Wong Lives! Book Reviews: Book Review: Physics of the Future

Physics of the Future: How Science Will Shape Human Destiny and Our Daily Lives by the Year 2100, by Michio Kaku

Source: Amazon.com

From the book’s cover:

Space elevators. Internet-enabled contact lenses. Cars that fly by floating on magnetic fields. This is the stuff of science fiction—it’s also daily life in the year 2100.

Renowned theoretical physicist Michio Kaku details the developments in computer technology, artificial intelligence, medicine, space travel, and more, that are poised to happen over the next hundred years. He also considers how these inventions will affect the world economy, addressing the key questions: Who will have jobs? Which nations will prosper? Kaku interviews three hundred of the world’s top scientists—working in their labs on astonishing prototypes. He also takes into account the rigorous scientific principles that regulate how quickly, how safely, and how far technologies can advance. In Physics of the Future, Kaku forecasts a century of earthshaking advances in technology that could make even the last centuries’ leaps and bounds seem insignificant.

The review:

Physics of the Future was one of those books that gave me a million ideas. I both treasure books like these, and at the same time dread reviewing them, as it is a burden to narrow down all the good stuff I assimilated while reading into a practical review. That being said, I will do two things in my review that follows. (First,) I will not try and distill Physics of the Future into a tidy package for the reader, but will instead (Second) both give my recommendation and then proceed to point out some specific things the author, Michio Kaku, includes in his writings that I found fascinating.

The author: Michio Kaku. / Source: popularmechanics.com

For the first detail, my recommendation is that you read this book if you are at all interested in the future of science and technology. No, it isn't fool-proof, as some of the predictions may not come true, or may not come when Kaku says they will. On the other hand, I believe that the science behind what Kaku says it pretty firm (not that I am in any way qualified to make that judgment, so those who are can argue me down quite easily), and also fascinating. So in two words, I will conclude my recommendation portion by saying... well, "Highly Recommended!"

Having said that, now I will turn to the salient points I would like to share. If you need some convincing, or if you just like to read my prose (and there are one or two people out there who apparently do), then please continue. If not, skip my rambling (and this section was compiled from very bare bones notes and so even I think it rambles quite a bit, mind you), and go read the book instead.

I liked the concept of the so-called "Caveman Principle." To paraphrase it, that is: "What ancient man wanted and cared for is what modern man still wants and cares for." It is important for us to remember that we are still tied to our roots as human beings, no matter how advanced our society becomes. And it also affects all the ways in which we develop.

Kaku says that new mediums don't totally supplant old ones, but co-exist. I agree, but I think there is a shift in alignment - thus some forms of media do wane into niches or finally disappear entirely. His illustration for the theory was AT&T's picture phone, which cost a million bucks each and sold very poorly (I think it was AT&T). But then there is the iPhone, which does this same thing today. Back when the picture phone released, there was not only the lack of enthusiasm for having yourself viewed on camera in order to make a call, but the lack of enough true infrastructure. But today, when the idea has matured, the iPhone does all this that the picture phone did and then some. And it is, to modern users, no big deal. But when AT&T did it, it was a wonder-tech. Just not a wonder-tech almost anyone was ready for, obviously.

Kaku talks about the idea of wall screens. The idea that an entire wall of a given room (or then some; he talks about multiple walls being used this way, but starts with just one wall as a point of departure) may be used for display of information (be it TV, computer, phone communication, or any number of other uses). "People will gather around the wall screen" he says. However, this would seem contrary to his earlier assertions. People will still want face-to-face, but will use the wall screen tech as a supplement or to replace things that don't require face-to-face. Or when face-to-face would be unpleasant - such as breaking up with a boy/girlfriend, or talking to someone you find particularly repellent but must communicate with. Also I am sure that the "wall screen" will be used, like all future tech will be, in unique ways not envisioned by creators, and further will put new spins on old ideas.

A graph illustrating the principle of Moore's Law, and postulating it into the future. "MIPS" stands for million instructions per second. The MIPS rates of spiders and lizards has already been surpassed, if this graph is to be taken literally. / Source: users.hal-pc.org

He mentions the end of Moore's Law. He points to the idea that there will need to be a major revolution in technology when etching transistors - by 2020 or so, this is - when those transistors are the size of individual atoms. At this point, quantum physics will take over. It is entirely possible that Silicon Valley could become a rust-belt zone when that attendant tech crash occurs. We'll need a successor to silicon technology to avoid this problems.

