« January 2008 | Main Page | March 2008 »
I've been down sick now for a few days, pretty much since getting back from London. This means no Future Salon talk tonight, and I'd damn well better be better before heading out to Wisconsin next week. (What's that you say? That Wisconsin is having its heaviest winter in modern history?)
Feeling pretty miserable at the moment.
UPDATE: Sadly, this event has been canceled.
Here's an interesting data point about the changing perception of "the future:" a transformative technologies conference aimed not at fellow trans-techies, but at investors.
Scivestor's Disruptive Technologies Conference - NYC 2008, happening on May 22nd, will host a variety of speakers (including me and the Director of the Center for Responsible Nanotechnology, Mike Treder) talking about the potential for large-scale economic and social disruption happening due to medium-term technological change.
I have to admit, this is an odd environment for me, as I'm more accustomed to speaking to people looking at managing impacts, not to people looking at profiting from them. But since the investment community is arguably a key catalyst for technological change, it's important to speak to them, to help them make wiser choices. For people out there concerned by this, don't worry: I won't change my message. My goal remains supporting the ethical, inclusive, open development of transformative technologies, and that's what I'll be talking about to this -- hopefully, receptive -- audience.
Here's the event info:
From the event brochure: "By some estimates the very nature of mankind will change radically in the coming years transformed by the accelerating pace of technology change. These empowering technologies – Artificial Intelligence, Nanotechnology, Robotics, Virtual Reality, and Human Enhancement – will soon become major disruptors to today's profitable business models.The SciVestor Disruptive Technologies Conference represents the single most relevant gathering of thought leaders, businesses and investors focused on monetizing this opportunity. The intensive day-long event will offer tangible insight for both the investment and business communities."
Jamais Cascio will be present and will join other technology and business futurists like Adam Bly, Dr. Eric Braverman, Mike Treder and Jonas Lamis.
You can download the event brochure here (pdf).
Registration information is available here:
http://www.scivestor.com/events/scivestor-disruptive-technologies-conferenceWho Should Attend: Investment Managers, Business Executives and Strategists, Technology Futurists, Venture Capitalists and Individual Investors who are focused on staying ahead of the coming waves of transformative technologies. Seating is limited to 125 attendees.
When: Thursday, May 22, 2008
Where: New York Information Technology Center - Wall Street
55 Broad Street
New York City
Cost: $495 per person until March 15th, 2008. Then $595 per person.
Do let me know if you plan to attend.
I'm home now from London, and will be here for a week or so. Posting will resume shortly. In the meantime, here's a shot I took of Tower Bridge in London, the location of the horizonTAL workshop I attended:
Here's the fun part: I took that picture with my phone.
European education group Sky Learning has added the cheeseburger footprint segment from Six Degrees to the digital video site Brightcove.tv... so here it is:
[Video has been removed; here's a new link:
Comments, etc., always welcome.
In London, not finding much time for writing.
The Big Picture series will resume when I get back stateside.
Some quick links:
...it is with "used futures" that we dress the indigent beneficiaries of these sports companies' generosity. They are literally clothed in possibilities, however trivial, discarded by the wealthy West.And so, in the wake of the recent Super Bowl result, we now have the following vivid, curious image; poor children in Third World countries running around clad in counterfactual souvenir apparel.
If lies and secrets abound in the “real” world, online they positively flourish. Bell says lies about location, context, intent and identity (physical appearance, aspirations, demography, status and standing) are all possible, sometimes even required, in the context of our digital lives. [...] The question is: are information/communication technologies (and related applications and services) succeeding in part because they facilitate our lying ways? Or are our lies and secrets are necessary to keep us ‘safe’?
The team of scientists created 25 ZIF ["zeolitic imidazolate frameworks"] crystal structures in a laboratory, three of which showed a particular affinity for capturing carbon dioxide. The highly porous crystals also had what the researchers called "extraordinary capacity for storing CO2": one litre of the crystals could store about 83 litres of CO2.
