Let's continue our journey into the future and see where it leads.
Medicine and it's impact on society:
The strides in medicine over the foreseeable future will be astounding. Most of the things that kill us now will no longer present a problem. Cancer, at least most kinds, Alzheimer, heart disease, emphysema and other deadly diseases will be conquered. Some by advanced surgical methods, but most by developing immunization methods to prevent the disease to begin with. But, a cautionary thought here. History has shown that the little buggers that cause a lot of mankind's diseases and misery have a habit of mutating to be resistant to the current Sera and they go on living and wrecking havoc. Given that history, I don't think we will ever totally overcome all the various known and as yet unknown diseases that will occur in the future.
I think the field of nanotechnology has a real chance to be the future for large fields of medicine. Imagine the little machines programmed to selectively attack and remove bad growths in the body and to close small ruptures in blood vessels. They could repair damaged nerves, or even repair nerves that have been severed due to accidents. They will likely do a lot more than that. The possibilities are almost unbounded.
Interesting experimental programs are underway now to provide artificial limbs which will react just as the real limb. I expect that the field of cybernetics, or robotics if you wish, will allow the attachment of artificial limbs that react to the wearers impulses just as an actual arm or leg. The technology depicted in Star Wars is likely in our future. However, somewhere in the future we may find a way to actually grow limbs, who knows. That would be a better outcome.
Perhaps the stem cell research will develop as everybody hopes and we will be able to grow new organs that will not be subject to the rejection problems now present with organ transplants. And, perhaps repair spinal cord injuries as some have speculated. Whether that avenue of research is fruitful or not, we will find a way to replace failing organs in the future without having to rely on another persons gift to do so. If we can understand an organs functions, then we likely could build a machine that can duplicate those functions. We already know a lot and can duplicate, to some extent, the functions of the heart and kidneys. The future research and development will result in artificial hearts and kidneys that can fit in the body and effectively replace the living organs. The liver, pancreas and other essential organs will follow.
One of the most interesting fields of study will discover the mechanism the causes our bodies to grow and age, and we will learn how to slow the process or even to regulate it completely so that we could be forever young. Eternal Life. Wow, what could be better? Of course people will still be vulnerable to resistant diseases, accidents, suicides, murder, war related trauma and other violent ways to end life. But, advances in medicine, engineering and other sciences will reduce those, to some extent, from our present experience.
In the future I feel sure that women will not have to bear their children. We will be able to create artificial wombs that will nurture the fetus as it grows. I have no clue how this will be implemented but, I feel sure it's coming. Whether this method will be adopted on a wide spread bases is a matter of public policy and individual preference. I think there will be a lot of women who will wish for a child, but just as soon not go through the discomfort and pain of carrying and delivering it. We will be able to manipulate the DNA of the unborn to select the sex, characteristics of the child, and to eliminate any inherent birth defects. I.e. a custom made child. Sounds like the plot of a SciFi movie does't it?
All of this sounds like a blessing, but is it really? The advances that will be made in medicine will result in the population of the world living longer and longer lifetimes. This is especially true if we discover the secrets of aging and learn to slow it down or stop it altogether. Overpopulation, already looming as a problem, will be the first and most damaging of the outcomes, especially in the advanced nations where these medical advances will be first applied. Population in the industrialized worlds will explode, that is until something is done to slow it down, either voluntarily or by the state (see China). Starvation, especially among the poor and the third world countries may be the result, as all the planets resources are diverted to feed the ever growing numbers of people. The nations that have the strong military will take what they need from the weak when the need becomes desperate. World wide riots will result as the scarcity of resources begins to impact the population as a whole. Strong central governments will need to arise with central planning and power to meet the crises. Draconian measures will be applied, with the resulting abuses of power that always results when too much power is deposited into a few hands.
The long term effects on the human species could turn out to have a negative outcome, and probably will. Young people would be frozen out of careers with futures. And, there are fewer and fewer young people being born as population controls come into being. New ways of doing things would be squashed by the older generation who would now stay in their jobs for long periods of time. After all, the older generation brings vast experience and longevity to the work place. Sometimes a good thing, but not always. After a while we get set in our ways and think that there is no better way to do things. It's usually the younger minds that challenge the status quo. Certainly such programs as Social Security and Medicare will have to be rethought, even over the dead bodies of the AARP and it's ilk. If we're living into our hundreds and beyond, we certainly can't be retiring in our sixties and living off a rapidly dwindling younger working class. That's already a problem today. Imagine what it would be like if our lifespan were doubled, or more.
When you consider history and the advances in critical thinking that occurred, what stands out is that the significant leapfrogs in thinking were generated by the great minds when they were young. Einstein, Newton, Neils Bohr, Copernicus and Kepler along with many others in scientific world conceived of their breakthrough concepts while young men. Apple, Facebook, Amazon, Microsoft and Twitter were not conceived in the big laboratories of IBM, at Barns and Noble, Sears or any other of the established well staffed big name companies, but by young entrepreneurs looking for a new way to do things.