The material on mind reading via MRIs was fascinating. He then spoke of the development of miniature MRI's , which could lead to a real-life creation of the ubiquitous Star Trek tech, the tricorder. Imagine being able to scan something with a hand-held device and get all kinds of useful information from it, like they do on that show. That's be pretty cool, and 'ones up' so many possibilities. A "force multiplier," they call it in the military.

The material on AI (Artificial Intelligence) was also enlightening. Kaku points out that today's most sophisticated digital AI's are no brighter than cockroaches at a fundamental level. Then he explained how there is either the top down (digital) method of AI, which is not organic at all (as our brains work, I mean), or the bottom up AI, which requires human-like experience and deduction to gain intelligence. This makes sense, but would seem to be a messy route at first. Imagine the concept of a truly robotic child? Not a robot shaped and programmed to be like a child, but an artificial intelligence that is actually immature, like a child. Needing to develop to reach developmental levels that we take for granted after years of life. Thinking of this, and knowing what I know of kids from my own fatherhood experience, it would be problematic to raise an AI like a kid.

Then Kaku described the technology involved in growing new organs. A lot of this was based in stem cells. Then he discussed gene therapy. I especially liked the analogy that Cancer is like a horde of diseases. It makes for such a vivid image. Of course, there was material on genetic improvement too. I liked how he noted that cloned cows act similarly, and group together. It makes the old wheeze ring strangely true (now-a-days it s a wheeze, I mean) about cloned soldiers acting so similarly. Like ants. Of course, he pointed out that stem cells sometimes go nuts and cause cancer. That is scary, and makes me glad that the technology ha not been rushed to market.

A "scaffold" ear of artificial design is placed in a petri dish and surrounded by cell material which will eventually cover the scaffold. The half-synthetic and half organic cell creation is then grafted onto a patient's head, to replace a missing organ. Someday in the future, it is expected that scientists will be able to grow the entire ear, cartilage and all. / Source: NationalGeographic.com

I especially liked the section that talked about the "smart mice side effect." It seems that, when mice are genetically enhanced to be more intelligent, they have a tendency to freeze up with fear when placed in a situation in which painful stimulus is the form of feedback they receive for a choice. The mice remember too much. This is an interesting idea when linked to humans. Is there really such a thing as being too smart to be brave? And this raises interesting questions of the value of memory. Are smart people more likely or less likely to take chances, if they can accurately forecast what the results of those chances might be? And would enhancement of our deductive logic skills through genetic manipulation make us better problem solvers, as a result, or actually decrease our abilities by causing us to over-think and lock up?

There was a follow-up to this "Smart Mice paradox" that discussed the problems associated with emotions centers of the brain, when damaged in humans, causes difficulties in choice/value judgments. It seems that emotion in a primitive part of our brain anatomy. Thus the Star Trek character "Data" is probably backwards from how it really would be. It seems that truly intelligent machines would need a form of intelligent emotions for proper value judgment. Otherwise, a machine could do marvelous feats but still be just sophisticated calculators. Without judgment, there is no true decision making.

The section on genetic legalities was fascinating in its implications. Laws against unfair competitive advantage via genetic manipulation for humans are likely, but my question is, how do you enforce them globally? What happens if a developed nation (not a rogue state) were to pursue a clandestine policy of genetic enhancement on its general population? Such a nation could be able to achieve the dream of Nazi Germany, and all the horrors too, if it wished. And how would other nations be able to effectively respond, if one nation's people were all bred to be better than the average stock, and thereby could out-compete all others? It sounds like an instance of a return to the post-Napoleonic European treaties alliance, in which nations would combine to keep one of their number managed, and thus eliminate threats to security. But is that still possible in the years ahead? If you wanna get sci-fi-y, it also sounds like the stuff in Star Trek about Khan and the Eugenics Wars. But that is too far afield for this review, so I'll leave it at passing mention only.

