FUTURES RESEARCH

6044 Chapter 2  Incremental Technology

This reports what is, in many respects, the continuation of our present progress; the incremental progress of science and technology - making us ever wealthier and giving us an ever better quality of life. Because its progress typically represents an clear extrapolation of current trends this is the aspect on which most writers about the future have focused. As a result it is the one with which we, the general public, have become most familiar - indeed, to a large extent, it is probably the only one we recognise.

The pace of such change will grow ever faster - as it has done over recent decades. On the other hand, as the theory behind many the key drivers of technology over the next few decades has already been identified - and tested in the laboratories - though not yet implemented, its overall course is relatively predictable[1]. Furthermore, even the increasing rate of change no longer poses major problems for us. We have become accustomed to it and indeed - as the philosophy of the inevitable 'ascent of man' - it has become a fundamental tenet of our society. There are, however,  still a number of potentially uncomfortable discontinuities still to be resolved as a result of developments in this field.

unlimited resources

Not least of these - in terms of its potential impact upon society as a whole - is the fact that we already have the resources available to carry out most of the activities needed to secure our future. For the first time, we now have - for all practical intents and purposes -unlimited resources at our command. Rather, I should say, society as a whole has; for you may still feel, as I do, that you could individually do with considerably more personal wealth! As a result, the limitations on change now must be found in the forces described in the other chapters  - those which explore the management of society and of the changes within it. Most of the major discontinuities are, therefore, described later.

One potentially massive discontinuity still remains in this area, however, and that is the development of a new form of humankind - 'homo integrans' - which will emerge from a synthesis between medical developments, discussed in this chapter, and IT developments, discussed in the fourth chapter. If we are correct, and all the evidence supports our predictions, over the next few decades you will become a markedly different person; one whose identity progressively - albeit almost imperceptibly - merges the traditional self with a new one held on computers around the world. Where each of us begins and ends will become progressively blurred - offering a form of immortality!

In terms of their 'character', these chapters represents the harder-edged, more-mechanistic aspects of future development. For this reason, their contents are, as I have already said, the least uncertain. The technologies described are already in existence, albeit in embryo form, and the changes will come about progressively as they are implemented on the large scale. The only real uncertainties are how and when we will implement them. It is just possible that we should also ask the question whether they will be implemented. Only a couple of decades ago, when nuclear annihilation did pose a very real threat, this was the key question. Now, though, it has - thankfully - become much less important.

In general, therefore, the next three chapters are an extrapolation of humanity's exponentially growing exploration of, and exploitation of, all aspects of science and technology. In the best of all worlds, these will be our servants. Above all, they offer a picture which is highly optimistic about the future.

optimism and boom

You will have noted my comments above and in the previous chapter, which are based on the presumption  "presumption "that humanity's resources"  are now effectively unlimited; not least we will soon gain access to the resources of the whole solar system. Such optimism is a crucial feature of this chapter, and indeed of the book as a whole.

In addition, even one of the earliest elements of our quantified research (in 1993, in the middle of the recession) "quantified research"  showed that, despite the overall pessimism of the politicians and media, managers - at least - were even then clearly optimistic about the future. Thus, on a scale of 0 (pessimism) to 10 (optimism), the mean figure from that earlier research[2] was 5.5 - which was already close to the ideal position for a happy future; showing general optimism, but not unduly so (since over-optimism "over-optimism" might easily collapse in the face of the first setback). One problem, however, was that while managers were themselves optimistic, they believed that most other people's views were pessimistic.  The true underlying optimism was, therefore, often hidden beneath a veneer of pessimism. This was even more true of our experts[3] "expert groups", who - in general - seemed to be swayed, to a greater extent than our general groups "general groups", by the opinions prevailing amongst other (media) experts. The real problem may, therefore, be in terms of their - and our - expectations; the underpinning for much of this book. Whether we base our actions in practice on optimism - our own feeling - or on pessimism - what we think others feel - may be just as critical.

As confidence has returned to the economy, the levels of optimism have also risen. Thus, the comparable level in (mid) 1997, measured by a more direct technique (and specifically asking about 30 years ahead), was 6.0. Again, this is close to the ideal - though possibly edging towards the top end of that band (and possibly presaging over-optimism by the time of the Millennium itself). The comparable figure for their expectations of what 'other managers' thought was 5.3 - at last edging up to show a slight degree of optimism, but still significantly less than individuals' own levels of optimism.

The role of the media is probably crucial, in this context. There is a well-reported sociological phenomenon, called the 'amplification spiral, whereby stories reported in the media (whether true or false, but usually controversial) produce a response in the readers which is then fed back to the media again - to amplify  "amplification of stories"what has been said by the original reporters. They, in turn, feel more confident of their position, inflating their reports even further, and the spiral grows! In its extreme version it becomes 'moral panic', where false reports  are blown up out of all proportion - to create, literally, a form of panic amongst the population at large. The widespread reports of Soviet troops landing in the UK during the First World War, evidenced by soldiers with snow on their boots, is one comic example. The US witch-hunt for communists during the 1950s was, however, a more sinister one. It is just possible that we are once more reaching this point, of moral panic, in terms of undue pessimism about the future[4].

On the other hand, if this is the case, our research indicates that it should take very little to damp down the impending panic; just a recognition that the recession which has dogged us through the 1990s has finally come to an end "recession". Indeed, the signs of recovery are already to be seen around us. As yet, though, we seemingly cannot believe our luck - and suspect the recovery is fragile. As a result, the inevitable boom has not yet emerged; though, buoyed up by the Millennium itself, it probably soon will. That boom, on the other hand, may be so vigorous that it will lead us into another bust - a danger we should recognise, without destroying our new-found optimism with it.

In any case, there is another hidden feature. A hidden - but very important - assumption which was  made by all our research groups was continuing growth[5]. They assumed, almost without question, that the world economy  would continue growing[6]. The equally hidden implication is that, in the case of individuals' own decisions - which accumulate across the whole population to set the tone for the entire economy,  these decisions are likely to be based on some degree of optimism. This is even the case where they think, probably correctly, that - at the macro level - politicians' decisions are based on a pessimistic analysis of the future. It is the optimism of the individual, fortunately, which will ultimately count[7].