The young are, and have always been, the driving force behind political change, right or wrong. They are the ones who demonstrate in the streets, who lead the protests against some real or imagined wrong or injustice. They have not always been right, in fact they often are acting out of pure self interest, but they are sometimes effective in the long run. They have always represented a large section of the total population which gives them significant political power. But, under this scenario that will be less and less true. Population restrictions and much longer lives of older people, in thought if not in appearance, will make the young become far less significant. As a result there will be less and less social changes in our political structure. There will be no outraged young mob that will congregate, march in the streets, and demonstrate to bring about social change in this new dictatorship that will emerge.
I guess I don't believe in the future as depicted by Gene Roddenberry in Star Trek. I don't think mankind will reach condition where poverty, crime, oppression, and hunger are not with us, whether we live longer or not. There will always be small and large dictators in our world. The third world dictators will always be with us and will spread misery among the people of their countries. The Stalins, Hitlers and their ilk will always arise, especially as resources become scarce and discontent rises.In fact I don't see a real change from the political conditions that exist today. The names may change, but the jockeying for power among nations, religions and political factions will continue. We are not entering Utopia.
Part 3 to follow.
Monday, May 21, 2012
Sunday, May 13, 2012
Lets Look Into The Future Part 1
I often wonder, as I'm sure a lot of people do, about what the future holds for our planet and mankind. I thought I would put down what I think the future holds and what I don't think is coming up in any foreseeable time. Of course this is a lot of speculation. It is clear that some of things that were predicted to have happened by now by the so called experts, and so easily made, haven't come true and likely never will. Gene Roddenberry' Star Trek was a fairly good example of science fiction becoming reality, at least in a lot of applications (remember the communicators). It's also an example of what will likely never happen (recall the transporter). Lets start with science: What is likely to happen in the foreseeable future in the world of science, both physical and medicine.?
Is human star travel in the future? Not in any future I can foresee. Einstein postulated that the speed of light was absolute and that no object can travel faster. So far every piece of data and the outcome of every experiment has enforced that theory. The only exception, based on recent theories, is that whole galaxies at the far reaches of the universe are traveling faster than light speed. That means traveling to the stars, even if we can solve the problem of accelerating a starship near the speed of light, will take many years. Usually more than a human lifetime. No scientist I have every heard or read has presented a viable method to achieve space travel that is within the capability of mankind to achieve. Ideas such as folding space seem to be only way that could overcome the absolute limit on speed, but the kicker here is the enormous power that would be required to make that happen is more that can be generated on earth.
Other daunting problems associated with long term space travel, the lack of gravity, food, water, air to breath and some way to stay warm in the frozen environment of space, cosmic radiation, etc. can likely be overcome by methods that we can understand and in fact already employ in certain applications. The problem in most of the solutions we have at our finger tips now require power, which will be hard to come by over the time span required to travel between the stars. The sheer distances between stars, especially stars with planets that hold some chance of being compatible with human existence is overwhelming. That means any mission to another planet is likely a one way trip stretching over 100's if not 1000's of years. Some Science Fictions writers have envisioned the discovery of portals in space, i.e. sort of like wormholes, or some such method of travel out of our universe, that allow starships passage through space to achieve FTL relative speeds. I believe that Einstein postulated such things might exist, specifically worm holes, but the theory postulates that entering near one would be highly destructive.
Of course UFO believers state that the problem has been solved by another advanced civilization, so why not us? Maybe. Or it could be that such vehicles, if they exist, were launched thousands of years ago on exploratory missions by a species that doesn't even exist anymore. A very advanced civilization would be able to produce machines that can think and react to situations it encounters during it's explorations on earth or any other world. I.e sentient machines. These machines could be programmed with a mandate to avoid contact with any sentient lifeforms it encounters. Thus, the reason we haven't been contacted, and the reason the vehicles can accelerate at phenomenal rates,far beyond what is likely a living being could tolerate. That is more palatable than having flying vehicles manned by aliens. And, it should be noted that all the viable data on UFOs don't really support the notion of aliens being present in the vehicles. We just assumed that there were organic sentient beings present because that's what we would expect. Of course the UFO types point to the marvels of the past as evidence that some advanced being was responsible for the the great building projects. They don't give much credit to the fact that humans are very inventive and likely did figure out how to build those structures. I think they are reaching a bit far. Who knows. If we reach into the stars that is likely the way we will do it.
