The Future

**Just finished Kevin Kelly's "The Inevitable" wherein he waxes ecstatic about the:

12 Technological Forces That Will Shape Our Future

He doesn't hesitate or hedge. He's fully in on the inexorable forces that he claims will determine our future. Determine them, not MAY determine them. Why is this important to me? If you believe in the actuarial tables I will most likely not see much of that glorious future. What a bummer! I want to live longer, not just to enjoy family and friends, which I do, but to be in the world that is coming faster and faster, sooner and sooner, more and more. I believe in the onward and upward expansion of evolution. Sure, there are naysayers with good reasons for pause, but I don't think they will prevail.  

Disasters can happen, but in the broad stretch of history they are usually just a blip. The vectors of the past point to a future that is an advance over the past, not a reversion to it. If there are any universal laws I think they can be summarized by the tendency of things that survive to become part of increasing complexification, wherein things connect and combine until a seemingly magic moment, when they flip irreversibly up into a whole new reality.

This coincides with a new project I'm working on with my friend DRJ where we are working to articulate a new vision of life that includes this inexorable development process. I'm finding that in order to appreciate the value of this change, I needs to break out of an egocentric view of the world and accept the fact that no individual is more important than the general sweep toward the complexification of the universe.

It all started with hot inanimate plasma, from which developed clumps of quarks, called protons, which cooled the overall plasma gas so that more protons could develop. From protons, through the same process, atoms developed then molecules and from molecules organisms and from organisms, homo sapiens, and from homo sapiens came artificial intelligence which morphed into the internet which continues to morph into a planetary mind and so on to unimaginable developments. I don't need religion to believe in this kind of future, I only need a sense of history, an appreciation for the developments of real science and a hope that I can see some of it.

In the meantime, I will try to appreciate my part in the overall development of life.

Sci-fi travels

** I’m almost finished with the third book in the “Foundation” trilogy by Asimov. I was curious to re-read these for several reasons. The first time I read them was when I was about 12-14, so I wanted to know how much I would remember. Precious little, it turns out. In fact, I wonder if I even read the “Second Foundation.”

Another reason was to compare the vision of the future from a 1950s perspective with today’s reality. Not even close. There’s still plenty of “paper,” phones (although some have video). Spaceships come and go via nuclear power and “air taxis” flit freely about cities.

Having read a bit more science fiction in the interim I was interested in comparing past visions of the future with present expectations. Of course, today’s version of the future sounds plausible enough, based as it is on present technology and social organization. But much of what I’ve read places little emphasis on physical technology but tends to deal with psychological and sociological matters. In fact “Anathem,” by Neil Stevenson, takes place in a world of primitive physical technology – a world of secular, low-tech monasteries. I think today’s science fiction is dealing more with ideas than with gee-whiz gadgets.

Along the way, I note that Asimov, though widely respected – almost revered – wasn’t such a good fiction writer, at least by the standards of other writers like Dick, Card and Stevenson. A good story, plausible, interesting characters are much in evidence compared with Asimov’s cardboard cutouts.

Granted, I’m not a voracious sci-fi reader, but I do think I’ve read some of the best. I’m about to start “Speaker for the Dead,” by Orson Scott Card and I’m in the process of reading Sherri Tepper’s “Grass.” The latter, BTW, is almost Victorian in prose style – almost poetic in fact – with little emphasis on technology.

I’ll welcome further suggestions on good sci-fi.

NOTE: I will follow up this post with some discoveries I made about myself in re-reading the Asimov books.