Beneath the surface, rampant optimism is driving the increasing pace of change. Buckminster Fuller [8] estimated that about 5,000 years ago a significant invention occurred every 200 years. By 1,000 AD the pace had speeded up to one every 30 years, and by the Industrial Revolution it was down to six months. By the end of the Second World War  there was a significant invention every month, and by now it must be down to a week or so - if not just days. Where it does not threaten individuals - and it must be recognised that at times the pace of progress does cause 'revolutionary pains' on the scale sufficient to make people feel threat "threat to people" -such a rate of change creates a mood of optimism, if not even of euphoria. Thus, although this chapter revolves around technological factors, at its heart lies a very optimistic view of an ever better future - driven by these scientific developments. Many of the more popular futurists hold  similar views of the future; and their continuing popularity is, indeed, probably ensured by the technological utopias they describe - which we all want to hear!

Malthusian pessimism

On the other hand, it has to be reported that the numerous, highly vocal, followers of Malthus - who are continually expecting the world to run out of resources  - would say that the participants in our research (along with many futurists) are living in a fool's paradise. Whilst the Malthusians do have an argument to make, we believe that, as yet, such pessimism is unjustified. Not least, as one of the leaders of a major multi-national pointed out to us, they ignore feedback mechanisms - we all learn from experience. 

On the other hand, the evidence suggests that, despite the doom and gloom in the media reports -which indeed did seem to have had an impact on the individuals taking part in our later (quantified) survey, key resources are not yet on the point of running out[9]. Expansion  can continue, for a while anyway. We can all breathe more easily - perhaps literally so if some of the extreme views of the environmental pessimists are confounded.

Indeed, this expansion may be quite literally the case. In the longer term, salvation may well come from migration into space. Paul Kennedy makes the important historical point that one, often overlooked, major reason why Malthus was proved wrong was the massive migrations  "migrations "which took place in the nineteenth century. This is a rarely quoted reason for the Malthusian trap having been averted. With no new lands on Earth to migrate to, this has not been an option for solving similar problems in recent times. Now, though, it is once more becoming relevant. By the end of the 21^st century  there are likely to be comparable migrations to other planets and to space colonies. This should please both the optimists , who want to see such expansion, and the pessimists , who will seize on it as the final proof of the Earth's limited capacity!

millennium

One final factor, to add to the mixture, is the impact of the Millennium  itself. It may only be a psychological element, and it certainly is illogical, but the indications are that it, too, will eventually give a boost to the economy . This will be not least because so many companies are once more looking to the future - possibly for the first time in more than a decade - and investing for the long-term potential they will  see in the new century. In this, they too are likely to be influenced by the media, which have exhausted the news value of Armageddon and are now on the bandwagon celebrating the new horizons opening up!

To summarise what our research groups decided on these issues:

The importance of the availability of unlimited resources cannot be overestimated. So far, the onward march of humanity has been limited, at every step, by the resources available to it; and trade-offs, often painful ones, had to be made between conflicting options. In general, this need no longer be the case. Within very broad limits, we now have the abilities, and the resources to match these, to do almost whatever we want. Now, at long last, we are also regaining the optimism necessary to make full use of these. Our future should be characterised by ever-expanding horizons, no longer by conflict over scarce resources.

BEYOND affluence

It is now almost four decades since Kenneth Galbraith published his famous book: 'The Affluent Society'. On the other hand, few of us learned the lesson it preached: that the economics of an affluent society are very different to those of previous times - when resources were rationed . Now, more than a generation later, we have already gone beyond mere affluence; certainly in the West, and the rest of the world probably is not too far behind. The best assumption to make now is that we are, as humanity in general, the owners of effectively infinite resources[10] . Alvin Toffler[a] makes the point that "What makes the Third Wave economy revolutionary is the fact that while land, raw materials  and perhaps even capital  can be regarded as finite resources, knowledge is for all intents inexhaustible ...knowledge can be used by two companies at the same time. And they can use it to generate still more knowledge. Thus, Second Wave economic theories based on finite, exhaustible inputs are inapplicable to Third Wave economies." This is precisely the assumption - of effectively unlimited resources - on which much of this book is based; though there is now so much evidence to support this view that it should really be seen as an established fact!

On the other hand, it should be reported that almost all our groups still expected there to be some problems with food supplies , in terms of shortages  - perhaps created by plant diseases, pests  or pollution - and, in terms of the results from individual respondents (which better indicate the current expectations), 60% foresaw a global shortage (by 2030) . Just over half the groups also foresaw shortages of other non-renewable resources .  Just over a third  highlighted the specific problem of water supplies - and again 60% of individuals expected a global water shortage, this time by 2040 - possibly giving water utilities considerable political power and possibly even leading to 'water wars' (expected by 80% of individuals) where the resources crossed national boundaries. Our contacts with the major multi-nationals working in this field suggest, however, that the problem is typically not one of absolute shortage but of pricing - in particular in terms of the massive subsidies on irrigation water (in California just as much as in Saudi Arabia) which then result in usustainable demands on the aquifers supplying these.

Assuming that resources are effectively infinite is necessarily a crude model, for we cannot instantaneously meet every demand which appears.  The point is that even this crude model is preferable to the one currently in use; which emphasises our limitations, often artificially induced ones (such as money-supply) in the context of the longer term, and demands that we must fight each other for the scarce resources[11] .

THE GREEN FUTURE - SEX, DRUGS AND ROCK & ROLL?

An important, but rarely recognised, addition to this debate is that resources should be measured relative to the likely demands upon them. Most Malthusians assume that our ever growing wealth will pose ever growing demands on our physical resources - as has happened in the period since the first Industrial Revolution. On the other hand, it is already clear that the post-modern society (and especially the post-materialist one) will require progressively less in the way of additional physical resources. By definition, post-materialism is not based on the use of materials. The demands are, instead, made on intangible resources; usually provided by human beings - or computers - who are not yet in short supply[12]. The relative balance between resource supply, which is still growing as fast as ever, and demand, which will not grow as rapidly as it has in the past, should therefore improve!

Indeed, in the fast emerging knowledge society, not merely does use of the ‘product’ being consumed not reduce the overall resources it may even increase them! The Economist^[p] puts the point succinctly “Economic theory has a problem with knowledge: it seems to defy the basic economic principle of scarcity. Knowledge is not scarce in the traditional sense - the more you use it and pass it on, the more it proliferates...however much it is used, it does not get used up.” To put it another way, David Ricardo’s widely accepted concept (postulated in the early nineteenth century), the notion of diminishing returns (on capital) which is built into much of (neo-classical) economic theory, no longer holds true. Indeed, Paul Romer shows that the reverse is now more likely, especially if human capital (including the knowledge and skills embodied in the work force) is accounted for.