It is very likely that we will travel into near space (within our solar system) in the future. I think, however, it will be very limited to commercial enterprises. Our demand for resources to feed the manufacturing industry will likely demand it. This is especially true if we find minerals, rare earths for example, on a near planet; mars is the most likely, that we need so badly that it becomes economically feasible to mine and transport them to earth. Such facilities would be housed under a geodetic dome and largely automated, requiring a minimum number of humans to operate, maybe none at all. Even though we are recycling metals now too some extent, we are not, and likely never will, be able to reuse them at a rate approaching 100%.
I really don't expect that humans will ever colonize the other planets, or the moon, to any extent, as some pundits seem to think. The environment is just too unfriendly for humans for that to be a popular choice. We will take other drastic actions here on earth before we would do that. The only way that could happen is a major breakthrough in terraforming, so inhospitable planets could be turned into earth-like environments. Mars seems to be only candidate, but even then, I'm not sure it has the gravity to hold an oxygen rich atmosphere to it's surface. The other planets are just too far or close too the sun. What would be much easier and cheaper would be to convert areas on the earth that are not friendly to humans into habitable land. The deserts of the world, Sahara, Gobi, etc., northern Canada, Russian Siberia and so forth.
Can we play God in the future? Well, yes, in a way. Computing power is advancing at a phenomenal rate, something like doubling every 13 months. There is surely some end to the growth, but not right away. In the not too distant future computing power will be so huge we will be able to create cyber worlds that are populated with sentient beings that we create, that are aware of the world and the environment we construct for them. They could exist in a virtual world with no idea that they're just a digital construct in that world.
We could build that world setting out "laws" of nature that every single entity in that world must follow. We could start that world with some event, like a big bang, and let the natural laws we created for that world govern events from then on. Because time is relative in that world we could make years in the virtual world pass in just milliseconds in ours. We could then stand back and watch how this simulation plays out. Wouldn't it be weird if that was really all we were? We would have no way to find out would we?
Transportation: I see long distance high speed ground transportation as being the principle mode of travel around the continent in the future. Likely some extension of the so called bullet train. Powered by electricity, and moving at near sonic speeds, (or maybe supersonic speeds if in under ground tunnels or tubes moving in a near vacuum) the trains will transport people in far greater numbers, and much more cheaply, than can reasonably achieved with air transportation. The trains would be suspended in a magnetic field and propelled by the same principles that drive the electric motor. It will be cheaper, and environmentally cleaner than any version of air transport that one can imagine. Electrical power can be generated in large plants where the environmental conditions can be better controlled. The amazing thing is we essentially have the technology to build such systems now. Almost all the technical bugs have been worked out and are in use to some extent already. Such a system could be stretched into intercontinental travel with the construction of tubes either on the oceans or beneath them. If we can build stable platforms in the ocean to drill for oil, we surely find a way to support a transportation tube stretching between continents.
Local, personal and other such transportation will likely be by electrical power. And, most likely still on the ground. I don't see airborne vehicles, other than ground effect applications, being used extensively in any foreseeable time frame for individual travel. That's been the dream and prediction for years by other prognosticators, but it hasn't happened yet and I don't see it in the future unless we develop some new source of portable power. There are just too many problems inherent in that application.
There are perhaps three applications that might end up the winner in the race to power such transportation A couple involve application of self contained power sources in the vehicle itself and the other will involve embedding the roadway with electrical energy that can be used to propel vehicles. I think it will end up a combination of both approaches.
Advances in electrical storage (Batteries) capability could allow long distances to be covered between charges, but the charging time will need to be significantly reduced. Alternatively the storage medium could be light and portable so that it can just be changed out at refueling stations in a matter of minutes. I don't see chemical batteries as being the answer to the electrical storage problem that must be solved. Some other method will have to evolve, perhaps some application of large capacitors, storing power at very high voltages. This would allow very fast recharges on one hand, and after converting the power into lower voltages for usage might provide long term power for an vehicle. The downside for this approach is the handling of very high voltage equipment. In any event a way must be found to store enough electrical power to move a three thousand pound vehicle something like 300 miles. And, to make matters more challenging you have to move a heavy truck of perhaps 20,000 pounds over the same distances. All this without taking a long time to recharge the power source.
The second application that is now underway and will likely further evolve is the adaptation of the hydrogen fuel cell to the vehicle. This would mean the conversion of what is now gasoline stations into hydrogen stations for refueling. This is a technology that is already in limited use. The efficiency of fuel cells closely resembles that of combustion engines. I think this approach will be the winner, at least in the near term, for individual vehicle propulsion. At the moment it looks to be very expensive however. I suppose if it comes into wide spread use the costs would go down quite a bit. I'm not sure it would ever become as economical as oil in the near future. But, oil is going to increase in price in the long term. That's a certainty. So it might well become price competitive in the not too distant future. The fuel cells would consume the most abundant element in the universe and only produce water as a by product. There is much work to done to fully develop this technology however. The short comings now involve not the fuel cell itself so much as the production of hydrogen to power it. It isn't self generating. It takes more energy to produce the fuel than it produces in return. For the fuel cell it's a negative return on investment. Not a good thing. The power to produce the hydrogen is, at the present time of course, derived from mainly from fossil fuels.It is likely the most inefficient of the options considering the power required to extract the hydrogen from water. But, it is clean burning and could provide power for mobile vehicles.
