« A *New Day* | Main | Famous economists' famous errors »
What will change *everything*?
Via Arnold Kling, here is a long symposium (a good time waster), from all the names you would expect to contribute to such a symposium, plus Eric Fischl and Brian Eno. Here is Anton Zeitlinger's offering:
Some day all semiconductors will break down and therefore all computers as, besides historic instruments no computers exist today which are nor based on semiconductor technology. The breakdown will be caused by a giant electromagnetic pulse (EMP) created by a nucler explosion outside Earth's athmosphere. It will cover large areas on Earth up to the size of a continent. Where it will happen is unpredictable. But it will happen since it is extremely unlikely that we will be able to get rid of all nuclear weapons and the probability for it to happen at any given time will never be zero.
The implications of such an event will be enormous. If it happens to one of our technology based societies literally everything will break down. You will realize that none your phones does work. There is no way to find out via the internet what happened. Your car will not start anymore as it is also controlled by computer chips, unless you are lucky to own an antique car. Your local supermarket is unable to get new supplies.There will be no trucks operating anymore, no trains, no elctricity, no water supplies Society will completely break down.
I worry about that too. A lot of the answers consider nuclear bombs exploding, reengineering the human body, and nanotechnology.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on January 1, 2009 at 01:21 PM in History | Permalink
Comments
This worries you Tyler? I went to a talk of yours in hte fall of 2008 and you did not list it as a rational worry. Did Kaneman prove this a legitimate worry in the lab?
Posted by: at Jan 1, 2009 1:39:35 PM
How is it that I was able to figure out that this was from edge.org without clicking through to the link? Its because every one of the contributors to that site has the same exact grammar-hating writing style. The uniformity is remarkable, but I have an explanation.
I think it has to do with common life experiences. They are all fringe academics who have deluded themselves over a lifetime of inconsequential research that whatever nonsense they are working on is of utmost importance to the continued survival of the human race. As a result, all of their writings are by turn overly dramatic, inexact and utterly painful to read.
Posted by: chrsux at Jan 1, 2009 2:15:20 PM
Sounds like the plot of a Shyamalan movie
Posted by: Julian at Jan 1, 2009 2:50:11 PM
This is relevant to the plot of the TV show Jericho. What follows is a decently realistic account.
Military vehicles are hardened to these attacks through the use of a trailing ground or better circuit design. Civilians can prepare through making sure they keep their emergency supplies (including a hand cranked radio) in a Faraday cage. My understanding is that moist earth also also insulates against emp damage.
Posted by: OneEyedMan at Jan 1, 2009 3:07:16 PM
chrsux has it right (although "every one" is a bit harsh, and I am not sure they are "all" fringe academics, but to first order I agree). There are some interesting responses, as you would expect if you collected 50 answers from reasonably smart people on any topic, but it is remarkable how many say, in one way or another, "what will change everything is, coincidentally, what I am working on right now".
Posted by: tom s. at Jan 1, 2009 3:13:06 PM
I skimmed through this symposium. I felt it was going nowhere until I found this contribution (quoted unabridged):
"NO MORE REALITY!
Could we take the next step by breaking down the strict distinction between reality and fiction: NO MORE REALITY!"
About 95% of the symposium contributions revive memories of science fiction read some time ago (the other 1 in 20 seem possibly interesting but quarter-baked), so I was enchanted by this particular miss-take on an old science-fiction idea.
chrsux point about style was only confirmed in about three quarters of the contributions. Regardless of that proportion, I would ask him to consider if, as a stylistic breed, mainstream academics might possibly also be in need of help in achieving unpainful readability?
Posted by: D iversity at Jan 1, 2009 3:19:17 PM
Such a pulse would damage equipment connected to long wires and lacking good surge protectors. It would not damage portables that were unplugged or computers inside buildings with lots of metal in the walls (think aluminum siding or foil-backed insulation). It might create lots of problems in the power grid and create problems for anyone leaning on a long wire fence.
The EMP pulse needs an antenna to couple to any device with semiconductors. A chip sitting on a on the ground by itself would not be harmed by such a pulse. Of course, if the pulse were big enough it could harm such a chip. However, an event that could deliver an EMP pulse that big would have other effects that would be much more damaging.
Anon.
Posted by: anon at Jan 1, 2009 3:25:19 PM
I am more concerned by the fact that there are nearly always two aircraft carriers and a nuclear sub pen a few miles upwind of my house.
Posted by: Mercutio.Mont at Jan 1, 2009 3:41:16 PM
What about using some cheap vacuum tube stuff as a backup? Guitar amps still use this and we can be assured that post EMP we will still be rockin'.
Posted by: chakira at Jan 1, 2009 4:33:56 PM
I'm not too worried about this because the tech/industry gap between rocketry and nukes and enough nukes to launch a first strike large enough to create a much more devastating nuclear winter (100 warheads on 100 cities or less) isn't that large. For instance, there are 7-9 countries that can start a nuclear winter and probably just as many that could very quickly have this capability if a crash Manhattan were initiated.