The point was brought home to me at a recent meeting of futurists, discussing - as we are wont to do - the best route to a ‘greener future’. One of the participants bemoaned the fact that all his children wanted was ‘Sex, Drugs and Rock & Roll’. This was clearly said for comic effect. But the debate it sparked off showed that, whether or not you agree with the moral values implied (and this is just one of many areas where society’s formal position is under challenge), such a range of ‘activities’ actually offered a remarkably green future; for none of the three activities made any significant demands on the physical resources available to society!

Affluence poses different challenges; of a political rather than of an economic nature.

The best assumption to make is that - in the long term - we have access to infinite resources; and can choose to do almost anything we consider needs to be done.

We now move on to look in more detail at some of the more important topics included in this (technologically based) section of the book.

Medicine

The first of these, medicine, has an especially important impact on all of us as individuals; and this may be the reason why our own research groups put it at the top of their priority list - a good reason for starting with this topic. We are all, to a varying degree, hypochondriacs!

In any case, the rate at which scientific frontiers are being pushed back is perhaps most evident in the field of medicine. It should be emphasised that, in general, it is in this - wider - field, rather than the more glamorous one of surgery, that the key advances are now being made. Even so, advances in surgery - probably combined with new medical treatments - did feature in the predictions of our groups; somewhat surprisingly, in the context of brain surgery . More than half our general research groups (and about two thirds of individuals) suggested that brain transplants  or implants would be possible (including those with micro-chip; to enhance the brain-power of the recipient, especially in terms of knowledge ). It is possible that these specific predictions were intended to indicate the extent to which all  transplants would be used - the brain is after all the ultimate transplant, in that you could, in theory, 'grow' a new young body to house your old tired brain - and its presence on the list might indicate the expectations the general groups had of medicine in general. On the other hand, as we will see later - in the chapter on IT - such symbiotic implants are already in the pipeline, one of the key 'technologies under development', and they almost certainly will be as important as our general groups indicated; to human development, in the longer term.

At a slightly more mundane level, the use of advanced medical imaging and robotics will revolutionise even routine surgical procedures . Thus, The Economist[k] points out that "By hooking up conventional medical tools to computers, image guided therapy offers surgeons the ability to see into and through patient's bodies." The magazine adds, rather brutally but accurately, "Surgeons should then do less damage to their patients"! The future might be even more revolutionary, for The Economist[k] explains that "Mini-robots are another possibility. Electric motors less than a millimetre in size, made by etching tiny gears and mechanisms on a silicon crystal, could power tiny surgical devices or tractor bearing cameras. Such miniature battalions can be swallowed...eliminating the need for invasive surgery." John Petersen, describing one example of this, writes that "Minuscule devices smaller than red blood cells could cruise that bloodstream searching for fat deposits and infectious organisms. When they find them they would destroy them." Mind you, this is what white blood cells  already do, usually to great effect, so the makers of these tiny machines will here be in competition with the biotechnology industry , which is approaching the problems from a different direction; but, as with many aspects of technology, such a multiplicity of approaches may just make the solution that much more certain; and offer all of us a healthier future.

medical treatment

It is arguable that, for much of the nineteenth century, and some of the twentieth, the improvement in general living conditions, rather than surgery (or even medicine), was the main contributor to improved health. Cleaner water and better sanitation probably saved more lives than all the doctors put together.[13] Now, though, doctors  are conquering many of the infectious diseases which were the traditional killers. Indeed, in view of the size of the challenge, it comes as somewhat of a surprise to learn that, as Chris Mahill reports, "...eight out of 10 children in the world have been vaccinated  against the five major killer diseases of childhood" and "...since 1980 infant mortality has fallen by 25 per cent while overall life expectancy has increased by four years to about 65." The problem is, unfortunately, the distribution of this new robust health which the world is experiencing. Again as Chris Mahill  reports, "A person in the least developed countries of the world has a life expectancy of 43 years." The difference is not a function of medicine but of political decisions.

Thus, smallpox  has already gone, and polio  may soon follow; though malaria  is proving very stubborn and, of course, new diseases - such as AIDS and BSE  - continue to emerge; though 90% of our individuals thought there would be a cure for AIDS within the next two decades. With better international controls, however, the impact of these new disease on individuals, such as you and me, is likely to be much less than the alarmists would suggest. We just lack the will (and consequently the dedicated resources) to offer these solutions to everyone, around the world.

Increasingly we are even learning to deal with the problems which occur, at one extreme, within the human cell, and, at the other, in the holistic environment to which the individual is exposed. Once again, more than half our research groups thought that (all) diseases would be eradicated or at least controlled, but - when asked specifically about this - only a quarter of individuals thought this would happen (though 80% expected cures for the major diseases by 2020). Perhaps surprisingly in view of the media hype, only just over a quarter of the groups thought that cancer  "cancer "would be cured or prevented; but here the individuals were more optimistic, with almost 90% predicting a cure to be found within the next three decades[14].

As in much of the rest of human life, however, here too it seems that IT may have a major - albeit less obvious - impact[15]. Where cost is becoming a major, perhaps (in the form of cost effectiveness) the major, factor in treatment decisions - we can now cure more things than we can afford - the use of computer controls on administration may prove to be one of the major drivers for better, or at least affordable, medicine. At the same time, better communications will ensure that best practice is more widely disseminated. To put it bluntly, your doctor will have less excuse for allowing you to die simply because he or she didn’t realise there was another alternative - a not uncommon occurrence even now!

Indeed, the most important developments are likely to be seen in the management of health[16]. The UK government's Technology Foresight Steering Group - reporting in 1995 - made the point that "In 15 years time the cost of treatment rather than a lack of knowledge will probably be the chief limiting factor in the treatment of today's currently incurable diseases - if that is so, science and technology will be increasingly targeted at reducing costs." Once again, technology not be the limiting factor. As for so many areas investigated in this book, what we do will be decided by political decisions.

Brain implants are likely to become a possibility; though the timescales for such procedures to be generally adopted are uncertain, and they should probably be seen as long-term developments - but very important ones for the future of humankind.

Medicine is, given the resources, already meeting its traditional challenges. Infectious diseases, and those of poverty, are being conquered; and the everyday problems of patients are being addressed more and more successfully.