The third and most attractive is the embedded roadway. This would represent the ultimate in auto transportation. The required electrical power would be carried in the roadway itself and would be transferred to the vehicle on demand. There would be no need for refueling stations. All the major thoroughfares and highways would be embedded with the capability. There are several ways that power could be transferred to the vehicle, either by direct contact (sort of a third rail) or by induction. Likely the latter. Some form of on-board power will be needed however, as not all roads will be equipped with power transfer. As you leave the main highways for city streets, etc. you will need power to complete your journey. That puts far less strain on the on-board system than if it were the sole source of power, so here you could employ chemical batteries. In addition the embedded system would charge the storage medium in the vehicle as you drive the main thoroughfares. After the initial costs of installation this would likely be the least costly of the alternatives.
Automatic guidance and speed control of the vehicle is in our not too distant future, a technology that is already in it's infant stage. You enter the vehicle, tell it where you want to go and it will take you there. The control of the vehicle by the system, after it's fully implemented, will allow cars to be spaced very close together with much more efficient movement of the mass of vehicles that will be on the road at that time. And it would be much safer, with wrecks almost unheard of. At the present time a combination of GPS and proximity sensors looks like the best way to go. But, in future we may find the devices in the major roadways will emerge as the best approach.
Where is power coming from in the future? Lot of factors come into play influencing how we generate the enormous power needed in the future. The main one is the ever decreasing supply of fossil fuels and the corresponding increase in costs at the pump. We are running out folks. The reserves of fossil fuels are limited. Oil more so than the others. The ever increasing population of the earth will put additional strain on resources that must be met if we are not to retrograde significantly in our standard of living. And, the earth can not stand being enveloped in the residue caused by the burning of dirtier fossil fuels and there is significant efforts, even today, to wean us off of their use. One of the biggest problems is that fossil fuels, particularly oil, is used to make a huge number of the products we use every day. It's used to make plastics, produce our synthetic fibers such as nylon and polyester , and numerous other products that we consume and use, most of which we don't even realize the use of petroleum based products in their manufacture. The clamor will grow in the years to come with the growing industrialization of China, India, Brazil and third world countries we don't see now. Perhaps the middle east, Egypt, and who knows. It is possible that one of the most abundant fossil fuels, coal, can be be made to burn cleanly which would extend the life of fossil fuels but, in the end it will run out. It's not renewable.
I do not believe that the picture many movie makers painting of an earth shrouded in a brown haze is in our future. There are efforts underway already, headed by large and powerful countries, to clean up the environment. And, in spite of the opposition from some industries and the reluctance of some countries, I think the initiatives will take hold and major efforts will be undertaken to keep our environment relatively clean. We now have the spectrum of Global Warming to brighten our day, and that is something that is going to discourage the use of fossil fuels.
Most of the projects being deployed today really do not hold the answers. Maybe a combination of Solar, Wind, and similar non-polluting sources of power will meet a portion of the requirements for power, but they alone will not solve the massive power requirements that will be needed to run this planet. They are already running into opposition due to their impact on the local habitat and as we try to blanket the southwest with solar panels or wind turbines the opposition will grow. And, it isn't cheap. Today you see homes and businesses being equipped with solar panels, and that will likely continue in the future as the price of electricity continues to rise. Many homeowners associations forbid the use of solar panels, but is likely to be overridden by legislation. But, this application is only economically feasible due to subsidies.
The ethanol lobby is pushing their technology, but that is almost dead on arrival. We can not afford to put valuable land that can be used to grow food into producing massive amounts of ethanol and causing a shortage of food in an ever increasing world population. And ethanol is not pollution free. It's still carbon based. Without government subsidies none of these alternatives would be economically feasible.
One of the most intriguing sources of huge amounts of power is the ocean tides and currents themselves. Here we have a massive amount of power that can be tapped. I'm sure that isn't all that simple to place generators into this water stream but, there are already prototype programs underway to use tidal movements to generate electricity. Perhaps there are environmental impacts that I'm not aware of, but it certainly provides an attractive place to go. Right now the pilot programs are concentrated on a few areas of the earth where there are large tidal movement. But, there is tidal movement on the shores of every ocean of the world, and that's a lot.
Nuclear power at one time seemed to be answer to everybody's hunt for the cheap clean burning power source. But, recent events has really soured the public on this form of power. In a larger sense the biggest problem with nuclear power isn't really meltdowns and accidents, but rather the long term storage of nuclear waste. Even if we learn how to design nuclear power plants to make them very safe in an almost absolute sense, the problem of waste disposal will still be with us. However, nuclear power does provide abundant power at a reasonable cost and is likely to be a major source of power in the near future, as it is now, especially in Europe. Perhaps it will end up the winner as a replacement for fossil fuels if the problems of waste storage can be solved.