They made a recording, but no word yet on where or when it will be found.
(Photo: "Jamais Cascio pulls a 1984" by Jerry Paffendorf)
In late December of 2007, I wrote a post entitled "Malware for Materials," arguing that the increasing digital smarts of previous-dumb physical objects was a ripe medium for malicious software and spam.
For the most part, malicious bits of code and data -- collectively referred to as "malware" -- have remained comfortably limited to devices that we recognize as being (to a greater or lesser extent) computers. But as products and materials that have long been seen as non-computers start to get connected to the Internet, start to include processing capability and memory, start to offer "always on" wireless connections -- all in all, start to be active parts of our environments -- the likelihood increases that we'll start to see malware pop up in unexpected locations.[...] A greater concern is that the viruses (and trojans) that do exist will take advantage of the legacy of trust we have for the dumb versions of the now-smart materials; will we have to worry about what the (voice-controlled) refrigerator overhears or the (video-chat-ready) television sees?
Well, that was fast.
An insidious computer virus recently discovered on digital photo frames has been identified as a powerful new Trojan Horse from China that collects passwords for online games - and its designers might have larger targets in mind. [...]The virus, which Computer Associates calls Mocmex, recognizes and blocks antivirus protection from more than 100 security vendors, as well as the security and firewall built into Microsoft Windows. It downloads files from remote locations and hides files, which it names randomly, on any PC it infects, making itself very difficult to remove. It spreads by hiding itself on photo frames and any other portable storage device that happens to be plugged into an infected PC. [...]
The new Trojan isn't the only piece of malware involved. Deborah Hale of Sans said the researchers also found four other, older Trojans on each frame, which may serve as markers for botnets - networks of infected PCs that are remotely controlled by hackers.
Whoever thought they'd need to run anti-virus checks on their picture frames?!?!?
The "cyber Pearl Harbor" won't attack through our laptops and servers -- it will hit us in our refrigerators, our Roombas, and our robot bathtubs.
So, that's me on teevee, talking about global warming. It's actually from a scene late in Six Degrees where I argue that "we have an arsenal of solutions available to us." Just trying to keep on the positive.
I finally got to see the program today, and I was amused and startled to discover that they included a stunt double of me taking a bite out of a cheeseburger. I had told them at the outset that I didn't want to eat a cheeseburger on camera -- it seemed a bit hypocritical. I guess they wanted the scene enough to do it as an "insert," using someone else who looked enough like me in a very quick edge-of-the-scene profile to make it work. TV producers use inserts to show a close-up of a character doing a bit of business, such as fiddling with keys; more often than not, the person on camera is not the real actor, but some intern or production assistant or visitor pulled in to help out.
More pictures (including the infamous "latex glove" scene and getting a freezer door slammed in my face) in the extended entry.
The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NNPT), originally promulgated in 1968 and entering into force in 1970, has three key provisions: that nuclear weapon-free signatory states refrain from developing nuclear weapons; that signatory states with nuclear weapons work to disarm; and that signatory states remain free to develop nuclear energy technologies. The treaty has worked reasonably well in preventing weapons proliferation (the current post-treaty nuclear states either did not sign the NNPT or dropped out of it prior to testing), but may face an unexpected threat from climate change. One change to the treaty, however, could help on both the proliferation and climate fronts -- and serve as a perfect example of an economy of scope.
Arguably, the covert (if as-yet unsuccessful) proliferation programs in a small number of countries suggests that the provision of the NNPT allowing for nuclear energy technology conflicts with the provision prohibiting nuclear weapons development. The unfortunate fact is that some of the technologies enabling ongoing nuclear power generation also enable nuclear weapons development; as the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei, said in October of 2007, enrichment and reprocessing technologies "could be the Achilles’ heel of the nuclear non-proliferation regime." The relative success of the NNPT has relied upon the relatively limited development and operation of nuclear power plants outside of the industrialized world. But that's changing.
