Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Today we have wearable tech and it will impact every aspect of our lives in the next 5 years but this is just the start. In the 2020's we will have nanotechnology and it will impact every aspect of our lives including medicine and health in ways that has never happened before int the history of society. Why the 2020's will be the tipping point on our ability to live forever!
This is from H+ Magazine:
Nanotechnology is an important new area of research that promises significant advances in electronics, materials, biotechnology, alternative energy sources, and dozens of other applications. The graphic below illustrates, at a personal level, the potential impact on each of us. And where electrical measurement is required, Keithley instrumentation is being used in an expanding list of nanotechnology research and development settings.
Today we have wearable tech and it will impact every aspect of our lives in the next 5 years but this is just the start. In the 2020's we will have nanotechnology and it will impact every aspect of our lives including medicine and health in ways that has never happened before int the history of society. Why the 2020's will be the tipping point on our ability to live forever!
This is from H+ Magazine:
Nanotechnology is an important new area of research that promises significant advances in electronics, materials, biotechnology, alternative energy sources, and dozens of other applications. The graphic below illustrates, at a personal level, the potential impact on each of us. And where electrical measurement is required, Keithley instrumentation is being used in an expanding list of nanotechnology research and development settings.
This is IMO the most exciting field of research today.
With nanotechnology (Drexlers nanotechnology: atomically precise manufacturing) we'll have not only a Star Trek-like "replicator" (it can replicate itself and build about anything for about nothing) but a whole new field will open as you could generate about anything, just download the plan, get the feedstock (can be say water for diamonid structures, or excrement for food ^^ and solar to power it).
Say testing stuff in biotech, build 1 kilo of some type of protein or thousand of variations just to see if it's useful for some new thing, I can't even imagine the possibilities...
Making nanobots for the bloodstream, make them repair us, release energy if needed, collecting bad things, monitoring our health, enhance us without complicated surgery, break A.G.E crosslinks and kill off bad cells...
Making any kind of energy collection device (solar to hydrogen for example), making not only filters for desalination but also making food, computers built with close to computronium, and flying cars made by diamonid structures (100-1000 times stronger than steel for the same weight just fill them with vacuum and they'll float in the air)...
With atomically precise manufacturing, all of those things will be possible but the most exiting part though is that DARPA have started the A2P (Atoms to Product) challenge (starting mars 2015) funding prices (it's abit like the XPrice) for bridging the gaps between today's "nanofacturing" and real Atomically Precise Manufacturing...
They are not (for what I know) giving away a timeline but I strongly doubt that they would found something that won't do it in the 10 years to come...
This is IMO the most exciting field of research today.
With nanotechnology (Drexlers nanotechnology: atomically precise manufacturing) we'll have not only a Star Trek-like "replicator" (it can replicate itself and build about anything for about nothing) but a whole new field will open as you could generate about anything, just download the plan, get the feedstock (can be say water for diamonid structures, or excrement for food ^^ and solar to power it).
Say testing stuff in biotech, build 1 kilo of some type of protein or thousand of variations just to see if it's useful for some new thing, I can't even imagine the possibilities...
Making nanobots for the bloodstream, make them repair us, release energy if needed, collecting bad things, monitoring our health, enhance us without complicated surgery, break A.G.E crosslinks and kill off bad cells...
Making any kind of energy collection device (solar to hydrogen for example), making not only filters for desalination but also making food, computers built with close to computronium, and flying cars made by diamonid structures (100-1000 times stronger than steel for the same weight just fill them with vacuum and they'll float in the air)...
With atomically precise manufacturing, all of those things will be possible but the most exiting part though is that DARPA have started the A2P (Atoms to Product) challenge (starting mars 2015) funding prices (it's abit like the XPrice) for bridging the gaps between today's "nanofacturing" and real Atomically Precise Manufacturing...
They are not (for what I know) giving away a timeline but I strongly doubt that they would found something that won't do it in the 10 years to come...
I just love this time
Agreed. Nanotechnology will change society in ways that society has never seen before. I can not stress that enough as it will be every aspect. And its only 10 years away, if that.
One of the things I talk about that will be a issue is technological unemployment. When I saw this article that says 1 in 3 jobs will be gone by 2025 due to computers and robots I had to post it. I mean think about it 1 in 3 and in about 10 years. How will this impact the economy? This is something we will have to deal with.
This is from Computer World:
One in three jobs will be taken by software or robots by 2025
Some jobs will be created but most economists think that the job loss (mostly by automation) will be much bigger than the jobs created (new tech, new jobs) thus resulting in a net loss.
For example, after the "big recession" 2008, GDP is back up at "before 2008" values but jobs isn't. Companies automate and hone productivity performance instead of hiring and this is only the beginning IMO...
Some solutions to this that have been put forward is Basic Income, negative income tax or other "give money to everyone" solutions.
Others believe that a sort of "Commons" will emerge based on sharing and low marginal costs for, not only digital products, but also for electricity and other produced goods (3D printing, vertical farms nearby etc.).
There sure will be problems though, not only people defending their turf but also growing inequalities, super-rich people on one side, jobless poor people on the other, like today but maybe much worse.
