The Next Fifty Years: Science in the First Half of the Twenty-first Century (Vintage) [Englisch] [Taschenbuch]

A wonderful example across the sciences as to why people working in a field have excellent visibility over the next 5 years, and very poor visibility (or at least very unoriginal) when asked to speculate over longer time periods. For those of you familiar with the research of these people, their vision of the future looks extraordinary like the work they do, only extrapolated in ways that are obvious to those in the field. What I expected was the "creative destruction" by people of their own agendas. All the computer scientists (Brooks, Holland, Gelernter and Schank) disappointed in this regard. Richard Dawkins was the only intriguing one.

Just to calibrate the thought again. If you want to learn the views of some pretty good scientists on the larger backdrop of their research, this is a good book to read. However, other than the fact that they are working on what they are working on, there is no convincing argument as to why the world will turn out the way they envision. Not to mention, good scientists tend to be spectacularly wrong on long term visions (remember Lord Kelvin's claim about the end of chemistry a century ago).

I still look forward enthusiastically to a book with this same title, but a different cast of contributors.

As Yogi Berra said, "It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future." However, if anyone can make meaningful predictions, it's the twenty-five leading scientists and authors whose essays grace The Next Fifty Years.

It's an exciting book. Almost every piece is enlightening, stimulating, and remarkably well written. I read a lot of books and articles about science, but still came across dozens of new ideas, convincing arguments and sparkling insights. Here are a few items that got me thinking:

Physicist Lee Smolin points out that subtle changes in light waves as they cross space may provide the first test of quantum theories of gravity--we won't need to build accelerators the size of the solar system to gain this information.

Evolutionary psychologist Geoffrey Miller speculates that gene activation chips will soon allow researchers to map the changes in our brains caused by "every state of mind lasting more than a few hours." The result will be a far richer understanding of human consciousness.

Mathematician Steven Strogatz expects that new methods for creating complex, evolving systems on computers will mean that we humans will "end up as bystanders, unable to follow along with the machines we've built, flabbergasted by their startling conclusions."

Richard Dawkins predicts that by 2050 it will cost just a few hundred dollars to sequence one's own personal genome, computers will be able to simulate an organism's entire development from its genetic code, and scientists may even be able to reconstruct extinct animals a la Jurassic Park.

Computer scientist Rodney Brooks thinks wars may be fought over genetic engineering and artificial enhancements that have the potential to turn humans into "manipulable artifacts."

AI researcher Roger Schank foresees the end of schools, classrooms and teachers, to be replaced by an endless supply of virtual experiences and interactions.

In many cases, the bold ideas of one writer are challenged or balanced by another, making the book a kind of high-level dialogue. Cosmologist Martin Rees, for example, takes on Smolin's idea of evolving universes, and neurobiologist Robert Sapolsky is much less optimistic about our ability to conquer depression than is psychologist Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi.

It's not all perfection, however. A few of the essays seemed relatively uninspired. These included psychologist Paul Bloom's pessimistic view of our ability ever to understand consciousness or the nature of thought--"We might be like dogs trying to understand calculus." And I found computer scientist David Gelernter's essay on the grand "information beam" that will transform everyone's lives an unconvincing one-note techno-fix. Also the book really needs an index--that simple addition would have made it much more useful.

However, it's a book that tackles big questions about our future in as thoughtful, insightful and well informed a manner as I've ever encountered. It's worth reading and re-reading.

Robert Adler, author of Science Firsts: From the Creation of Science to the Science of Creation (Wiley, 2002).

Twenty-five scientists expound on what the world will be like in 2050. The quality in my opinion is a little spotty and too many of them preface their story with a disclaimer about the fallacy of making predictions - but well over half of them are absolutely invigorating. Each new chapter is like taste-testing a new flavor of ice cream blindfolded. They all tend to focus on big developments in their own field, as they should. My favorite approach for this assignment was by Judith Rich Harris who gave a lecture in 2050 at the age of 125. She first thanked previous scientists for the contributions they had made to human longevity. Overall, this is a superb read.

Lee Smolin - We will have a more detailed history of the universe which will constrain current theories about INFLATION...we may or may not have observed dark matter and dark energy. String Theory (its only mention in this book) will be ruled in or out by observations within a few years.

Ian Stewart - The concept of "proof" in mathematics will come under scrutiny and will survive. The use of computers in mathematical proofs will be ingrained. We will have a rigorous mathematical theory of emergent phenomenon and the high level dynamics of complex relationships.