Water: The most precious commodity in the future will be water. We already are in a position where parts of this country have to undergo water rationing during low rainfall periods. Farmers have to cut back on crops because lack of fiercely rationed water. In the future there will be greater and greater need for water for use of a growing population. Water to drink, cook our meals, grow our crops, feed our livestock, and on and on. It will be necessary to turn even more of the deserts into farms in the future and the main thing needed will be water to do so. We've already done that in the southwest. Without the aqueducts the Imperial Valley, Los Angeles, San Diego, the San Joaquin Valley, southern New Mexico, Arizona, west Texas and the associated cities and areas would be deserts.
So, where is all the water we need coming from? Really, all it takes is money to solve the problem. There are two sources of water in abundance. The most reliable is the oceans of the world. The only problem is they are full of minerals that make them incompatible for animal consumption and for growing plant material that we can tolerate. We already have desalinization technology. Such plants exist around the world now. The other method is to transport the water from where it is, to where it's needed, much as the California aqueducts do now. There are environmental consequences to both approaches and they must be approached carefully. It is clear that feeding Los Angeles without considering the impact on the source of the water in the Owens River has proved disastrous for that area. We have found that damming of rivers to produce power and to control and provide water to surrounding areas has it's drawbacks. But, either we cut back on population growth or we will have to face this problem head-on in the not too distant future. I don't know how reducing population growth would be possible at all, short of draconian measures to limit the birth of children worldwide. Maybe some world wide epidemic will solve the problem.
Movies, TV and such. First we figured out how to capture images of real events, then we figured out how to simulate movement of those images, made the moving images talk and then added color. They were called movies and they were the principle vehicle for entertainment for many years. Then someone figured out how to project images over the air using radio waves and TV was borne. First they were small black and white screens, but they grew rapidly in size, adding color and greater clarity. The movie industry started losing patronage to this new form of entertainment. To counter they developed CinemaScope and other wide screen applications that let them show sweeping vistas in their movies to lure back their customers. But, then came the large flat screen monitors showing in wide screen format and some of the movies advantage vanished, at least for a lot of movie types. The movie people weren't through: along came 3D which is really catching on. To keep pace the TV industry is also tinkering with 3D, available now at your local electronics outlet. 3D will continue to evolve over the next few years. The need for special glasses will be solved, making it more comfortable to view the picture. Other senses will be activated, especially in movie houses, such as a sense of motion in action movies.
So where do we go from here? I know that movies, shown in a virtual realty format, are coming. What isn't clear is exactly how that will be implemented for the mass audience. There are at least two approaches I can think of. One is too project the picture as a holographic image almost surrounding the viewer. Thus, the viewer would be in the middle of the action, as if they were a true spectator to the events. The other would be to fit the viewer with special glasses that would allow the same kind of image. The likely winner, at least for mass use, will be the virtual reality glasses. It will be cheaper. Perhaps homes in the future will be equipped with holographic image projectors, but more likely this form of entertainment will be the province of movie theaters. The media will be dominated by interactive type showings, where the viewer will have some form of control over the action. Not sure how that will work, but somebody will figure it out. That will be in addition to the games that will be available to play, much as they are today, on X-Box and other such game consoles.
Is human star travel in the future? Not in any future I can foresee. Einstein postulated that the speed of light was absolute and that no object can travel faster. So far every piece of data and the outcome of every experiment has enforced that theory. The only exception, based on recent theories, is that whole galaxies at the far reaches of the universe are traveling faster than light speed. That means traveling to the stars, even if we can solve the problem of accelerating a starship near the speed of light, will take many years. Usually more than a human lifetime. No scientist I have every heard or read has presented a viable method to achieve space travel that is within the capability of mankind to achieve. Ideas such as folding space seem to be only way that could overcome the absolute limit on speed, but the kicker here is the enormous power that would be required to make that happen is more that can be generated on earth.
Other daunting problems associated with long term space travel, the lack of gravity, food, water, air to breath and some way to stay warm in the frozen environment of space, cosmic radiation, etc. can likely be overcome by methods that we can understand and in fact already employ in certain applications. The problem in most of the solutions we have at our finger tips now require power, which will be hard to come by over the time span required to travel between the stars. The sheer distances between stars, especially stars with planets that hold some chance of being compatible with human existence is overwhelming. That means any mission to another planet is likely a one way trip stretching over 100's if not 1000's of years. Some Science Fictions writers have envisioned the discovery of portals in space, i.e. sort of like wormholes, or some such method of travel out of our universe, that allow starships passage through space to achieve FTL relative speeds. I believe that Einstein postulated such things might exist, specifically worm holes, but the theory postulates that entering near one would be highly destructive.