In Europe there is a tendency to vote quite radically when things are bad (FN in France, Aube in Greece, even Sweden have voted for a "nationalistic party" at 13% etc.) and it's a big deal as we have a lot of parties and they usually count (you get 25% of the votes, you have 25% of the power, give or take a bit).
In the USA you vote only on Republicans or Democrats (as it seems anyway from over here, I'm no specialist!!) so it might be more stable as you'd need a new (bad) party to gain traction and get 50%+ to wreck havoc.
On the other hand, here our jobs seems to be much more protected (my boss can't fire me if I don't like do something crazily stupid and even..., or the company must more or less go bankrupt to do that) but maybe that is a problem as much as a solution...
Hopefully technology will help out with food, shelter, energy and data access and that people will "get it" that you don't really need (well hopefully) a "job" at that time in history.
It seems a bit cheap and not-so-functional (takes off but not too high / have stability issues) but here comes a fully functional flying car so it can only get better right
Some jobs will be created but most economists think that the job loss (mostly by automation) will be much bigger than the jobs created (new tech, new jobs) thus resulting in a net loss.
For example, after the "big recession" 2008, GDP is back up at "before 2008" values but jobs isn't. Companies automate and hone productivity performance instead of hiring and this is only the beginning IMO...
Some solutions to this that have been put forward is Basic Income, negative income tax or other "give money to everyone" solutions.
Others believe that a sort of "Commons" will emerge based on sharing and low marginal costs for, not only digital products, but also for electricity and other produced goods (3D printing, vertical farms nearby etc.).
There sure will be problems though, not only people defending their turf but also growing inequalities, super-rich people on one side, jobless poor people on the other, like today but maybe much worse.
In Europe there is a tendency to vote quite radically when things are bad (FN in France, Aube in Greece, even Sweden have voted for a "nationalistic party" at 13% etc.) and it's a big deal as we have a lot of parties and they usually count (you get 25% of the votes, you have 25% of the power, give or take a bit).
In the USA you vote only on Republicans or Democrats (as it seems anyway from over here, I'm no specialist!!) so it might be more stable as you'd need a new (bad) party to gain traction and get 50%+ to wreck havoc.
On the other hand, here our jobs seems to be much more protected (my boss can't fire me if I don't like do something crazily stupid and even..., or the company must more or less go bankrupt to do that) but maybe that is a problem as much as a solution...
Hopefully technology will help out with food, shelter, energy and data access and that people will "get it" that you don't really need (well hopefully) a "job" at that time in history.
I saw a statistic that said to get the same workforce participation rate you would have to go back to 1978. On the show they were not sure why but I can tell you the reason is technological unemployment. I like the theory of basic pay for all I just need to see how it would actually work as it will increase. The industry I am in will see it mostly automated by 2020, my job is safe for the for a long time to come, but it will change everything and fast.
It seems a bit cheap and not-so-functional (takes off but not too high / have stability issues) but here comes a fully functional flying car so it can only get better right
When people think of fling cars they think of defying gravity ones and those are a long way off and since its not a form of information technology its impossible to know when.
One of the things I talk about that will be a issue is technological unemployment. When I saw this article that says 1 in 3 jobs will be gone by 2025 due to computers and robots I had to post it. I mean think about it 1 in 3 and in about 10 years. How will this impact the economy? This is something we will have to deal with.
This is from Computer World:
One in three jobs will be taken by software or robots by 2025
The cost of this will be paid by individuals who get squeezed out. I've mentioned to my son, who wants to take accounting, that unless he's going to go all the way to the top in the subject, its not going to offer much in employment. Already what they used to use bookkeepers for is not software. And you have the examples of factories where most of the work is robots or the warehouses where virtually all moving of goods is done by them, with an inventory of current stocks always available. The only people employed and ten to twenty who package the stuff for delivery.
I know some are greatly emanoroud of technology, and see the great leaps as amazing and wonderful, but in the end real people will suffer and we'll move toward the society portrayed in Blade Runner, where the talented and useful have abandoned the rest and moved on and the rest form a permenant underclass.
This has happened before, and the results were not good. That should stand as a warning. Either we find ways to let in everyone or we should not be bowing down to supertechnology. In the end what matters is human beings and what it does to them.
Some jobs will be created but most economists think that the job loss (mostly by automation) will be much bigger than the jobs created (new tech, new jobs) thus resulting in a net loss.
I'd like to know some of the ideas for how to address this loss of jobs. Do we need some sort of "paradigm shift" in our thinking about the nature of economics? Or are there some simpler solutions being proposed? I'm just curious about the range of idea that are being proposed. Do any of you happen to know of some ideas, or links, or specific people who have been researching this?
One thought: Maybe we could use the human proclivity for being addicted to video games, social media (or, more generally, "earning points"? in some abstract way) to basically make a "game" of providing benefits to society. In other words, maybe video-game skill could somehow be translated into socially beneficial services? (There is a TED video about "the game layer over the world" that sorta talks about this: Seth Priebatsch: The game layer on top of the world | Talk Video | TED.com
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
