5 Future Technology Myths

What will the world look like 10 years from now? Forty years
from now? Will the continuation of Moore's Law eventually
allow us to have a society run by automated robots? Will we
have conquered global warming and celebrate as a people as we
approach the much-vaunted prospect of the singularity? Some
futurists, the people who deal in this kind of speculation,
have made predictions of this nature, but there are also those
who say these forecasts are inaccurate. In this article,
we'll take a look at some popular ideas about the future of
technology that are likely myths.

Predicting future trends or developments, especially in
a dynamic field like technology, is inherently inexact, but
it is possible to make some informed guesses. Of course, it's
also possible to argue the opposite point of view regarding
the reality of some of these technologies, but in these cases,
there's enough evidence out there, particularly from experts,
to diagnose them as myths.

Let's start with one of the great fabled machines of the
post-industrial age: the flying car.

Soon We'll All Be Driving Flying Cars

The flying car has been prophesied for decades. It's one of
the holy grails of the futuristic, utopian society, where
everyone gets to zip around through the air and land easily,
quietly and safely wherever he or she wants.

You've probably seen videos of flying-car prototypes, taking
off from the ground, hovering and possibly crashing. But the
first "autoplane" was actually unveiled in 1917, and many
similar efforts have followed. Henry Ford predicted the
flying car was coming -- in 1940 -- and there have been
numerous false alarms ever since.

A decade into the 21st century, we don't seem to be any
closer, despite what you might read on gadget blogs. Because
funding dried up, NASA abandoned its contest for inventors
to create a "Personal Air Vehicle," and there doesn't seem
to be another government agency, except perhaps the secretive
DARPA, ready to take on the project.

There are simply too many challenges in the way of a flying
car becoming widely adopted. Cost, flight paths and
regulations, safety, potential use in terrorism, fuel
efficiency, training pilots/drivers, landing, noise,
opposition from the automobile and transportation industries
-- all stand in the way of a legitimate flying car. Also,
these vehicles will likely have to be able to operate as cars
on regular roads, posing another logistical challenge.

In fact, many of the so-called flying cars that are being
hawked as the real thing are simply roadable aircrafts --
a sort of plane/car hybrid that is not capable of, say,
making a short trip to school to drop off the kids. Plus,
they're far too expensive. One such vehicle, the Terrafugia
Transition, set for a release in 2011 or later, is expected
to cost $200,000.

The Technological Singularity Approaches

In recent years, prominent futurists like Ray Kurzweil have
argued that we are approaching the singularity, perhaps as
soon as 2030. There are many different conceptions of just
what exactly the singularity is or will be. Some say it's a
true artificial intelligence that can rival humans in
independent thinking and creativity. In other words,
machines will surpass humans in intelligence and as the
planet's dominant species, capable of creating their own new,
smarter machines. Others contend that it will involve such
an explosion in computing power that somehow humans and
machines will merge to create something new, such as by
uploading our minds onto a shared neural network.

Critics of the singularity, such as writer and academic
Douglas Hofstadter, claim that these are "science-fiction
scenarios" that are essentially speculative. Hofstadter
calls them vague and useless in contemporary discussions
of what makes a human being and our relationships with
technology [source: Ross]. There is also little evidence
that the sort of "tidal wave" of technological innovation
predicted by Kurzweil and other futurists is imminent.

Mitch Kapor, the former CEO of Lotus, called the singularity
"intelligent design for the IQ 140 people".
One magazine called it "the Rapture of the geeks"
-- hardly a complimentary term.
Computer scientist Jeff Hawkins contends that while we
may create highly intelligent machines -- far greater
than anything we have now -- true intelligence relies on
"experience and training," rather than just advanced
programming and advanced processing power.

Moore's Law Will Always Hold True

Moore's Law is generally taken to mean that the number of
transistors on a chip -- and by extension, processing power
-- doubles every two years. In reality, Gordon Moore, the
computer scientist who originated Moore's Law in 1965, was
talking about the economic costs of chip production and not
the scientific achievements behind advances in chip design.

Moore believed that the costs of chip production would halve
annually for the next 10 years but may not be sustainable
afterwards [source: Hickins]. The limit to Moore's Law may
then be reached economically instead of scientifically.

Several prominent computer experts have contended that Moore's
Law cannot last more than two decades. Why is Moore's Law
doomed? Because chips have become much more expensive to
produce as transistors have become smaller.