Of course UFO believers state that the problem has been solved by another advanced civilization, so why not us? Maybe. Or it could be that such vehicles, if they exist, were launched thousands of years ago on exploratory missions by a species that doesn't even exist anymore. A very advanced civilization would be able to produce machines that can think and react to situations it encounters during it's explorations on earth or any other world. I.e sentient machines. These machines could be programmed with a mandate to avoid contact with any sentient lifeforms it encounters. Thus, the reason we haven't been contacted, and the reason the vehicles can accelerate at phenomenal rates,far beyond what is likely a living being could tolerate. That is more palatable than having flying vehicles manned by aliens. And, it should be noted that all the viable data on UFOs don't really support the notion of aliens being present in the vehicles. We just assumed that there were organic sentient beings present because that's what we would expect. Of course the UFO types point to the marvels of the past as evidence that some advanced being was responsible for the the great building projects. They don't give much credit to the fact that humans are very inventive and likely did figure out how to build those structures. I think they are reaching a bit far. Who knows. If we reach into the stars that is likely the way we will do it.
It is very likely that we will travel into near space (within our solar system) in the future. I think, however, it will be very limited to commercial enterprises. Our demand for resources to feed the manufacturing industry will likely demand it. This is especially true if we find minerals, rare earths for example, on a near planet; mars is the most likely, that we need so badly that it becomes economically feasible to mine and transport them to earth. Such facilities would be housed under a geodetic dome and largely automated, requiring a minimum number of humans to operate, maybe none at all. Even though we are recycling metals now too some extent, we are not, and likely never will, be able to reuse them at a rate approaching 100%.
I really don't expect that humans will ever colonize the other planets, or the moon, to any extent, as some pundits seem to think. The environment is just too unfriendly for humans for that to be a popular choice. We will take other drastic actions here on earth before we would do that. The only way that could happen is a major breakthrough in terraforming, so inhospitable planets could be turned into earth-like environments. Mars seems to be only candidate, but even then, I'm not sure it has the gravity to hold an oxygen rich atmosphere to it's surface. The other planets are just too far or close too the sun. What would be much easier and cheaper would be to convert areas on the earth that are not friendly to humans into habitable land. The deserts of the world, Sahara, Gobi, etc., northern Canada, Russian Siberia and so forth.
Can we play God in the future? Well, yes, in a way. Computing power is advancing at a phenomenal rate, something like doubling every 13 months. There is surely some end to the growth, but not right away. In the not too distant future computing power will be so huge we will be able to create cyber worlds that are populated with sentient beings that we create, that are aware of the world and the environment we construct for them. They could exist in a virtual world with no idea that they're just a digital construct in that world.
We could build that world setting out "laws" of nature that every single entity in that world must follow. We could start that world with some event, like a big bang, and let the natural laws we created for that world govern events from then on. Because time is relative in that world we could make years in the virtual world pass in just milliseconds in ours. We could then stand back and watch how this simulation plays out. Wouldn't it be weird if that was really all we were? We would have no way to find out would we?
Transportation: I see long distance high speed ground transportation as being the principle mode of travel around the continent in the future. Likely some extension of the so called bullet train. Powered by electricity, and moving at near sonic speeds, (or maybe supersonic speeds if in under ground tunnels or tubes moving in a near vacuum) the trains will transport people in far greater numbers, and much more cheaply, than can reasonably achieved with air transportation. The trains would be suspended in a magnetic field and propelled by the same principles that drive the electric motor. It will be cheaper, and environmentally cleaner than any version of air transport that one can imagine. Electrical power can be generated in large plants where the environmental conditions can be better controlled. The amazing thing is we essentially have the technology to build such systems now. Almost all the technical bugs have been worked out and are in use to some extent already. Such a system could be stretched into intercontinental travel with the construction of tubes either on the oceans or beneath them. If we can build stable platforms in the ocean to drill for oil, we surely find a way to support a transportation tube stretching between continents.
Local, personal and other such transportation will likely be by electrical power. And, most likely still on the ground. I don't see airborne vehicles, other than ground effect applications, being used extensively in any foreseeable time frame for individual travel. That's been the dream and prediction for years by other prognosticators, but it hasn't happened yet and I don't see it in the future unless we develop some new source of portable power. There are just too many problems inherent in that application.
There are perhaps three applications that might end up the winner in the race to power such transportation A couple involve application of self contained power sources in the vehicle itself and the other will involve embedding the roadway with electrical energy that can be used to propel vehicles. I think it will end up a combination of both approaches.