Longevity 

Perhaps the most direct evidence of the medical advances described above will now be seen in the increased life expectancy to be experienced by almost all populations[17]. This will be seen in terms of the absolute length (not just a reduction in infant mortality), especially in the developed countries; as doctors  come - for the first time - to understand the mechanisms  which lie behind the various diseases , and behind the ageing process itself[18]. Two thirds of our groups (here including our experts as much as the general groups) were expecting significant increases in longevity; a quarter of our groups suggested that this would reach a hundred years or more on average[19], and no less than two thirds of individuals thought that this could the case within four decades.

As already explained, the earlier stages of this process can be largely explained by improvements in our environment[20]. It is only in recent decades - and then typically in developed countries - that improvements in heath care have significantly entered into the equation[21]. Even then it has probably been the breadth (the quantity) of its provision rather than the individual offerings (the quality) which has counted most. In fact, despite the widespread belief in the rationality of medical science , most of the discoveries - especially in the field of pharmaceuticals - have so far come from trial and error ; albeit on a grand scale, costing hundreds of millions of dollars. The greatest invention of Edison has turned out not to be the electric light but the modern process of research and development (R&D), which he invented in order to find the best filament material for the lamp.

Longevity has to date increased due to better environmental conditions and the wider availability of health care - using advances largely made by trial and error. In the near future we may see average life expectancy moving steadily towards a hundred years or more.

cell-level medicine

Now, though, we are beginning to understand some, at least, of the mechanisms involved - especially at the level of the cell - and are starting to develop our own answers to the faults which may occur in these. All our general groups rated genetic engineering as a major driver for change.

This not to say that we so far have many answers. The human genome project will, by itself, not provide the solution to all the ills of humanity - as some of its supporters would suggest. Its real benefits will accrue from the foundation of knowledge it provides for later work[22]. Even so, we should not expect to see the wave of practical, medical advances it promises put into widespread practice until the middle of the 21st century[23]; though this will be when many of those already born will need them! It is an important project, though, not just for the ultimate research benefits it promises, but as a symbol of the very real advances in human cell-level engineering  it represents; when it is remembered that it was only in 1972 that the first gene  "gene "was cloned . With, or without, the knowledge it provides, we are developing ever more advanced capabilities to repair the human body, at the cellular level[24]. One way of another, we can now, or soon will, send biological or molecular (or even electro-mechanical) devices into cells to diagnose faults, followed by others to repair them. This represents a massive leap forward for medicine  "medicine "in general. It allows the application of at least some of the genuinely scientific method, which has been used so successfully in other fields, to the treatment of many more illnesses.

One outcome of this process is that health in general should improve. Not merely will life-threatening illnesses, or those which severely incapacitate, be deemed suitable for treatment but many of the things which reduce the performance of, or quality of life, of an individual will also considered to be treatable and, as diagnostic tools improve along with treatment methods, affordable[25].

cancer and viruses

On the other hand, many diseases will prove more complex, and more difficult to treat, than we expect. As mentioned earlier, only a quarter of our groups thought that cancer would be cured by the year 2020; though Pearson & Cochrane's review of the literature suggests that it might, at least, be preventable by that time[26], and 90% of our individuals concurred with this view. There are, though, many different forms of cancer. Some of these, Hodgkins disease  and some leukaemias  in children have already proved to be treatable. Some, unfortunately some of the most common, have not - and the mechanisms underlying them are, as yet, poorly understood. There is little evidence that any breakthrough in treatment of all of these is upon us; so again we must assume that, in general, the effects of such spectacular breakthroughs, even if they happen, are unlikely to be observed much before the middle of the 21st century - though the number of cancers which are treatable will steadily increase.

Many viruses - especially those reducing the quality of life (such as colds  and influenza) - are also a mystery; at least in the way that they transform themselves into new varieties - so that, just as we have the answer the last one, a new one comes along! AIDS is, of course, the most-feared example of this, and in one sense we are lucky that its specific means of transmission offers such a weakness that we can control its spread to some degree; and, in any case, more than 90% of individuals expected a cure to be found within twenty years. There are, though, other similar viruses waiting in the wings - so it would be unrealistic, again, to see a magic solution to the overall problem being applied in the first half of the 21st century.

Even so, our research showed that most people did expect cures to be found, and - in view of the sums being spent - they cannot be discounted; though this is one area where social expectations may not be able to deliver technological solutions!

Genetic manipulation in plants and animals

More than two thirds of our groups (and a similar proportion of individuals) believed that new forms of animals will be created, usually for food; though individuals did not see this as being especially important! Surprisingly, in view of the actual developments being reported, only one group mentioned their use in producing organs  for human transplantation . On the other hand, Pearson  & Cochrane predict that, by 2020, "Many synthetic body parts [will be] available." More specifically, they suggest these will include "Artificial ears, eyes, legs, lungs, hearts, pancreas, liver, kidneys, blood." You could almost build a complete human being from these, but their suggestion is not that outrageous, since crude versions of a number of these are already available; and, indeed, individuals expected this to happen within the next fifteen years.

The wider potential is already evidenced by our ability to produce new animals, for instance, which deliver products that are compatible with those of humans - such as the blood product, Factor VIII "Factor VIII" "blood product, Factor VIII" , in cows' milk. It has been evidenced longer in the manipulation of plant species which, at least in part, heralded the green revolution - saving the Third World for a generation or so. But it has been around much longer as, for example,  in the manipulation of yeast in the brewing industry; and, even more spectacularly, in our manipulation of the wolf's gene pool to produce the Chihuahua at one extreme and the St Bernard at the other! There is nothing new about the principles underlying genetic manipulation. What is new is our ability to produce the changes we seek; on the scale of these and, in particular, on the speed with which we can make them. One outcome of this is that bio-chemical processes are increasingly taking over from purely chemical ones - on the industrial scale - with consequent improvements in efficiency. As one result, the new chemical factory may well look more like a small brewery  than a massive oil refinery.

human genetic manipulation

Clearly, these techniques might be just as easily extended to human genetics. Indeed, in cruder forms, we might see something like this happen; in some countries, significantly more boys than girls may be born during the first decades of the 21st century - following an age-old tradition which has now been given a mechanism for implementation. Following a more recent tradition, perhaps some of these may be taller than they might have been - since taller men have more successful careers! It is likely that both of these trends will, fortunately, disappear when the full impact of female power is realised!