The idea of an artificial intelligence (or "A.I." for short) needing emotions in order to be more than just a bunch of highly sophisticated computations might conjure the image of The Wizard of Oz character, the Tin Man, who was more than capable of all things save it be true feeling. If I remember that movie (I haven't read the book yet, sorry), the Tin Man felt incomplete as long as he lacked a heart and the emotions that such a symbolic object would convey. Future A.I. may very well require emotions in order to break the barrier of being simply highly advanced calculators. / Source: TVtropes.org

There was much discussed on how machines will become more complex and begin to emulate human thought. The process by which a human brain is simulated, and the attendant costs (it is estimated that computer emulation of a single human brain would take up the power output of one entire nuclear power plant, based on present models, which is staggering when you realize that the actual human brain only uses about 20 watts of power). Going along with this intelligent machine line-of-thought, Kaku predicted that there will be robots as intelligent as dogs/cats by 2050-ish. That will be something to see, and I hope I live long enough to do so. Probably not, at the rate I am going though.

Physics of the Future also deals with the idea of "super-intelligence," which would be the ability to out-play a human (skilled at chess) at chess,, only done large. This means the machine would be able to out-predict, out-think, and out-anticipate. Being able to see all moves ahead and back. If a machine was developed that could do this, such a machine could, hypothetically, try to expand itself indefinitely and use its super smarts to do things we could not do, and thus spread itself throughout the cosmos.

Of course, there is the question of production. How to turn raw resources into usable tools and provide for the needs of any being, be it man or super intelligent machine, that is expanding into uncharted territory. This calls for the replicator, or the device from Star Trek which turns base component atoms into almost any practical application needed (such as food, clothes, spare parts, entertainment items, even fluid water for drinking!) However, it is my thought that the first replicator that serves the common man will, by its very nature, destroy our present economic models. Talk about eliminating the fundamental structure of a market economy!

Fusion-powered reactors are a trope of sci-fi that are almost ubiquitous, given the anticipation that technologies in the future will require tremendous amounts of cheap energy to power them. For instance, who can forget Mr. Fusion, the coffee pot-sized reactor that powered Do Brown's Delorean time machine in the Back to the Future movie trilogy. Oh, and by the way, when I write this caption, it is October of 2014, and there are no flying cars yet. My twelve year old self (Back to the Future Part 2 having come out in 1989... you do the math as to how old I really am) feels gipted. / Source: RapGenius.com

But what will power these devices? Well, Kaku talks about the need to find new and better energy production methods. One that made quite an impression was the idea of true fusion reactors. Current nuclear reactors are principally of the fission type - that is, they split atoms and use the output of energy to create usable electricity. But if we could make reactors that achieve fusion - the combining of elements with the attendant power output, and which put out more power than it takes to bring them online - this could be the first self-sustaining energy source on Earth. That is a game-changer, if I read it right.

There was discussion on the future abilities we will have as a species to genetically manipulate things in our environment that we can only dream of now. This leads to the obvious idea of being able to clone organisms that have become extinct. Now everyone thinks of Jurassic Park and the reproduction of extinct dinosaurs into our current time, but what about the idea of cloning Neanderthals? If we did (and we may, based on a 2009 study), what would Neanderthals do? How would they exist in today's world? Dinosaurs are like the wild animals of eons past, but they don't reason or develop new skills like human beings do (at least as far as we know). But a being with the potential to adapt and enhance itself, because of its brain capacity with the in-built capacity for growth? That's interesting.

With highly tailored genetic manipulation comes the possibility of creating mythological or even completely dreamed up animals. Kaku states that this will probably not happen within the 21st century. But imagine, if you will, the ability to converse with a real live centaur. Or keep a dragon as a pet. Or keep two-headed sharks in your pool? And these are just tame ideas, compared to what might be possible.

Of course, the power to manipulate genes so thoroughly has its downside. I don't recall if it was covered in Kaku's book, but I have read recently that scientists predict that 3D printers will become sophisticated enough that, in the coming years, we will be able to print genes with them. If someone with malicious intent decided to use this for bad purposes... And there are plenty of bad diseases out there that are freely available for replication, should someone be able to do it. As a specific example, look at the Spanish Flu that killed millions in the early twentieth century. This specific strain of the influenza virus caused immune system to overrun, which caused the victim to drown in their own bodily fluids. And the Spanish flu genome data is available on the world-wide-web. That is a scary thought.