Advances in electrical storage (Batteries) capability could allow long distances to be covered between charges, but the charging time will need to be significantly reduced. Alternatively the storage medium could be light and portable so that it can just be changed out at refueling stations in a matter of minutes. I don't see chemical batteries as being the answer to the electrical storage problem that must be solved. Some other method will have to evolve, perhaps some application of large capacitors, storing power at very high voltages. This would allow very fast recharges on one hand, and after converting the power into lower voltages for usage might provide long term power for an vehicle. The downside for this approach is the handling of very high voltage equipment. In any event a way must be found to store enough electrical power to move a three thousand pound vehicle something like 300 miles. And, to make matters more challenging you have to move a heavy truck of perhaps 20,000 pounds over the same distances. All this without taking a long time to recharge the power source.
The second application that is now underway and will likely further evolve is the adaptation of the hydrogen fuel cell to the vehicle. This would mean the conversion of what is now gasoline stations into hydrogen stations for refueling. This is a technology that is already in limited use. The efficiency of fuel cells closely resembles that of combustion engines. I think this approach will be the winner, at least in the near term, for individual vehicle propulsion. At the moment it looks to be very expensive however. I suppose if it comes into wide spread use the costs would go down quite a bit. I'm not sure it would ever become as economical as oil in the near future. But, oil is going to increase in price in the long term. That's a certainty. So it might well become price competitive in the not too distant future. The fuel cells would consume the most abundant element in the universe and only produce water as a by product. There is much work to done to fully develop this technology however. The short comings now involve not the fuel cell itself so much as the production of hydrogen to power it. It isn't self generating. It takes more energy to produce the fuel than it produces in return. For the fuel cell it's a negative return on investment. Not a good thing. The power to produce the hydrogen is, at the present time of course, derived from mainly from fossil fuels.It is likely the most inefficient of the options considering the power required to extract the hydrogen from water. But, it is clean burning and could provide power for mobile vehicles.
The third and most attractive is the embedded roadway. This would represent the ultimate in auto transportation. The required electrical power would be carried in the roadway itself and would be transferred to the vehicle on demand. There would be no need for refueling stations. All the major thoroughfares and highways would be embedded with the capability. There are several ways that power could be transferred to the vehicle, either by direct contact (sort of a third rail) or by induction. Likely the latter. Some form of on-board power will be needed however, as not all roads will be equipped with power transfer. As you leave the main highways for city streets, etc. you will need power to complete your journey. That puts far less strain on the on-board system than if it were the sole source of power, so here you could employ chemical batteries. In addition the embedded system would charge the storage medium in the vehicle as you drive the main thoroughfares. After the initial costs of installation this would likely be the least costly of the alternatives.
Automatic guidance and speed control of the vehicle is in our not too distant future, a technology that is already in it's infant stage. You enter the vehicle, tell it where you want to go and it will take you there. The control of the vehicle by the system, after it's fully implemented, will allow cars to be spaced very close together with much more efficient movement of the mass of vehicles that will be on the road at that time. And it would be much safer, with wrecks almost unheard of. At the present time a combination of GPS and proximity sensors looks like the best way to go. But, in future we may find the devices in the major roadways will emerge as the best approach.
Where is power coming from in the future? Lot of factors come into play influencing how we generate the enormous power needed in the future. The main one is the ever decreasing supply of fossil fuels and the corresponding increase in costs at the pump. We are running out folks. The reserves of fossil fuels are limited. Oil more so than the others. The ever increasing population of the earth will put additional strain on resources that must be met if we are not to retrograde significantly in our standard of living. And, the earth can not stand being enveloped in the residue caused by the burning of dirtier fossil fuels and there is significant efforts, even today, to wean us off of their use. One of the biggest problems is that fossil fuels, particularly oil, is used to make a huge number of the products we use every day. It's used to make plastics, produce our synthetic fibers such as nylon and polyester , and numerous other products that we consume and use, most of which we don't even realize the use of petroleum based products in their manufacture. The clamor will grow in the years to come with the growing industrialization of China, India, Brazil and third world countries we don't see now. Perhaps the middle east, Egypt, and who knows. It is possible that one of the most abundant fossil fuels, coal, can be be made to burn cleanly which would extend the life of fossil fuels but, in the end it will run out. It's not renewable.
I do not believe that the picture many movie makers painting of an earth shrouded in a brown haze is in our future. There are efforts underway already, headed by large and powerful countries, to clean up the environment. And, in spite of the opposition from some industries and the reluctance of some countries, I think the initiatives will take hold and major efforts will be undertaken to keep our environment relatively clean. We now have the spectrum of Global Warming to brighten our day, and that is something that is going to discourage the use of fossil fuels.
Most of the projects being deployed today really do not hold the answers. Maybe a combination of Solar, Wind, and similar non-polluting sources of power will meet a portion of the requirements for power, but they alone will not solve the massive power requirements that will be needed to run this planet. They are already running into opposition due to their impact on the local habitat and as we try to blanket the southwest with solar panels or wind turbines the opposition will grow. And, it isn't cheap. Today you see homes and businesses being equipped with solar panels, and that will likely continue in the future as the price of electricity continues to rise. Many homeowners associations forbid the use of solar panels, but is likely to be overridden by legislation. But, this application is only economically feasible due to subsidies.