It would, in theory, be possible to go much faster in the development of Homo Sapiens  - to create super-strong men, or super-intelligent ones - but it is much more questionable whether this will in practice happen by genetic manipulation. For one reason, the interaction of human genes, especially those controlling intelligence, is so complex that it would not be possible - within the foreseeable future - to easily predict the outcomes. The super-strong might be subject to crippling auto-immune diseases. The super-intelligent might be impotent. Thus, the parents of the baby to be are more likely to worry about negative defects than positive advances; and this will result in considerable conservatism, in terms of opposition to any changes, at the level of the individual. The main reason, in the longer term though, may be that the form of symbiosis with IT systems, mentioned in the section on (brain) surgery, may offer a much more dramatic - and much more (safely) predictable - form of human evolution.

One more extreme view of the future would have individuals being cloned. Surprisingly, perhaps, more than two thirds of our general groups believed that this was a possibility - though they were all vague about what exactly they meant by this. Was it to counter genetic diseases, which does look like a welcome possibility, or was it to have a 'tailor-made population, as one group put it? In view of what is already being done with animals, the latter is technically quite feasible, but it is a very contentious - and indeed sometimes abhorrent - issue; especially in view of the still-remembered experiments of the Third Reich . Just under a half saw 'baby farms' to be a possibility - though not necessarily related to cloning.

In effect, where in other animals it might be largely an economic issue, in humans such genetic engineering is a moral issue - bringing into question exactly what is human. The easy way out is not to pose the question - and this will, I suspect, be what happens over the first half of the 21st century. This will be reinforced by another human instinct, that of self-preservation. If we really could create a new race of super-human, how many would want to consign ourselves - as a result - to the category of second-class citizens? In the short and medium term, I suggest that few, apart from fanatics, would choose to do so. In the longer term, however, it may be an issue with which humanity may be confronted. It was certainly seen as an important issue by many of those involved in our research.

genetic preventative medicine 

On the other hand, despite the lack of activity in general, some engineering at the cellular level may be undertaken - perhaps even involving manipulation of DNA - to remove those elements which clearly limit human lifespan. As a result, the average lifespan may eventually exceed 120 years - which seems to be the current ceiling - with major implications for managing the human life-stages referred to later in this book. It will also significantly change the return on investment in human infra-structures, in education for instance, doubling this from a crude ratio of 2:1 (for a working life, say, of forty years after an education of 20 years) to 4:1 (eighty years working life, on much the same period of education). This will make it that much more attractive to invest in education - even of the under-classes; which will have dramatic social impacts as well as economic ones. Of all the medical advances, therefore, this will have the greatest impact on society as a whole - where improved health throughout life may have a greater an impact on the individual.

The human genome project will take much longer to deliver real benefits than is promised, but the processes it embodies will move medicine into a new era; and will deliver levels of health - in general - previously unrealised. The use of genetic engineering, in as yet unspecified forms, will become widespread in the near future.

Some diseases, which have many forms and especially those which can change over time, will be much more difficult to treat, Thus, some widespread cancers may not be susceptible to effective treatments during the first half of the 21st century - though they may be soon thereafter, in time to meet the needs of many of those already born. Viruses, including those similar to AIDS, may be even more difficult to treat - but  may be susceptible to control of their spread.

Genetic engineering has existed for many centuries, What is new is our ability to interfere in the process much more directly; producing changes on a large scale over short time periods. As one result, traditional chemical factories are being replaced by breweries!

For the first half of the 21st century, it is unlikely that there will be major developments in human genetic engineering - in terms of producing new human beings, rather than repairing existing ones. This will probably not be the result of scientific limitations, but will be on moral grounds; based upon self-preservation and self-interest. It will, though, continue to be a very controversial issue.

Even so, some human genetic engineering might be expected where it removed barriers to extending lifespan - which may, as a result, extend our average lifespan beyond the 120 years ceiling by the middle of the century. This will have the greatest impact on society.

drugs for work and pleasure

With the growing knowledge of our bodies, and especially of the mechanisms within the brain, we are likely to be able to develop devices - most probably in the form of drugs - which alter the way our brain operates at any particular time[27]. These may offer us the prospect of being more productive at work; enhancing our learning capabilities, say, or just our ability to get on with the more annoying of our fellow workers - as first Diazepam and then Prozac have already offered help to the more stressed out of us! Pearson - at British Telecomm (BT) - make this point when they say that, by 2020, "Brain and mind manipulation will allow control of emotions, learning, senses, memory and other psychological phenomena”. Such drugs usage may, in any case, become a necessity where, according to other researchers from BT Laboratories, “...we have reached our maximum information-processing capacity, or at least are within 20 per cent of it.” [28] Under these circumstances, it seems inevitable that such drug usage, at work, will grow in scale.

Above all, though, these may offer us new pleasures "pleasures and drugs". Heightening our senses, as Ecstasy does, or dulling them, as Heroin often does. The problem, again, is probably not a technical one - new (illegal) designer drugs regularly appear - but a social and moral one. Interestingly, our individual responses showed, contrary to the reported ethical stance of society as a whole, nearly two thirds expecting drug use to be widespread (by 2015), to be legalised (by 2020) and to be used for work and pleasure (by 2025). So our formal position, as society as a whole, is looking increasingly out of step with the reality on the ground; despite the very emotional debates which still surround the issue, our individuals only rated ‘legalisation of drugs’ as being of only average importance (5.5 on the ten point scale)! It is likely, therefore, that we will ultimately have to review even our so far universal rejection of the leisure uses of all such mind-altering drugs. In view of the changing nature of our society, coupled with the attraction of such drugs and the growing use of them by large sections of the population, it accordingly seems likely that society's view will change; and their use will at least be decriminalised - which then poses problems as to how we are to best use them!

More powerful, but safer, mind-altering drugs are likely to be developed - and legalised - for use at work and, especially, at play. The main question will then be how we are to best use them.

new technologies

We now move into the areas which will have the greatest impacts on the economic resources available to us. Technological development has, to date, largely been evidenced by our ability to do much the same things as we have in the past - but more efficiently. We are regularly finding ever more efficient, and effective, ways of using the physical resources available. Micro-miniaturisation has, across a wide range of fields, reduced the actual amount of physical resources needed to carry out a given function; and this, coupled with the growing amount of computing power built into even the simplest devices has made these functions ever more efficient in their use of energy. This is perhaps most evident in the advances made by the automobile industry. The average family car now contains more computing power than the moon-landers of the Apollo mission! This means that it can travel significantly further on each gallon of fuel, at the same time as offering a more sophisticated driving environment.

