predictions are momentous (and probable) enough that we should be taking them seriously. These are technologies that may very well be irreversible. Once we cross the line of singularity, there could be no turning back. And before we cross the Rubicon, we should be prepared to face the consequences, which we might already be aware of, or then again maybe not.

 

After watching the above video for the third or fourth time, another brilliant animated short film came to mind - Solar, also nominated for a multitude of prestigious awards.

 

I just read this article about some students at Fairview High School who have been coordinating and participating in an afterschool fight club. At least 12 students were actively involved (fighting), and it's estimated that there are about 60 individuals that attend the events altogether. The school board has already "ticketed" ten students who will need to make court appearances and may be suspended from school.

Morally, I don't have much problem with this little extracurricular activity the kids (aged 15-17) have started. As long as the ordeal is fairly friendly and things don't get out of hand, it's probably a healthier investment of time/energy than a lot of alternatives the participants/spectators could get involved with instead. But, these thoughts aren't particularly relevant at the moment.

As soon as I read the headline, "'Fight Club' Busted at Fairview High School", the first thing that popped into my head was Tyler Durden reading off the list of Fight Club rules to newcomers in Lou's Tavern. I considered the likelihood that the film (Fight Club, that is) wasn't an inspiration for the after-school group formed at Fairview High School, and I didn't guess the probability to be very high. A handful of the students most likely watched the movie, thought (rightfully so) that it was pretty cool, and then theorized how it would be even cooler if they started their own version.

I found the scenario to be somewhat relevant to my group's final project/presentation in IST 431, which might be (we have to work out this issue with another group that selected the same topic) about science fiction's role in predicting/determining future technologies. The juvenile fight club isn't any sort of technology, of course, but would it have come into existence if it wasn't first written about years before? Did the fiction cause the reality? Or, was the author just one of the first to come up with a concept that others would have inevitably arrived at, and publishing his idea for the masses did nothing more than speed up the process at which everyone else discovered it?

While I haven't come to a firm conclusion as to my stance on the topic in general (whether fiction causes things to happen, or if the things happen the same way even if the fiction had never existed), I think in this particular case, the idea was more predetermined. We've been fighting since the beginning of time, at first out of necessity and as a means to gain wealth (land, money, resources, etc.), and then later as a form of entertainment and sport. Fighting has been part of culture since, well...since we've had a culture. So, I don't find the fight club derivation to be particularly surprising, and it probably would have eventually happened even without the fiction.

However, if the object of concern was something more contradictory to human nature, or at least not innate to humans...let's say, mowing grass - the 60 students gathered in the old field behind the school after hours each week to cut and maintain the lawn - then I would say, "Yes! These children are behaving in such a way because they've all seen that new blockbuster, Grass Groupies!"

And I think this philosophy (hazy as it may be - apologies for the less-than-stellar examples) applies to technology as well...

Science fiction predictions involving technologies that were fairly predictable (like groups organized purely for the sake of fighting) probably didn't have much influence. Take the toaster. Sure, at one point, the thought of having a toaster that knew when bread was finished heating was probably far-fetched and futuristic. But, look at it from a toaster manufacturer's perspective. Maybe the competition is starting to pull ahead, and our company needs something new and revolutionary to get us back in the game. So, we sit and stare at a toaster. "How could this be improved?" we ask ourselves, "What is wrong with existing model? What would be a nice feature? What could we do better?" At some point, someone in the group would declare, "It should stop heating the toast when it's finished, so the user doesn't need to stand around watching it!" Even without any forward-thinking science fiction available, this should have eventually happened on its own.

On the other hand, technologies like using sound as a weapon (predicted by Brian Aldiss in the mid 1900's) are not as easily anticipated. Technologies that wouldn't be the result of a natural progression (see pop-up toasters), technologies that we would almost need to happen upon by accident to realize - these are the cases where science fiction is most valuable. If a scientist sees notices a strange behavior when certain chemicals are mixed or perhaps becomes aware of an unusual byproduct, then the individual may overlook great potential if he/she doesn't possess certain forward-thinking concepts to which connections can be made. These concepts might very well come from science fiction.

Well, this post came a long way from Fight Club. I think somewhere during the journey, though, I've cleared up my thoughts on the value of science fiction and its influence on future technologies. As a rule of thumb (subject to change, of course, as I consider the idea more), I would say that the more absurd and out-there the science fiction, the more impactful it could potentially be for the future. If it doesn't seem completely unrealistic, then it would have probably happened on its own.

I'm not a big reader. In fact, over the course of my life, I've probably read less than fifteen books that haven't been assigned for a class, and most of those were technological teach-yourself sort of publications, like Flash CS3 for Dummies. It's not that I'm opposed to books. Given my interest in music, film and various other forms of art, I would actually peg myself as a fairly avid reader if I didn't know better, and I definitely would like to read more. The problem is finding the motivation to actually sit down and do it. I mean, watching a movie takes about two hours. But a book? More like two weeks (I'm a slow reader). That's a whole lot of time to devote to anything, and I'm usually just not willing (or able) to make the commitment.

So, last week, when I starting having this extended, highly abnormal urge to read, I didn't want to let it go to waste. I Amazon'ed House of Leaves (which is brilliant, and you should probably read it) to get some recommendations for my next literary undertaking. There were a few frontrunners - Survivor: A Novel (by the author of Fight Club), John Dies at the End, Clown Girl, and American Gods - and after discussing the matter with a few well-read friends that have excellent taste, I decided on Neil Gaiman's American Gods.

The next day (Wednesday, who is coincidentally one of the main characters in the novel), while waiting for some flyers to be copied, I wandered into the HUB's bookstore, and surprisingly, on the bottom shelf of the fiction wall, there was a single copy awaiting me. I was a little disappointed by the synopsis, and the first few pages that I skimmed in the store weren't very promising, but I decided to trust the judgment of my friends and purchased it anyway.

I'm currently 200-ish pages into it, and can certainly say I'm not disappointed. It's a witty, thoughtful, and delightfully hallucinogenic novel, complete with flame-spewing buffalo heads, a 7-foot tall, bar-fighting leprechaun, a man-eating vagina, and a high-stakes checkers match that could result in one of the characters having his skull crushed with a sledgehammer. Definitely a good call picking this one.

But this is a technology-driven blog, right? So, why does this book (wonderful as it may be) have a place here? Well, as the plot unfolds, and the pieces start falling into place, it's become apparent that Wednesday (Odin/Woden, the chief god in Norse mythology) is "recruiting American manifestations of the Old Gods of ancient mythology, whose powers have waned as their believers have decreased in number, to participate in an epic battle against the New American Gods, manifestations of modern life and technology (e.g. the Internet, media, & modern means of transport)." [taken from Wikipedia]

With the exception of my time reading E.M. Forster's short story, "The Machine Stops", I'd never given much consideration to the similarities between humanity's interaction with technology and that of the gods (both past and present), but there are certainly connections to be drawn between the relationships. We rely on technology. We look to it for explanations of our situations, solutions to our problems, and predictions of the future. We devote time and resources to it. We celebrate it, and even speak about it in a manner reminiscent of a religious sermon. In at least one instance, it's even been suggested to be responsible for the creation of the universe. The more I think of it, the only significant difference I can come up with between humans' relationship with technology versus gods/religion is that technology doesn't offer any kind of afterlife. But, I'm sure that, at some point, even that has been associated with technology.

After going through the above paragraph and realizing just how similar technology and gods/religion really are, I believe this would be a worthwhile topic to delve further into. For now, though, I think I'm going to sleep (it is 3:30, after all). Perhaps after getting further in the book and having some time to consider the idea more, I'll revisit this topic.