The ethanol lobby is pushing their technology, but that is almost dead on arrival. We can not afford to put valuable land that can be used to grow food into producing massive amounts of ethanol and causing a shortage of food in an ever increasing world population. And ethanol is not pollution free. It's still carbon based. Without government subsidies none of these alternatives would be economically feasible.
One of the most intriguing sources of huge amounts of power is the ocean tides and currents themselves. Here we have a massive amount of power that can be tapped. I'm sure that isn't all that simple to place generators into this water stream but, there are already prototype programs underway to use tidal movements to generate electricity. Perhaps there are environmental impacts that I'm not aware of, but it certainly provides an attractive place to go. Right now the pilot programs are concentrated on a few areas of the earth where there are large tidal movement. But, there is tidal movement on the shores of every ocean of the world, and that's a lot.
Nuclear power at one time seemed to be answer to everybody's hunt for the cheap clean burning power source. But, recent events has really soured the public on this form of power. In a larger sense the biggest problem with nuclear power isn't really meltdowns and accidents, but rather the long term storage of nuclear waste. Even if we learn how to design nuclear power plants to make them very safe in an almost absolute sense, the problem of waste disposal will still be with us. However, nuclear power does provide abundant power at a reasonable cost and is likely to be a major source of power in the near future, as it is now, especially in Europe. Perhaps it will end up the winner as a replacement for fossil fuels if the problems of waste storage can be solved.
Water: The most precious commodity in the future will be water. We already are in a position where parts of this country have to undergo water rationing during low rainfall periods. Farmers have to cut back on crops because lack of fiercely rationed water. In the future there will be greater and greater need for water for use of a growing population. Water to drink, cook our meals, grow our crops, feed our livestock, and on and on. It will be necessary to turn even more of the deserts into farms in the future and the main thing needed will be water to do so. We've already done that in the southwest. Without the aqueducts the Imperial Valley, Los Angeles, San Diego, the San Joaquin Valley, southern New Mexico, Arizona, west Texas and the associated cities and areas would be deserts.
So, where is all the water we need coming from? Really, all it takes is money to solve the problem. There are two sources of water in abundance. The most reliable is the oceans of the world. The only problem is they are full of minerals that make them incompatible for animal consumption and for growing plant material that we can tolerate. We already have desalinization technology. Such plants exist around the world now. The other method is to transport the water from where it is, to where it's needed, much as the California aqueducts do now. There are environmental consequences to both approaches and they must be approached carefully. It is clear that feeding Los Angeles without considering the impact on the source of the water in the Owens River has proved disastrous for that area. We have found that damming of rivers to produce power and to control and provide water to surrounding areas has it's drawbacks. But, either we cut back on population growth or we will have to face this problem head-on in the not too distant future. I don't know how reducing population growth would be possible at all, short of draconian measures to limit the birth of children worldwide. Maybe some world wide epidemic will solve the problem.
Movies, TV and such. First we figured out how to capture images of real events, then we figured out how to simulate movement of those images, made the moving images talk and then added color. They were called movies and they were the principle vehicle for entertainment for many years. Then someone figured out how to project images over the air using radio waves and TV was borne. First they were small black and white screens, but they grew rapidly in size, adding color and greater clarity. The movie industry started losing patronage to this new form of entertainment. To counter they developed CinemaScope and other wide screen applications that let them show sweeping vistas in their movies to lure back their customers. But, then came the large flat screen monitors showing in wide screen format and some of the movies advantage vanished, at least for a lot of movie types. The movie people weren't through: along came 3D which is really catching on. To keep pace the TV industry is also tinkering with 3D, available now at your local electronics outlet. 3D will continue to evolve over the next few years. The need for special glasses will be solved, making it more comfortable to view the picture. Other senses will be activated, especially in movie houses, such as a sense of motion in action movies.
So where do we go from here? I know that movies, shown in a virtual realty format, are coming. What isn't clear is exactly how that will be implemented for the mass audience. There are at least two approaches I can think of. One is too project the picture as a holographic image almost surrounding the viewer. Thus, the viewer would be in the middle of the action, as if they were a true spectator to the events. The other would be to fit the viewer with special glasses that would allow the same kind of image. The likely winner, at least for mass use, will be the virtual reality glasses. It will be cheaper. Perhaps homes in the future will be equipped with holographic image projectors, but more likely this form of entertainment will be the province of movie theaters. The media will be dominated by interactive type showings, where the viewer will have some form of control over the action. Not sure how that will work, but somebody will figure it out. That will be in addition to the games that will be available to play, much as they are today, on X-Box and other such game consoles.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)