Half of the nuclear plants now under construction can be found in the developing world. As the risks from global warming highlight the problems with fossil-fuel power -- especially coal -- we're seeing a growing number of calls for greater reliance on nuclear energy as a non-greenhouse gas alternative. The need to avoid carbon-intensive generation will only serve to accelerate global nuclear power deployment.
But the choice isn't just between greenhouse-gas-producing coal plants and proliferation-enabling nuclear plants. Imagine if there were an amendment to the NNPT offering support for the development and deployment of renewable energy technologies to nations that refrain from both nuclear weapons development and nuclear energy development. Support could come in the form of financial assistance, technology transfers, even outright grants, all intended to accelerate the deployment of renewable power in place of both fossil fuel and nuclear energy.
Support could be contingent upon shutting down coal plants, and the details would be specific to the signatory nation's geography. Aside from providing clean energy, this could also serve as a catalyst for the economic development of participating nations, helping them join the "green economy."
People who dismiss this idea based on the argument that renewable power can't match the scale of coal and nuclear haven't been paying attention. Renewable power efforts such as the 500-850MW solar Stirling farm and the 1,500MW wind farm projects now underway in Southern California offer generation levels comparable to larger nuclear power plants. Moreover, what's important is meeting power demands, not keeping all power generation in one building: a hundred 10MW generators offer the same power as a single 1,000MW power plant, and with greater resilience.
Renewables offer a few key advantages over nuclear that may be of particular value to developing nations:
This last one is worth elaborating upon. Solar (photovoltaic and Stirling), wind, and (to a lesser extent) hydrokinetic power rely upon a multitude of small units generating power, while present-day nuclear technologies rely upon small numbers of big reactors. If demands increase, additional renewable power units can be added onto the grid with relative ease. Both new units and existing systems can readily adopt (or retrofit) the latest technology refinements, and broken units (from accident or sabotage) can be taken offline without bringing down hundreds of megawatts of generation.
Intermittency (energy only being produced when the sun is out or the wind blows) is less of an issue than critics sometimes contend, and can be dealt with through distribution (taking advantage of micro-climates), diversity (not just relying on a single renewable source), and over-production & storage (so that the systems can work at peak capacity even when demand is low).
With one step, we could reduce the potential threat of nuclear weapons proliferation, reduce carbon footprints arising from power generation, and help developing world economies leapfrog into 21st century markets. When I talk about "economies of scope," where multiple, unrelated problems are handled by a single solution, this is precisely what I mean.
How likely is this idea? It's not on anyone's agenda -- I haven't heard anybody else talking about the notion. But for a new president looking for ways to deal with big global problems efficiently... let's just say my email address isn't hard to find.
Yeah, my laptop is finally back up and running. Hooray for up-to-date backups & AppleCare!
Mark Finnern has now posted the details about my talk at the Bay Area Future Salon on Thursday, February 28:
...I am super happy that Jamais will be talking about Green Tomorrows at our Future Salon on Thursday the 28th of February. Abstract of his talk:With global warming and ongoing climate disruption posing a leading threat to how the next century unfolds, it's useful to look at the implications of how we might choose to respond. Adopting a "scenario planning" approach, Jamais Cascio looks at four different possible ways we could tackle climate risks -- and the kinds of worlds that these choices might create. From geoengineering to distributed power, hyper-efficient buildings to reimagined cities, the various possible strategies we might employ offer a diversity of complex risks and transformative benefits. [...]
A Future Salon has the following structure: 6-7 networking with light refreshments proudly sponsored by SAP. From 7-9+ pm presentation and discussion. SAP Labs North America, Building D, Room Southern Cross or Cafeteria depending on how many people sign up. SAP is located at 3410 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94304 map As always free and open to the public, spread the news. Please RSVP: http://snurl.com/fs0208
To sum up: Thursday February 28, 7-9pm, Palo Alto, free. Come by and say hi!