This could be inside you right this second... damn, now I'm creeped out. / Source: nanomedicine.yolasite.com

On the other hand, we will have the ability to do things to help mankind that we can only dream of now. Such as use miniature devices, known as nanobots, to fix problems from the inside out. To think that you could come down with a life-threatening disease and they could give you a shot with nanobots in it, and they would go in, fix what was wrong with you, and then (if the plan goes as it should), be expelled from your body. It'd be like a miracle. Kaku states, on this line of thought, that cancer cells have big pores that would make them easy targets for nano particles devices. And he states that by 2050, this is highly likely.

Physics of the Future also covers the concepts relating to the future of space travel. Kaku makes the point that much of the work of achieving exo-atmospheric flight is in getting heavier and heavier payloads into orbit. Our planet is not easy to get off of, after all. But Kaku posits that, if we send nano probes to distant places in space, we can learn a great deal about them without the attendant material usage and work that current systems intrinsically have. The smaller the payload weight, the less it costs to propel it out of Earth's gravity well. Nano particles could do the work of exploration on a distant world and then humanity could work toward visiting such a place in person. It's definitely not sexy, but it is very practical.

He also theorizes that starships capable of propelling any part of our presence beyond our own galaxy will not appear until the 22nd century. It simply costs too much in resources to do it, even though there are concepts that could obey the laws of physics and travel out of our galaxy which could be deployed in the next twenty or so years. But without a major effort on a global scale, intergalactic travel is not likely for some time

The discussion on the use of resources to build starships brought up some fascinating implications. For instance, the future of wealth. Kaku theorizes that computer chips will become ubiquitous. They will be to mankind as paper, water and electricity are today. All are common, and taken for granted, even causing high levels of waste. Chips will get that common in the coming decades, he says.

Not surprisingly, all these chips will need someone still to program for them. Thus, true human intelligence cannot be mass produced. The creation of software will become more valuable as the price of hardware goes down. Everything will need software of some sort. So basically, we'll have more chips but less brains? It makes for an odd picture, envisioning a world in which everything around us is so-called "smart tech," but none of it is worth anything if we aren't keeping it running and providing it with instructions.

The image name for this picture is "white-house-responds-to-petition-to-build-a-death-star-size-comparison". I just had to include that. As for the contents of the image itself... well, I never realized that the second Death Star was so massive! No wonder it wasn't finished yet, when the Rebel Alliance made their pivotal attack. Even for a civilization that had obviously far progressed in the scope of what they could accomplish, that is one big hunk of stuff. / Source: reddit.com

All this looks toward the future. Kaku points out that physicists rank societies by the energy they consume. He discusses the Russian astrophysicist Nicolai Kardashev, who

who came up with the three planetary civilization types. Quickly, here are the three levels described:

- Type I: this civilization harnesses the energy output of an entire planet.

- Type II: this civilization harnesses the energy output of a star, and generates about 10 billion times the energy output of a Type I civilization.

- Type III: this civilization harnesses the energy output of a galaxy, or about 10 billion time the energy output of a Type II civilization

Kaku illustrates that a Type II civilization is effectively immortal, because it has developed the ability to manipulate itself so as to effectively stop the process of death, and to preserve consciousnesses so that no individual's sum of experiences is ever truly lost. But I ask the question: what about outside attack from another Type II civ? How would this go? Put that in your space opera and grind it! And also, Type III civs might have already visited us and we don't know it. Why would such a highly advanced society want to talk to us if we are so primitive?

So why did I like the book? The answer, in a nutshell, is that I like things that provides me with a ton of material with which to ponder and think upon, and then says "run with it." It doesn't even have to say that last part, but the fact that it gives you so much almost begs the call to action. Physics of the Future could be used to write twenty sci-fi novels, and anything that produces that much intellectual stimulation toward good pursuits is worth a look, in my opinion. And now, having covered all of the stuff I reasonably could on Physics of the Future (without out-and-out breaking copyright law and giving you the whole book to read right here, that is), and then having pointed out some of my own thoughts, I can say no more on it just now. So I ask: why are you still reading this? Go read Physics of the Future!

Learn more about Physics of the Future, by Michio Kaku, on Amazon.com

The parting comment:

Source: LOLSnaps.com

Death Star... Watermelon... Gallagher... Smashing melons... Physics... The physics of Star Wars... Death Star... It's all one big loop, don't ya know.