As a result, we have been able to afford more; of both products and services. This trend will continue; in terms of the basic technologies - even those not directly affected by advances in IT - for the steady advance of all aspects of technology over the past half century has cumulatively changed our lives at least as much. Thus, for instance, the food we eat is fresher and more varied; because the container revolution has made transport across the globe affordable.

Technology will continue to develop rapidly, on almost all fronts. We have acquired a great thirst for technological innovation, even if on an incremental basis; we even want a new soap-powder to be launched every year! More important, in the context of this section, we have already invented the new technologies to deliver such incremental changes in most fields over the period - say fifty years - this book covers. Thus, Peter Hall[29] - Professor of Planning at University College, London - says that "Most of the inventions which will shape the 21st century have, almost certainly, already been invented", but he does add "The trouble is we don't know what use will be made of these innovations." What is more, in most fields we are investing in R&D at such a rate that radical inventions (or at least, taking into account Peter Hall's comments, radical application of existing inventions) - which will change the whole nature of technology in that field - might be expected every decade or so. Nathan Rosenberg - of Stanford University's Center for Economic Policy - comments, on the other hand, that "What is surprising is the firm's inability to anticipate future applications of their successful innovations."

It should be emphasised, though, that these developments will be as a result of the development of technology. Its path and that of science, which has supposedly driven technology for the past century or so, will to a degree diverge - with science developing a different existence, and a justification of this, in the form of the knowledge revolution.

The major new technologies, or at least the ones in which advances are already under way, are listed by the experts to be: IT, Biotechnology , Space travel -  all of which are examined in some depth elsewhere -  and:

materials

You might think that there would be little to be changed in the materials from which our products are made, but radical new forms of these, such as engineering ceramics for example, will become available to improve the performance of products in general[30]. The greatest impact, however, may come when these are wedded to micro-miniaturised circuitry. For example, Ivan Amato - writing in The New Scientist - suggests that (as one unexpected example of the potential available - widely quoted in the technical journals) the new materials, in conjunction with IT networks, will allow city structures, from buildings to bridges, to diagnose their own structural weaknesses and then repair any faults by themselves[31]. Joseph Coates[b] puts this in a wider context by suggesting that "Everything will be smart - that is responsive to its external or internal environment. This will be achieved either by embedding micro-processors and associated sensors in physical devices or by creating materials that are responsive to physical variables such as light, heat, noise, odors and electromagnetic fields." With the IT Revolution generating a head of steam - if that is not too mid a metaphor - 'smart' is a term being widely applied to developments across a wide range of products - though its application to materials is one of the more surprising developments!

It should be noted, however, that - as Thomas Eagar reports - "There has typically been a 20-year interval between invention  and widespread adoption of new material." This is not just a problem of technological development but of design "Product designers tend to use materials in the same ways as the old materials. As a result, early design with new materials rarely demonstrate their full potential." This diffusion of knowledge may be improved by the new computer communications networks "computer communications networks", but this still leaves the problem of the inertia of standards. The time it takes to get any new invention into widespread use is the main drag on the speed of technological change. On the other hand, it means that future technological developments are that much easier to predict; they can usually be observed already working their way through the system.

production

Apart from the computer/communications aspects, there is little indication of major new technological initiatives in manufacturing industry; there were, indeed, few specific developments suggested by any of our groups. This might have been, however, because production processes in general have already experienced a major revolution[32].

The computer already allows us to do many things in very different ways, but much the same principles have been applied on a considerably smaller scale to, quite literally, operate at the atomic level. In this context, the key image - a marketing triumph as well as a technological one - came when - as reported by David Bradley in the New Scientist - "...the letters IBM [were] spelt out on a sheet of noble metal in just thirty or so non atoms..." If we can already manipulate individual atoms in this way, just think what we will be able to do over the next decades; and, as might be expected where IBM was the leader in the field, this is already having a major impact in the filed of computer memory technology. This is one area where the future technology can already be clearly seen. 'Small is beautiful' turns out to be a remarkably powerful concept in design which was inconceivable a few decades ago - when you judged the inherent quality of a product by how heavy it felt in your hand!

Indeed, it has now been recognised that the key factors in developing quality, productivity, and all the other aspects of process improvement, come at the stage of product design. Thus, perhaps - in terms of production - the most important introduction of computers has come at this design stage; where Computer Aided Design (CAD) can - not least - cut time and effort by up to 90%[33]. In addition, the resulting plans can be very easily modified, removing one excuse for avoiding change, as well as almost instantaneously transmitted to remote suppliers as well as to computer controlled machines on the shop-floor[34].

Even the traditional 'job-shop' - the home of 'specials' and one-off engineering, and usually full of filth and noise - cannot escape these changes. So-called rapid prototyping technologies (or FFF - Free Form Fabrication) can build up complex three dimensional parts direct from CAD input - without any other machinery needed.

computers in products

To get some idea how micro-miniaturisation has already changed your life only have to pull out your credit-card sized, solar powered, all-function calculator - which you probably bought for a few dollars (if it wasn't a free-gift with some other purchase) at your local supermarket. Compare this with only a generation or so ago, in the mid 1960s, when I had to scheme to get a special budget allocated for one of the first electronic calculators. It had just the four arithmetic functions and it was the size and weight of a typewriter. It cost nearly $1,000; but it halved the time I spent on calculations, and allowed me to develop one of the few mathematical, industry models which actually worked! If you have a pocket electronic organiser, the equivalent in the 1960s occupied a whole building, and cost millions of dollars.

IT, biotechnology and space travel are areas likely to experience major developments, as is that of new materials.

Technology in general, as increasingly different from science, will continue to develop; and to further enrich people's lives.

physical transport and travel

Our research also indicated that transport in general, and our personal travel in particular, will continue to experience rapid, and significant, developments. Along with other developments in IT and communications, virtual travel  - seeing the world literally from the comfort of your own armchair - may be one of the most spectacular developments in the coming decades; but the importance of developments in physical transport have arguably been almost as important as electronic ones over the past few decades. The 747 airliner and mass air transportation (for fresh fruit as well as for people), along with the container revolution at sea, have demonstrably enlarged our horizons. We now think nothing of taking our holidays literally on the other side of the world, and while writing this book I happily took a short time off to make a day trip (well actually two nights) from London, to attend a degree ceremony in Addis Abeba - in the middle of Africa. Not least, we now expect our local supermarket to stock products from around the world - even fresh fruit and vegetables coming from continents away.