This Sunday night, at 8pm Eastern/9pm Pacific, the National Geographic Channel will show Six Degrees Could Change the World, a documentary based on Mark Lynas' book, depicting what could happen to the planet as global temperatures increase. The NGC team interviewed me for the show, and -- based on the appearance of cheeseburger references in early reviews of the program -- it looks like that interview made it in. Yay me.
Two issues:
Some of you should have NGC access, and an interest in the program. It's getting good reviews, so even if you're so over the whole cheeseburger footprint thing you're ready to go out and eat a dozen quarter-pounders just to spite the planet, you should still find it interesting to watch. So here's my request:
As I noted last year, they filmed me in a variety of locations, doing a variety of silly and not-so-silly things. I have no idea what they included, and would really appreciate a description of how I'm portrayed, and -- if possible -- a screenshot.
They tell me that they're going to send me a DVD at some point, so I will eventually see for myself, but I'd appreciate knowing just how much I'm going to have to explain and apologize for next week.
I was going to be posting the next in the Big Picture series today... but a total hard drive crash kind of put a crimp in that plan. I can post this with the Nokia n810, but I wouldn't want to use this for writing essays.
Wow, the folks at the School of Information at UCB got the recording of my talk edited and posted pretty damn quickly!
Here's the link:
First third of the hour is me talking solo (and I seem to be afflicted by um disease), the second two-thirds is Q&A. As always, I welcome your responses and insults.
The insanely busy month begins...
Tuesday, February 5 (i.e., tomorrow):
UC Berkeley's School of Information, Information and Service Design lecture series
"Futurism and its Discontents"
ISD Lecture
Speaker(s): Jamais Cascio
Tuesday, February 5, 2008, 5:00pm-6:00pm
202 South Hall
Abstract
In a rapidly-changing, uncertain environment, the ability to think constructively about various future possibilities is more important than ever. "Foresight Specialists", "Scenario Planners", "Trend Spotters" and good old "Futurists" provide a specialized service that few businesses, non-profits, and governments have organically -- and fewer still recognize that they need. I'll talk about why today's futurism has more to do with imagining the possible than thinking the unthinkable, why futurist ethics matters more than futurist economics, and whether futurism might just be the best job out there for the easily-distracted generalist.
Saturday, February 9:
Writers with Drinks
San Francisco's longest running monthly reading series jumbles genres again, featuring:
Where: The Make Out Room, 3225 22nd. St. btw. Mission & Valencia
When: Saturday, Feb. 9, from 7:30 to 9:30, get there early if you want a seat! [I'm told that I will be going on first, so definitely don't be late!]
How much: $3 to $5, all proceeds benefit CSC and the campaign to save rent control
Writers with Drinks is organized and moderated by Charlie Anders, the editor-in-chief at io9.
Monday, February 11:
Alliance to Save Energy's Green Campus Energy Efficiency Summit 2008
The Alliance to Save Energy's 2008 Green Campus Energy Efficiency Summit is being held in San Diego, CA on February 10th and 11th. The Summit will begin with a reception on Sunday evening, February 10th, at 6:00 PM at the Town and Country Hotel, followed by a full day of speakers, presentations, and planning sessions on Monday, February 11th, from 8:15 AM through 4:30 PM at San Diego State University.
The Green Campus Program builds effective partnerships between students, staff, administrators, and faculty around the common goal of improving campus energy efficiency.
Thursday, February 20:
Horizontal -- Horizon Scanning: Technology and Learning
Tower Bridge, London
Thursday, February 28:
Bay Area Future Salon (details not yet posted)
...and that's just February.