One analyst has predicted that by 2014, transistors will be
20 nanometers in size but that any further reductions in chip
size will be too expensive for mass production.

For comparison, as of summer 2009, only Samsung and Intel
have invested in making 22-nanometer chips.

The factories that produce these chips cost billions of
dollars. Globalfoundries' Fab 2 factory, set to begin
production in New York in 2012, will cost $4.2 billion
to build. Few companies have those kinds of resources, and
Intel has said that a company must have $9 billion in yearly
revenue to compete in the cutting-edge chip market.

That same aforementioned analyst believes that companies will
attempt to make the most out of current technologies before
investing in new, more expensive, smaller chip designs. So
while the end of Moore's Law may limit the rate at which we
add transistors to chips, that does not necessarily mean that
other innovations will prevent the creation of faster, more
advanced computers.

Doubters point to the numerous sci-fi fantasies and
predictions of the past that still have not come true as
evidence that the singularity is just another pie-in-the-sky
dream -- for example, we don't have moon bases or artificial
gravity yet. They also argue that understanding the nature of
consciousness is impossible, much less creating this
capability within machines. Finally, the impending coming of
the singularity depends in large part on the continuation of
Moore's Law, which, as we discuss on the next page, may be
in jeopardy. (It should also be noted that Gordon Moore
himself is not a believer in the singularity.)

Robots Will Be Our Friends

While we're probably not headed for a Skynet-like Armageddon,
an increasing number of scientists worry whether adequate
measures are being taken to safeguard ourselves from our
robotic and digital creations.

One of the main concerns is automation. Will military drones
eventually be allowed to make their own decisions on whether
or not to attack a target? If a human is monitoring, will he
or she still be able to override the drone's wishes? Will we
allow machines to replicate themselves without human
direction? Are we going to allow self-driving cars? (Some
cars already offer the ability to park themselves or to
prevent a driver from drifting into another lane.)

Then there is the issue of robots occupying roles they
probably should not. Already, there are prototype medical
robots designed to ask patients about their symptoms and to
provide counsel, simulating comforting emotions -- a role
traditionally occupied by a human doctor. Microsoft has a
video-based receptionist A.I. in one of its buildings. A new
class of "service robots" can plug themselves into electrical
outlets and perform other menial tasks -- not to mention the
long-established Roomba, an automated, vacuum like robot.

We may also be placing too many critical tasks and
responsibilities into the "hands" of non-human actors, or
will gradually find ourselves in a position of dependence on
machines. At a 2009 conference of computer scientists,
roboticists and other researchers, the experts in attendance
expressed concern about how criminals could take advantage
of next-generation technology, like artificial intelligence,
to hack information or impersonate real people. The bottom
line of this conference and other discussions seems to be
that it's important to start tackling these issues early, to
outline industry standards now, even if it's not clear what
kind of technological advancements the future will bring.

We Can Stop Climate Change

Is global warming inevitable? The consensus among many
scientists is that it is, at least to some extent, and that
we can only hope to stop major disasters and deal with the
consequences. Some of the world's most respected
climatologists say that humanity has already passed the
proverbial point of no return. The UN Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change, a group of more than 2,000 scientists,
met in 2007 and issued a stark warning, after having first
announced that in 2001 global temperatures were already
rising.

Even now, we are seeing the effects of climate change,
such as in glacier melt and rising sea levels making South
Asian cyclones more severe. The effects are expected to be
particularly severe for hundreds of millions of people in the
developing world. The atoll of Tuvalu now deals with high
tides that threaten to submerge the entire nation.

If we produced no more greenhouse gases after today,
the world would still see a 1 degree Fahrenheit increase
in temperature by mid-century because existing carbon
dioxide would stay in the atmosphere for a half-century or
more. (Some countries are trying to do something about this,
such as Norway, which is pumping CO2 into disused underground
oil wells.) And a potentially catastrophic increase of 3 to 6
degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century is possible.


The major remaining question, for some, is whether the amount
of warming can be kept in check in order to prevent these
disastrous scenarios. Encouraging grassroots environmental
action is important, but intergovernmental cooperation is
paramount, and that's been slow in coming, particularly with
the United States, China and India. We also, experts say,
need to begin to plan how to respond to warming-related
disasters, such as by aiding coastal areas, establishing
quick-response units for wildfires and preparing for deadly
heat waves.