I've just finished Michio Kaku's Physics of the Future. In this work, Kaku describes the state of science, technology, and engineering in the areas of computation, artificial intelligence, medicine, nanotechnology, energy, space travel, the meaning of wealth, and the future of human civilization. He then extends this discussion to speculate on the shape of each discipline and the consequences for life and civilization in the long (2070-2100), mid (2030-2070), and near (present to 2030) terms.
I don't want to dwell on the aspects of Kaku's work that bother me, but I can't resist (very) briefly touching on a few.
- I'm always a little troubled by the inveterate optimism of some folks (especially those with an unshakable faith in science to make the world better). This is some of my own pessimism and misanthropy coming through, so my judgement should come with a grain of salt. I'm not asking for dystopic visions of the future, but Kaku is really unbalanced in his approach.
- My teeth always start to ache when physicists start talking about international relations, psychology, economics and other fields in which they are (at best) dilettantes. (To be fair, I'm similarly troubled when experts in international relations betray their misunderstanding of science.) Kaku has a lot to say on these subjects and the pedigree of his conclusions sets off alarms in my little dilettante brain.
- Kaku completely ignores a fundamental aspect of human interaction--war. (Of course, my calling this element of human interaction fundamental betrays my Hobbesian outlook, but "to thine own self be true.") This gap is filled, to an extent, by others. (E.g., The Next 100 Years: A Forecast of the 21st Century by George Friedman is a nice look at the interaction of technology, social change, geopolitics, and war. Robert Kaplan does some of the same things, though with a lens that doesn't seek to see quite so far. Etc.) I just wish a survey of science as wide-ranging as Kaku's touched on military science as well. (Discursive aside...I think it bears mentioning that any discipline using "science" as a noun modified by some discipline-related word--in a quest for the illusion of rigor that only comes from science in our post-enlightenment minds--will never be an actual science. Just saying.)
So...1) Can we meaningfully incorporate these speculations into force structure analysis? 2) Should we do so? 3) If so, how would such speculative force structure analysis work?
Merf
@Merf -- thanks for the review. I think I will skip this work. While not anti-science/technology, far from it, I share a healthy sense of pessimism regarding the coming singularity...if you read, The Singularity is Near, by Ray Kurzweil his predictions of exponential leaps in technology, 50,000 years growth in a 50 year period of time, there are many parallels here. I will forward you the names of some of the top AF Futurists who have grappled with your military future on-board the singularity. I thought you participated in the "Blue Horizons" course at Maxwell when you were down there? They have looked deeply at nano-tech, bio-tech, unmanned systems, and cyber.
ReplyDeleteIn 2013 we've had quantum leaps in technology and science since 1980 (30 years ago). What that technology has enabled did not help much with hurricane Sandy -- particularly when the power went out. But that technology did help the Miley Cyrus wrecking ball go viral (50 million hits in less than two days), 1 Billion of us to use the same information portal (FaceBook), and the video's of the victims of the chemical gas attacks in Syria to convince a lot of people that something happened, but not what actually happened.
Nevertheless your questions are pertinent for us in military analysis...although force structure, like any infrastructure, changes very slowly. So even if quantum leaps in technology arrive, even 3-D printing will not enable us to design and build aircraft overnight, or print money. But if you had money and labor, you could speed it up. One of the biggest slowdowns would be the human interface...training a force to use the quantum-leap force structure. Learning to fight takes decades. When we have true AI -- decades past when the Turing Test is won -- and that AI can be successfully integrated into the human brain through bio-tech, decades after that, then perhaps the human element of warfare will be a game changer. Until then, we are better advised to understand and or integrate the info-tech that we carry around in our pockets...then we are working about the building more manned vs unmanned aircraft. By the way, I say, bring on the Hypertube. That is applying huge advances in technology in an extremely arcane and brute force way, to enable people to live in SF and commute to LA in under 30 minutes, for less than $20. That's a much better idea than self driving cars.
I tend to agree with you regarding Kurzweil and the parallels here. The one difference is the tiniest and briefest bit of recognition from Kaku that it may not all turn out peachy. Kurzweil NEVER does that.
DeleteI know many of the Blue Horizon's bubbas, but I never took an actual class; SAASS curriculum doesn't work quite like that. Knowing them and their work, however, leaves me unimpressed with how the Air Force thinks about the future. Alas.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
Delete