Here's a handy widget: Daylife Labs offers up a tool to build custom topic indexes, based on its own collection of thousands of RSS feeds from news sites and blogs. These Flash widgets track changes in the appearance of various terms in this database, offering a basic version of a personalized information topsight tool. They're easy to make -- here's one I whipped up quickly:
The widgets can hold up to 15 different search terms, and the search engine logic is decent (including AND/OR/NOT, wildcards, and title-only searches). Here's an OtF technology widget:
Seems like a fun tool.
(Thanks, Violet Blue)
Thermal Inertia. Get used to that term, as it drives the relationship between climate disruption and human civilization, now and over the next twenty years. Its meaning is simple: even if we were to stop all greenhouse gas emissions immediately, right this very second, we'd still see continued warming and disruption for the next two or three decades. Changes to ocean temperatures (in particular) lag climate forcings, committing us to at least a bit more warming, probably about half a degree celsius, bringing us close to the hottest we've been in a million years. Unfortunately, we're not stopping right this second; we probably won't stop increasing our carbon output for another decade, at best. This means that our climate will still be warming well into the 2030s, no matter what.
Political leaders pay little more than lip service to dealing with climate disruption (most visibly in the U.S., but few Kyoto signatory nations have actually met their required targets). As the signs of climate chaos mount, however, we'll start to see climate taking on greater prominence in public and political discourse, often eclipsing other big issues. If global warming was the sole big driver for the next twenty years, I'd pessimistically assume that we wouldn't see real action until the first big impacts start to appear. The interaction of the climate change driver with other drivers, however, may accelerate that timeline.
Climate Chaos and... Resource Collapse
Of all of the big drivers for the next two decades, climate chaos and resource collapse have the most complex interaction. On the surface, it's clear that each can make the other worse: agricultural collapse can push people to tear down rain forests faster (both reducing a carbon sink and putting even more carbon into the air by burning); greater storms & droughts can produce massive refugee movements, overwhelming local resource bases; drivers and industry looking for an alternative to oil pushing for biofuels, driving up the cost of food; desperate communities choosing survival over the careful maintenance of ecosystem services. It's a truly vicious cycle.
But look more closely, and one can see that many (not all, but many) of the solutions for one issue have a positive impact on the other. Smarter agricultural practices boost food production, improve soil, and sequester more carbon. Improving urban and transportation models (from bicycles & buses to electric cars) to fight global warming avoids a "peak oil" disaster. Climate and resource activists alike extol the virtues of localism. The need to deal with one of these issues can make dealing with the other easier and faster.
Response model: Look for economies of scope, those opportunities where a single solution approach can handle seemingly unrelated problems.
Climate Chaos and... Catalytic Innovation
The relationship between climate chaos and catalytic innovation is a bit simpler. In general, climate disruption can serve as a focus for technological innovation, and these innovations offer ways to accelerate our shift to a post-carbon economy.
The scenario "Breaking the Fever," part of the Center for Responsible Nanotechnology's molecular manufacturing scenario series, offers one example of how climate and catalytic technologies can interplay. An excerpt:
During the time between the first Carbon Crisis Summit, in 2017, and the roll-out of early molecular manufacturing systems four years later, the global climate continued to degrade. It became obvious that a third approach beyond the carbon reduction and greenhouse reversal endeavors was needed, and that strategy -- effects mitigation -- soon became the dominant effort. While zero carbon teams worked to drive down the cost of nanopolymer photovoltaic materials (used today on nearly every product that needs power, and quite a few that don't) and greenhouse reversal teams experimented with ways to pull carbon dioxide and methane out of the atmosphere without causing unanticipated problems, the mitigation groups became a new kind of "first responders" to climate-related disasters. From the rapid fabrication of sea walls and flood barriers to the overnight construction of housing and infrastructure for millions of environmental refugees, effects mitigation teams had the closest relationship with the everyday victims of global warming; correspondingly, they soon had the greatest popularity, and even became the subject of a top-ten holovision show.
Other catalytic technologies, such as artificial general intelligence and advanced synthetic biology, could also be readily focused on analyzing, mitigating, and remediating the effects of climate chaos as they are developed.
