[extropy-chat] Why Think About the Future Now?

[Hal Finney]

Robin writes:
> Why think about the future now?  Why not wait until it gets here to 
> think about it?  The best answer would seem to be that there are some 
> problems we could better avoid if we start dealing with them now, or 
> some opportunities that can be better exploited if we start working 
> on them now.    So what are these leverage problems and 
> opportunities?   It seems to me that outcome-oriented discussions of 
> the future should more consciously be trying to find these leverage 
> points, and once found should be focused on them.   Of course those 
> who just discuss the future because it is fun can ignore this issue.

I think this makes a lot of sense.  We on this list are somewhat unusual
in our discussion of medium term and far future issues, say from 10 years
on out.  Most people don't give too much thought to the specifics of what
the world may be like in that time frame, other than to set up retirement
accounts and investments that implicitly assume that things will be much
the same.  While some of our discussions are indeed just for fun, at
the same time I think we would hope that they accomplish something useful.

The future is obviously highly uncertain, and if you take into account the
human tendency to be overconfident in predictions, it's likely that our
individual visions of the future will not be as accurate as they seem.
It's impossible to predict things in any detail.  Nevertheless we could
hope for success if we can identify powerful forces which will shape
and constrain the future.

My feeling is that it makes sense to focus on the medium term, say 10-20
years out, and to identify any factors which could substantially change
the status quo in that time frame.  Beyond 20 years things become much
more uncertain.  Particularly I look at negative factors, serious threats
to human health and welfare.  Positive surprises will be good, of course,
but negative ones have greater urgency.

This is one reason I have been following the Peak Oil theory, which
predicts (in a popular variant) that energy will soon become a serious
limitation on economic growth, leading to persistant worldwide recession
and possibly increased conflict levels.  I don't agree with the detailed
scenarios painted by some Peak Oil theorists, but nevertheless if we
do enter a regime of much more expensive energy it could have serious
consequences that are worth examining.

Another potential threat is bird flu.  This is not yet transmittable from
human to human, only from bird to human (and bird to bird of course).
I haven't seen recent figures on human mortality rates but I believe they
are above 50%.  Now, even if it mutates to be transmittable among people
it will probably not kill half the human population.  Nevertheless it
is not outside the realm of probability that a substantial fraction of
the human race could die within a few years if things take a turn for
the worse.  Clearly this is a threat which bears watching.

Another biological threat is bioengineered plagues, either created
via terrorism or released from military stockpiles.  These could be
released intentionally or accidentally into large populations and cause
severe damage.

We have often discussed transformative technologies like AI or nanotech
which could potentially have very bad as well as positive impacts.
It will be helpful to understand the probability of developments in
these areas as well as likely early signs of progress.

These various potential threats don't seem particularly likely (although
opinions may differ).  And of course we could hope for more positive
transformations.  Overall it's likely that the popular view is not too
far wrong, and that the world won't be totally transformed in 10-20 years.

Hal