25+

Alan Kay - the pioneering creator of the now-dead programming language Smalltalk - once gently dismissed essays of the kind you now read when he said that "the best way to predict the future is to invent it."

Like anything with a short shelf-life, the key to opening this piece is controlling expectations. So this essay will continue as it begun: massively derivative - perched on giants' shoulders in the hope that we may not take the past for granted.

This is not prediction-by-committee, nor about protecting egos. As with beauty, time doesn't care for opinions. Rather than a foolish consistency, it reveals what remains constant: human nature.

“Begin at the beginning," the King said, very gravely, "and go on till you come to the end: then stop.”

― Lewis Caroll (Alice in Wonderland)   

In the spirit - and only the spirit - of the late mathematician, we should consider the chimpanzee. Prior to Jane Goodall observing chimpanzee craftiness in 1960, our species had been defined as "Man the Tool-Maker." Louis Leakey realised the gravity of her findings, responding that "we must [now] redefine tool, redefine Man, or accept chimpanzees as humans."

Like money, technology does not change people, it reveals them. The next revelation was prophetic of anti-aging research when we defied gravity itself, first by Yuri Gagarin and later with NASA and their iconic 1968 'earthrise' photo. More strikingly than most technologies before or since, space-flight gave a view of ourselves from the outside-in, strengthening our sense of responsibility and restraining ego. "The Earth was blue, but there was no God."

Nassim Nicholas Taleb has made a strong case for the arrogance of assuming that past trends tell us anything about truly significant future events. When people predict, he has observed, they usually attend to novelties; when it it is much more reliable to consider what will be jettisoned by the market. Adam Smith's 'invisible hand' does its own 'natural selection'.

When studying Computer Science, we were told that we must usually wait about ten years before new discoveries see their first consumer applications. This gives anyone with eyes on the academy a sense of what will be attempted in that near future without any insight about what will succeed - and in turn inspire the next generation of researchers.

Any time technophiles talk about the future of their industry, Moore's so-called "law" has become cliché - often ignoring that its status as a law has been under fire since the beginning of the millennium. While CPU makers have been ramping up core numbers as a stop-gap, the diminishing returns of this strategy are described by an idea that actually deserves its name, Amdahl's law. Even if this weren't the case, with pockets around the world carrying hundred-fold more computing power than NASA used to launch the shuttle, almost noone harnesses them to make awe-inspiring giant leaps for humankind. John F. Kennedy's example of launching an effort that would get to the Moon in under a decade, especially when contrasting it with what we create now, reveals the power of concerted creativity far more than the technology it spawned.

“Once the rockets are up,
who cares where they come down?
That's not my department,
says Wernher von Braun."

― Tom Lehrer (Wernher von Braun)

After a brief glimpse at history, pessimism is easy. The greatest breakthroughs of recent history were made almost exclusively a) by the public sector b) during major (hot and Cold) wars.

If we are to have any optimism, it must rise out of the ashes of our chaotic past, in the great promise of the knowledge economy that conflict made possible.

We inherited a new kind of war from our violent history, with communications technology making conflict more sporadic and global, and blurring the distinction between soldier and civilian. It's hard to unite against exploited disposession. If anything is to replace the impetus traditional war gives to (often, unintentionally-) long-term blue-sky research, concern around global warming is a likely candidate. The fact that the efforts to reduce emissions by those concerned can be wasted by those who are not, also means that those concerned can overcompensate. But then, the climate-/geo-engineering approaches this endorses carry unknown risks, making old-fashioned diplomacy ever more attractive. Technology would still have a place given the need for alternative energy sources, but it would only be effective to the extent that we can cooperate in its use.

The success of these efforts will be measured by how little the changing climate shapes our livelihood. But what does it take for innovations to change how we live? Like penicillin, they could ensure that we do live at all. Communications technologies succeeded not only because they have become accessible - but also due to network effects: they jump in value with every person who gets connected. Uniting all of these qualities is that they are at the heart what it means to be human.

One conclusion from recent brain research is that Abraham Maslow's classic 'Hierarchy of Needs' is - while insightful  - wrong. We attend to the social before anything else, which explains the success of many technologies that have reduced social barriers.

This trend will surely continue, but areas outside communication leave more room for disruption. What does this mean for the next quarter-century? Some staples of sci-fi are unlikely candidates here: space elevators do not look feasible within that time, and even though we will have self-driving cars (another benefactor of network effects), flying cars (which would become more and more dangerous without such automation) are environmentally irresponsible no matter how much they could reduce congestion.

This discussion began by saying that technology reveals us: this will become more true than ever thanks to the foundations laid by neuroscience, genetics, biochemistry and robotics. The direct consequences are obvious, foreshadowed by terms like 'personalized medicine'. 

The indirect flow-ons, as always, are more interesting. Traditional incentives for drug companies endorse treating symptoms. As we better understand the causes of individual ailments,  people will come to expect the preventative rather than the apparently-curative, and ineffective treatments will more easily be pushed out of the market. 

Socrates is attributed the phrase 'the unexamined life is not worth living.' If he were a millennial today, would he be endorsing even more minute examining? Few of todays' intellectually demanding environments take heed of how valuable introspection can be to the effectiveness of their staff. This will hopefully change, and strategies for better responding to everyday events - often under the label 'mindfulness' - will be less and less monopolized by a few spiritual movements and instead be accessible to anyone.

This is the earthrise of the twenty-first century - with the contours of the human brain replacing those of the lunar surface. If earthrise revealed our insignificance, our appreciating the brain qualifies it - by inspiring better use of our strengths.

In the background of that photograph-of-the-imagination are the technologies that persist. Their silhouette revealing the human limitations and weaknesses we understand.

Mosquitoes are estimated to have killed half the humans who have ever lived, yet we seem to need philanthropy to combat malaria. With the exemplary work of people like Bill and Melinda Gates, we are perhaps in the best generation for philanthropy in human history. This blogger shares their optimism. Still, over the next twenty-five years, the silhouette will become a great reminder of how unevenly these weaknesses are suffered.

Although we will surely make progress in reducing its harmful effects, aging is our most democratic weakness. Curiously, it is also one putting national borders in relief. Japan, with the fastest-growing senior citizenry in the world, is investing heavily in robotics in response. As Michio Kaku has explained, lest you worry, our robots are too stupid that we need worry about Skynet any time soon.

Japan's research is an exciting technological response to what is at heart a political problem. But recent headlines due to Edward Snowden emphasize the immense care needed when following such a path. And this will likely be the most important political shift of the next quarter century; after the maturing of communications networks in prior decades, we have the opportunity as a public to learn how to use them wisely.

Niall Ferguson has said that we only have one past, but multiple futures. In the end, these possible futures summon no single emotion from this blogger. Hope for what could be, awe toward the human spirit, concern for hubris - all come in equal measure. In the end, uncertainty is the only certain thing - but, paraphrasing Alan Kay, creativity provides us temporary respite.

So, happy creating!