Response model: As the timing and capabilities of catalytic technologies are inherently uncertain, we can't depend on them fixing the climate problem for us. However, we need to be ready to take immediate advantage of such technological developments.
Climate Chaos and... Ubiquitous Transparency
Augmented reality, mirror worlds, lifelogging, sousveillance, even the participatory panopticon -- whatever we call it, we're already seeing the rise of the transparent world. This isn't simply a technological phenomenon; increasingly ubiquitous transparency also appears in the form of open access science, open source production models, and (less appealingly) the broad dissolution of privacy. Of all of the big drivers for the next twenty years, this is the one that is likely to feel the most intimate and inescapable.
The interplay between climate chaos and ubiquitous transparency is likely to take at least one of two different forms.
The first is the "participatory sensor" model, where the proliferating monitoring and information systems focus on the changes happening to the environment. The various mobile devices that we carry become part of this network, too, so that everyone who participates adds to our improved understanding of what's happening to the planet. This was the focus of the talk I gave at TED in 2006.
The second is the "green panopticon" model, where these monitoring and information networks focus on behavior, whether by institutions or individuals. If we see carbon emissions as literally a life-or-death issue, it's not hard to imagine us using whatever means we have at our disposal to make sure that people aren't putting the planet at risk. The longer we wait to act, the more desperate our response will be, and the more likely we are to take measures like this.
Response model: if we focus the sensors on the planet rather than at each other, we can better our understanding of what's taking place and (as mobile devices become more important to this system) may be able to boost the level of participation in environmental protection among younger people.
Climate Chaos and... New Models of Development
The intersection of climate chaos and new models of development has three broad categories of outcomes; we're likely to see all three happen in various developing nations.
Climate chaos may serve as an accelerant to new development models, by opening up new economic niches (in green energy, for example) or making the traditional alternatives either unavailable or unappealing. Brazil as a "biofuel Saudi Arabia" is an example of this path.
It may serve as a fence to new development models, by making the short-term costs of the new models greater than the costs of traditional development; this can then serve to make the climate disruption problem worse. China and India's reluctance to move off of fossil-fuel-based growth is an example.
Finally, it may serve as a killer of new development models, by unleashing so much environmental devastation on a nation or region that any kind of development seems impossible. Storms, drought, and famine can bring even the most promising developing country down.
Response model: since the fence result makes climate disruption worse, and the killer result, well, kills millions, developed world policies should focus on helping the growth of green industries in up-and-coming developing nations.
Climate Chaos and... The Rise of the Post-Hegemonic World
The relationship between climate chaos and the rise of the post-hegemonic world is tricky. Climate disruption isn't causing the decline of US hegemony, nor is it caused by that decline. However, global warming underscores the weakness of the American hegemony, and that the decline of American hegemony weakens the potential for a near-term coordinated response to global warming. Moreover, this decline has the potential to make dealing with climate chaos more difficult.
The best example of this situation occurred at the Bali global warming conference in December. The US delegation refused to sign an agreement accepted by essentially the rest of the participants, instead arguing for its own alternative. Kevin Conrad, the delegate from Papua New Guinea, then stepped to the microphone and said this:
There's an old saying: If you are not willing to lead, then get out of the way. I ask the United States: We asked for your leadership; we seek your leadership. But if for some reason you are not willing to lead, leave it to the rest of us; please get out of the way.
A weakened American hegemon is one that is most likely to either try a costly attempt to shore up its power, or lash out at rising competitors, distracting national and world leadership at a time when distraction is most problematic. Of all of the risks to our global capacity to deal with global warming, this is the most dangerous.
Response model: I'm open to suggestions.
Director of Impacts Analysis, Center for Responsible Nanotechnology
Fellow, Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies
Affiliate, Institute for the Future
Subscribe to the Open the Future feed