Martin Rees - We will know how life began on earth.

Allison Gopnik - The emergence of the disciplines of philosophy of science, AI, statistics and developmental psychology will lead to a full-fledged theory of how we learn.

Paul Bloom - The fact that evolutionary considerations exist as a source of evidence in the study of psychology will no longer be questioned.

Geoffrey Miller - The charge that evolutionary psychology is a set of "just-so stories" will vanish, as we see the genetic footprints of evolution all over our brains.

Milahy Csikszentmihalyi - We will have the ability to control the genetic make-up of the human species.

Robert Sapolsky - Our traditional sources of solace will progressively atrophy...we will become sadder.

Steven Strogatz - Our brains are hardwired by evolution to visualize only three dimensions. We will be rescued from the demon of dimensionality by computers. We may end up as bystanders, unable to follow along with the machines we've built, flabbergasted by their startling conclusions.

Richard Dawkins - A patient will purchase the read-out of his entire genome for $160 (today's money). The doctor will hand out a prescription suited precisely to his/her genome. Detectives finding a blood-stain may be able to issue a computer image of the suspect's face. The "Lucy Genome Project" will create Lucy (Jurassic Park style). The existence of a living, breathing Lucy in our midst will change forever our complacent human-centered view of morals and politics.

Paul Davies - We will go to Mars.

John Holland - We will still know surprisingly little about the relationship between consciousness and neural activity. We will wear a wrist-watch sized multi-function device which assists us with all aspects of living, including social and political decisions. This will create a logarithmic increase in the number of people who routinely explore options in a principled way. We will have robotic trained assistants, but they will be brittle in unexpected situations. We will have engineered solutions to diseases and artificial immune systems. We will have flexible individual or group transport, without confinement to roads, making highway systems obsolete. Surveillance will be so advanced, privacy and freedom will be an issue. We will have bases on the Moon, Mars and circling Jupiter. This writer gets a gold star for creativity and bold predictions.

Rodney Brooks - We will perhaps be able to add a few sheets of neurons to our brains. We can expect radical alterations to the human body through genetic manipulation. What responsibilities does the individual scientist have for whatever forms of life he manipulates - or creates? Questions like these will thrashed out, accompanied by vandalism, terrorism and full-fledged war. Another gold star.

Peter Atkins - We will produce working proteins and a good synthetic approximation of cell membranes, but we will not yet synthesize life. Carbon nanotubes will be used to build suspension bridges. Bacteria, already being milked for pharmaceuticals and other chemicals, will be engineered to excrete whole machines.

Roger Schank - Knowledge will be so easy to obtain that virtual reality systems will replace schools. The creation of virtual experience will be a major industry.

Jaron Lanier - Computers files will be replaced and an alternative to protocol adherence will be found. In a wide variety of explorations, we will be limited by complexity ceilings, which cannot be breached by faster computers.

David Gelernter - The standard shape of information will be a form he calls the "information beam." The affiliated Cybersphere will replace the Internet. We will still be reading books, but most universities will be gone. Technology will be vastly more powerful but we will be less fixated upon it. A school will be a random collection of kids, each tapped into his information beam. We won't need cities any more, except as gigantic museums/theme parks/shopping malls.

Joseph Ledoux - Brain fMRI techniques will be refined enough to identify potential criminals. As we discover more about the balance between the conscious and unconscious mind, lawyers will thrash out the nature and limits of human responsibility. Drugs will treat troubled networks in the brain without affecting others, and recreational re-wiring will be available.

Judith Rich Harris - In 2016, the US government will refuse to fund any more developmental psychology studies that don't include genetic controls. The older generation of developmental psychologists will promptly retire. In 2021, it will be discovered that Neanderthals were furry, that humans and Neanderthals viewed each other as food, and that humans viewed Neanderthals as a source of warm clothing.

Samuel Barondes - Anyone visiting a psychiatrist will bring his personal DNA file. There will be hundreds of medications to choose from, matched to one's genome.

Paul Ewald - Atherosclerosis, diabetes, Alzheimer's, schizophrenia, most cancers and most fertility problems will be known to be caused by infections.

There is much to mull over in the fascinating speculations and predictions in this book. Despite the shortcomings of a multi-authored book, it definitely earns FIVE ENTHUSIASTIC STARS!!!