In the short term, though, our continuing struggle through the traffic to our place of work - dominated by what many would call the curse of the automobile (though we still use it!) - will also loom large. It is likely that this problem will be addressed from two directions. Public transport, improved and subsidised in a political climate which more realistically recognises the role of government in such matters, will carry increasing numbers of us to and fro; and, in particular, will absorb large amounts of freight, to make extra space on the inevitably over-used road systems. Against all the messages being put out by politicians - including some from the left as well as the right of the political spectrum - improved public transport was anticipated to be in place within 15 years by almost 90% of our individuals (who rated it 7.0 in importance). As indicated, however, these changes will require new policies; and adoption of new attitudes by the general public[35].

From the other direction, our car will itself effectively become part of a highly regulated public transport system; on over-subscribed routes at least. One aspect of this will almost inevitably be that we will have to pay for such travel. Free road use will, as space on them becomes increasingly inadequate, go the way of cheap gasoline. One likely technical development, which will help, is the ability to safely run our (automated/computerised) cars in very close proximity along dedicated highways; allowing more traffic on the same roads, together with the additional benefit of as much as a 30% saving in fuel[36].

In the shorter term, however, the problem of car engine emissions may be seen as a higher priority[37]. Energy efficiency in general, and air pollution in particular, will demand new solutions; and the electric car (mentioned by more than 90% of individuals) currently seems be one of the most suitable solutions - and also has major advantages, in terms of easier control (and higher reliability), for use on the 'automated roads' described earlier.

Almost two thirds of the groups mentioned some aspect of traffic congestion or control of this at the local level, and 85% of individuals expected this to happen within twenty years. On the other hand, the same number in the general predicted that faster, supersonic air-travel will become widespread; though this was thought to be relatively unimportant (rated 4.0) by individuals. If economies of scale, backed by new technologies, can bring the costs down, the benefits would be spectacular; and, once more, 85% of individuals predicted that, in general, air travel would soon be much cheaper. As John Petersen calculates "Flying at Mach 4 the HSCT [High Speed Civil Transport] would make the trip from Los Angeles to Tokyo in only 2 hours, instead of the present 12 hours"; breakfast in London, lunch in New York would be opened up to a mass market.

As a footnote, it is an interesting insight, into the investment barriers which can still be brought to bear against new entrants, that - as Paul Krugman[b] points out - "...the Boeing 747 [which is] still the flagship of airlines, was introduced in 1969; today's versions are improved, but not radically different."  Even now, its potential replacement, the new Airbus development, has not left the drawing board. Monopolies often work against the public interest not in terms of high prices - as most people expect - but as low investment in key developments! Much the same charge could be levelled against Microsoft in the field of software.

Coming at the issue from a different direction, it should be noted that tourism - of one form or another - is already the world's largest industry and - according to Sue Wheat, writing in Geographical - "is growing 23 per cent faster than the overall economy. The number of people now travelling for tourism purposes is around 500 million and is expected to rise to 937 million by 2010. For an industry which doesn't have to manufacture anything itself and simply exploits ready-made features, these are astounding figures." As a human activity in its own right it cannot be ignored - a number of our groups stressed its importance (though the individuals didn’t, rating it a bare 3.3) - and as a generator of revenues for the developing world it will also be important. Sue Wheat, however, points out that although it employees more than 127 million people world-wide "...in developing countries, the local people normally work in menial, seasonal and low-paid positions..."

Transportation, of all kinds, may represent an area where major changes might be expected.

Few other major technological advances will however have dramatic impacts on society; either in the home or in manufacturing industry.

Tourism will become one of the world's largest industries; and a key influence on local 'heritage' industries - as well as on the economies of the Third World.

Unlimited abilities

Returning to the original theme of this chapter, what will emerge, in almost all fields, is the widespread application of the technologies we already possess[38]. The key, therefore, will be which of these technologies we now choose to deploy in any given situation - and what priorities we give to each of them. We already have the technology available to make cars which will last for decades, but consumers - no doubt ourselves included - have been persuaded to view them as fashion items; so we treat them as semi-disposable. We already have the technology to make better, more high-tech, houses; but, again, we consumers (and especially the finance houses providing our loans) don't want these.

The key point here is that in general we already have the technology. What we need, in each case, is the will - the consumer demand - to do whatever we want. If we want to irrigate the Sahara, to make it the new Garden of Eden, then this would be possible - though it might be prohibitively expensive.

The one major exception to this rule  - of unlimited resources - may be that of energy, or at least of cheap energy. More than two thirds of our groups saw traditional energy supplies running out; and about half highlighted this in terms of the 'end of fossil fuels'. No less than 85% of our individual responses expected this to happen by 2030 - giving it a relatively high (7.5) importance rating - and they expected oil prices to escalate even earlier (by 2020). This is unfortunate, since energy can be traded off against almost any other commodity or activity [39] .

In the immediate post-war years - in the West - we became too dependent upon cheap energy; until the oil price shock of 1973 reminded us that this was the exception rather than the rule. The need, now, is for rational planning of energy policy - world-wide. One 'wild card' speculation by a consortium of three research and consulting firms (The Copenhagen  Institute for Futures, Denmark, the Institute for the Future, United States, and Bipe Conseil, France)[40] is that most nations around the world will eventually (by 2027, according to these projections) impose punitive carbon tas (at $100 a barrel) - which will completely change energy usage patterns. On the other hand, as Hamish McRae[b] adds "At present consumption rates there is enough coal to last the world for more than 200 years..."; always assuming that the problems of global warming can be resolved. Energy shortages are not, despite the views of the pessimists, likely to trouble us in the short or medium term.

Ultimately, where electricity will almost certainly become - in the long term -  the main means of transmitting energy to static installations, hydrogen - which has many advantages, not least its zero impact on the environment - may become the major transmission medium for mobile installations (including vehicles)[41]. Both of these will, however, be only a means of transmitting power generated from other sources of energy - though this will allow those other sources to be both remote and environmentally friendly.

