This is from John McRuer. His addr is at end. I am exploring doing some cooperative work with him, & think he is at the forefront of pragmatic wholesystems analysis. Steve FUTURIST ARTICLE: Technological Forecast The following is an exchange between me and Bill Halal, lead author of an article containing a detailed technological forecast in THE FUTURIST. I should have added two more constraints on technological evolution and diffusion: (1) the burden of infrastructure required to support the technology and the associated risks associated with mega-failure, and (2) the politics of "central dependence" on pervasive infrstructures that require monolithic institutional control (such as telephone systems). Halal, like most of THE FUTURIST's authors is a technological optimist. His faith in John Petersen's claim that an energy revolution is about to tap the latent energy of space is not supported by the evidence. (See "Exploiting Zero-Point Energy" by Phillip Yam in SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, December 1997 p 82. = John >Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 12:30:46 -0500 (EST) >From: William Halal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: John McRuer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: COMMENTS ON FUTURIST ARTICLE >MIME-Version: 1.0 > > >John: > > Thanks for your thoughtful comments. I can't respond in detail >because of other demands, but I don't see the issues you've raised as >insurmountable. All of civilization has been a fight against the forces of >entropy, some futurists such as John Petersen claim an energy revolution >is right around the corner in which the latent energy of space itself is >tapped, the very power that relaesed the big bang, etc, etc. > > Very thought provoking issues, however. > > Regards, Bill > >********************************************************************* >William E. Halal (Bill) 202 994-5975 (office) >Professor of Management 202 965-0581 (home & fax) >George Washington University 202 994-4930 (office fax) >Washington DC 20052 [EMAIL PROTECTED] >********************************************************************* > > >On Fri, 12 Dec 1997, John McRuer wrote: > >> To: William E Halal, [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Michael D Kull, Ann Leffmann >> Copy : Futurist [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> Dear Dr Halal, Mr Kull, and Ms Leffmann, >> >> I read your fine article "Emerging Technologies: What's Ahead for >> 2001-2030" in the November-December issue of THE FUTURIST. I intend to >> circulate e-mail notes on the ecological implications of your findings to >> colleagues who are working on long-term simulations of economy-environment >> interactions. As you may know, the results of early attempts at this task >> foundered in controversy over the expectations of technology. For example, >> the projections of the MIT group that published THE LIMITS TO GROWTH in >> 1972 became indeterminate when their rigid and unrealistic technological >> assumptions were relaxed. Expectations of technology have therefore become >> the KEY issue in long-term economy-environment simulations. The current >> Malthusian-conucopian controversy has led to speculation (but precious >> little research) into the nature of constraints on technology. I have been >> dabbling in this issue for some time and would be interested in your >> reaction to the following thoughts. >> >> The most powerful constraint is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. When this >> law is rendered in the context of technology it becomes Murphy's Law -- if >> it can go wrong it will go wrong. This is the formula of STAR TRECK. The >> crew of the ENTERPRISE lives in constant terror of entropy, which attacks >> them unpredictably in all sorts of disguises, and eventually led to their >> shipwreck on a distant planet. The Second law is the hidden presence behind >> the so-called side effects of specific technologies. It also bodes ill for >> space colonists. The people at the Santa Fe Institute would have more to >> say about this matter. >> >> The next constraint is energy. As you know, technology is hard to perceive >> as a whole. However, one aspect is the "quasi-kingdom of life" formed by >> human artifacts. I won't go into details, but the point is this: >> techonolgical "life-forms" require energy as food for their operation and >> renewal. As the artifact population has expanded, its energy demand has >> grown apace. This is not to deny the effects of energy conservation >> technology. They are substantial and have been evolving for 200 years. >> However, the net effect has been an enormous, and some would say >> threatening, growth, in humanity's demand both for energy and and for its >> ecological sinks. A case in point is your prediction that space ships might >> travel at 80% of light speed. It is not difficult to estimate the energy >> required to accelerate a killogram mass to that speed using Newtonian >> physics, taking into account the lift-off mass that must be ejected to >> obtain the necessary thrust. It is orders of magnitude more than the pay >> load. However, as light speed is approached relativistic effects greatly >> increase the amount of energy required for acceleration. I have not done >> the calculations, but the prognosis for near light speed seems >> questionable. I would suggest that your failure to comment on this >> problem affects the credibility of your other forecasts, although most of >> them do seem reasonable. >> >> The next constraint on technology is economics. It is complex and >> controversial, but is best understood in terms of deployment of "labour". >> I put labour in quotes because I am referring to ALL labour, not just the >> paid labour captured by statistical agencies. The historical pattern of >> technology has been an increase in the share of "labour" that has been >> allocated to recreation and personal care. However, that trend may be >> reversing. A few years ago Statistics Canada issued a report on stress >> which suggested that a growing number of people are suffering from stress, >> at least some of which was due to having too much to do. I assert that this >> problem arises from the demands made on the public by a flood of new >> protocols that have intruded on our lives as a result of new technologies. >> (Fift years ago a new house did not come with a sheef of operators' guides >> for telephones, VCRs, heating systems, theromostats, water conditioners, >> computers, security systems...!) >> >> This raises a question about elite labour. I assert that as technology >> evolves and diffusess the demand for elite labour also grows. Since >> individual competence is distributed more or less normally (for what ever >> reason), growing technology makes increasing demand on the elite tail of >> the distribution. It would therefore seem that the supply of elite labour >> must in some way constrain our expectations of what technology can >> ultimately do for us. >> >> Another constraint on technology is information retrieval. Information may >> also be thought of as a quasi-life form that mimics the reproduction >> dynamics of viruses. Under certain circumstances species of information can >> become extinct, and in other cases they may exists but are not accessible >> to a site that needs them. This concept seems to contradict the current >> information revolution, but actually it does not. We are experiencing a >> "Cambrian revolution" in information storage and retrieval, but as you >> noted in your article, this will eventually settle down and problems of >> retrieval will again reassert themselves, but at a new level. The >> constraint is about the individual with the problem making a timely >> connection with the solution. >> >> The last constraint is systemic hysterisis. This phenomeon is most >> pronounced in agrcultural and medical technology and is manifest in a >> seesaw arms race between nature and science. The examples are legion, and >> are all about the resistance of microbes and pests to drugs and chemicals. >> It is the systemic property of adaptation, which I have found absent from >> the literature on technological forecasing. >> >> My colleagues' efforts to build technological assumptions into >> sustainability models are still pretty primitive. Technology is assumed to >> have three thrusts -- labour saving, energy saving, and resource saving. A >> share of the labour force is allocated to technological development, and as >> it takes effect, the per artifact demand for labour, energy and resources >> declines. The process is cumulative but also lossy. Parameters are only >> guesses based on very inadequate historical data. The speed of progress in >> each field depends partly on the share of the available research labour >> devoted to it and partly on the maturity of the technolgy. A law of >> diminishing returns to research is assumed. The shape and curvature of the >> trajectory is a property of the scenario. To think the model through >> properly would involve a substantial research effort. >> >> I would be interested to your reaction to the above. >> >> = John McRuer >> >> John D. McRuer B.S.C., M.E.S. >> RR # 1 >> Wellesley, Ontario, Canada >> N0B 2T0 >> >> (519) 656-2292 >> >> > John D. McRuer B.S.C., M.E.S. RR # 1 Wellesley, Ontario, Canada N0B 2T0 (519) 656-2292