Nuclear energy, once heralded as a saviour, has now been abandoned by a number of countries; probably unnecessarily so, where it is its uncontrolled use which poses problems - much as uncontrolled use of thermal power stations may be causing the green-house effect. Nuclear energy can be viable, as its use in France to provide the major part of that country's electrical power shows[42]. The problem is the unknown future; the cost, and danger, of dealing with the by-products. Even so, this fear may be less than rational[43]. Two thirds of our general groups (and a similar number of individuals) believed that nuclear energy, of one form or another, would be important in future (albeit not until 2030). So it has to be argued that the industry's problems probably are short-term (image) ones.

In any case, within the first half of the 21st century it seems likely that the billions of dollars poured into nuclear fusion will eventually bring some sort of result - though it is less clear whether it will by then be producing large-scale energy, or that this will be cheap! Almost half our general groups, and more than 80% of individuals, believed that fusion energy will be available by 2030.

Even so, we already have large amounts of clean energy available - albeit not cheaply[44]. The highlands of the world contain the potential for vast amounts of hydro-electric power[45]. Just one scheme, dropping the Nile through 6,000 feet and costing a mere $500 million, would produce perhaps a hundred times the power of the Aswan dam (which currently provides a significant proportion of Egypt's needs). The problem is that such power sources, sunlight in the Sahara is another, are usually remote from potential users. The one mentioned above is several hundred miles away from the nearest port, and the subsistence farmers in the area which surrounds it would hardly be able to afford $500 million capital cost - no matter how cheap the resulting electricity. - though it could feed into a transmission ‘backbone’ already planned to run the length of Africa.

In space, as we will see later, energy - from the sun - will be relatively cheap. The trick, then, may well be to move the more energy intensive processes to the supply - on earth as well as in space - reversing the current approach; and, once more, demanding planning on a global scale.

We already have the existing technology necessary to achieve almost anything we want to do - it remains for us to decide what we want to do.

Energy will continue to be made available in ever larger quantities, probably including that from nuclear-fusion in addition to nuclear power. Much of the renewable energy, at least, will however be found in remote areas - ultimately in space - and almost all of this will be relatively expensive; in the short term at least.

Resource distribution

The last section highlights a more general point. As we have already seen, we can reasonably assume that, across the world as a whole, resources and technological capabilities are effectively unlimited. This is an important assumption; and one which is fundamental to the on-going development of humanity[46]. In particular, though, the distribution of resources is very uneven; especially between the rich and poor, and between First and Third Worlds[47]. Such unevenness in the distribution of resources is clearly inefficient from the point of view of the world as a whole[48]. It clearly creates great hardship for those who are deprived, but that is not the result of technology. Nor, though, is it even one of economics - as some would have us believe. It is a political problem. Resolution will require that political decisions need to be taken; and these decisions will demand considerable courage from the governments making them; though they probably have no alternative, if the future progress of humanity is not to be imperilled[49]. On the other hand, The World Bank, in its 1991 World Development Report, was able to claim "Famines disappeared from Western Europe in the mid-1800s, from Eastern Europe in the 1930s, and from Asia in the 1970s."

The planning of resource distribution, probably applying though to new resources rather than to a significant redistribution of existing ones (which would make the politicians' job that much harder!), should be a high priority for any form of world government - or of the agencies that stand in for it[50]. This was recognised, in theory albeit not in practice, by the so-called Poverty Summit of 1995. At this summit, President Mitterrand made the very brave suggestion - for a politician - that such redistribution should be funded by a 0.5% tax on every financial deal; a variation on the 'Tobin Tax', which would have also stopped financial market speculation almost in its tracks. It was interesting to note that it required a ruler who was dying of cancer, and had nothing to lose, to suggest such a brave scheme; and that almost nobody else gave him any backing! Indeed, the scheme was quietly killed a few months later, a respectable time after he had relinquished the presidency of France.

Wastage of people

It is now clear - to well-managed organisations in the developed world, at least - that their most important resource is that of people. Thus, the greatest inefficiency globally, and the greatest inequity locally, is that of the failure - to a massive extent - to match the distribution of other resources to that of people. The failure to provide everyone with the minimum resources to become productive - let alone to fulfil their ultimate potential - represents the most significant waste of resources around the globe; and the most significant failure of governments of all complexions.

With modern technology, the level of resources needed is now reducing, quite rapidly, rather than increasing; as it has in the past. In particular, educational technology - not least that employing distance teaching techniques - has advanced considerably; so that it may be possible to take a student in the Third World to completion of a degree course for less than $1,000. In addition, large numbers of teachers may be trained by what amounts to a geometrical progression; the first 30 train 30 more each, over six months to a year say, and so on; until by the end of the fourth year nearly half a million students may be taking part. The same geometric pattern may apply to other processes; not least to those requiring small inputs of materials but high inputs of skill.

Third World potential

Thus, the greatest waste of all is that of the four fifths of humanity which is locked up in the as yet undeveloped world. This is, paradoxically, where much of the dynamic for development into the later part of the 21st century is likely to emerge. With relatively little investment now needed, much of this is set to erupt - in terms of economic development - as those wasted human assets are unlocked. Once they start moving (and they have already started!) their economic growth will be explosive. They obviously need to catch up with the developed world, but South East Asia has shown how this may be done - against all the supposed odds - in little over a decade. Who would have forecast as little as two decades ago that backward China would be poised to become the world's largest economic superpower in the early part of the 21st century. But, as the catching up process comes to an end - in say a couple of decades (as it was in South Korea, for instance) - the momentum, the dynamism of their economies, will carry these nations on to possibly dominate the developments later in the century!

Whilst overall resources are effectively unlimited globally, the distribution of these resources is very uneven - meaning that significant resource constraints still apply in many localities. This is ineffective globally and often literally disastrous locally; and should therefore be a high priority for global planning in theory - which it already is - and in practice - which it is not.

The greatest waste of all is that of people's talents - and currently that waste applies to much of humanity. The cost of rectifying this - to the level of effective performance, if not personal fulfilment - is now affordable; within, if geometric progressions are followed, reasonable timescales. The current situation, which gratuitously wastes many of humanity's resources whilst fostering revolutionary forces, simply is no longer affordable!

The greatest potential - of resources yet untapped and of the people-power to exploit them - is to be found in the remaining Third World. Following the pattern - of succeeding against the economic odds, set by South East Asia - these nations still in the Third World may become the dynamos of the later years of the 21st century.
 

[back]     [home]

hits