There are only a few more that will be able to detonate a high yield high altitude nuke over an industrialized area. Maybe add North Korea to the list if they have good rocketry. Maybe add Iran in a few years if they solve the centrifuge problems that have stalled them last few years.
Rather than panic people into doing something stupid like electing Republicans, choose one of two strategies:
1) Civil defense as mentioned, put some reboot stuff in mines.
2) Streamline R+D of more resilient infrastructures like GMO seeds for home gardens.
This is only a regional theatre threat. You could probably just export that broken electronics from regions not hit. I guess a reason to make sure all the chip plants aren't located too close together? I'm much more concerned about the coal and oil sands infrastructure WMDs that are being used as we type. One year of regional crop failures and subsequent agriculture commodity trade protectionism will leave you forgetting about EMPs while foraging insects.
Posted by: Phillip Huggan at Jan 1, 2009 5:05:19 PM
I think this one of Edge's better questions. I like Steven Pinker's answer, in part because he breaks from personal hobby horses (a danger in Edge essays), and opens with the folly of prediction:
I have little faith in anyone’s ability to predict what will change everything. A look at the futurology of the past turns up many chastening examples of confident predictions of technological revolutions that never happened, such as domed cities, nuclear-powered cars, and meat grown in dishes. By the year 2001, according to the eponymous movie, we were supposed to have suspended animation, missions to Jupiter, and humanlike mainframe computers (though not laptop computers or word processing – the characters used typewriters.) And remember interactive television, the internet refrigerator, and the paperless office?Technology may change everything, but it’s impossible to predict how. Take another way in which 2001: A Space Odyssey missed the boat. The American women in the film were “girl assistants”: secretaries, receptionists, and flight attendants. As late as 1968, few people foresaw the second feminist revolution that would change everything in the 1970s. It’s not that the revolution didn’t have roots in technological change. Not only did oral contraceptives make it possible for women to time their childbearing, but a slew of earlier technologies (sanitation, mass production, modern medicine, electricity) had reduced the domestic workload, extended the lifespan, and shifted the basis of the economy from brawn to brains, collectively emancipating women from round-the-clock childrearing.
I'd say this has application for MR and Tyler because the hot topics of the day are all about prediction. "The economy is verging on X, so we must do Y!"
It's worth noting that Krugman and Cowen are dueling with a mix of prediction and prescription.
(In other forums I talk about "green jobs". I recognized that those also are about prediction paired with prescription.)
Posted by: odograph at Jan 1, 2009 5:19:06 PM
I think it has to do with common life experiences. They are all fringe academics who have deluded themselves over a lifetime of inconsequential research that whatever nonsense they are working on is of utmost importance to the continued survival of the human race. As a result, all of their writings are by turn overly dramatic, inexact and utterly painful to read.
My favorite is the "about" section where they give each other uber-reality superhero names such as "the Connector", "the Maestro", "the Genius", and so on. I get the distinct feeling that at least half of them make weekly use of a penis pump.
Posted by: s. weynard miller at Jan 1, 2009 7:18:19 PM
The breakdown will be caused by a giant electromagnetic pulse (EMP) created by a nucler explosion outside Earth's athmosphere.
Worst of all, the blast will release three supercriminals from the Phanton Zone.
Posted by: Bob Murphy at Jan 1, 2009 8:40:20 PM
We don't know and can NOT predict.
This http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AK-47 changed warfare beyond any predictions.
This http://www.apple.com/itunes/ changed how we acquire, listen to and store music.
Posted by: Dave Barnes at Jan 1, 2009 9:20:02 PM
But it will happen since it is extremely unlikely that we will be able to get rid of all nuclear weapons and the probability for it to happen at any given time will never be zero.
I'm not so sure about that. Basically, you're trying to compare two very small probabilities here - the probability that nuclear weapons will be used, and the probability that nuclear weapons will be abolished. Given that we don't really have any idea of the P values for either event, I'm not ready to count nuclear annihilation as a certainty just yet. I guess I'm just an optimist.
Posted by: quanticle at Jan 1, 2009 10:42:25 PM
It is very important to understand the difference between the unthinkable and the impossible. This is going to happen.
Is there any medium-term future technology that is immune to this (say, based on optics or organic materials)? Alternatively, is it at all feasible to mandate military-style hardening for critical infrastructure and machinery?
Posted by: at Jan 1, 2009 10:47:41 PM
The right answer to "What will change *everything*?" is CALIFORNIA. The Californian dolar is coming:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28448852/
Posted by: E. Barandiaran at Jan 1, 2009 10:57:28 PM
The right answer to "What will change *everything*?" is CALIFORNIA. The Californian dolar is coming:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28448852/
Posted by: E. Barandiaran at Jan 1, 2009 10:58:44 PM
@odograph:
Ooh ooh ooh! Carbon tech will completely change everything! I don't mean the usual 8 suspects everyone loves like:
1 - artificial volcanoes, currently the global favorite
2 - ghost ships firing seawater into the high atmosphere, close second
3 - iron-seeding the ocean, no one is sure what would happen, probably ineffective
4 - e-coli "oil 2.0," raises questions of scale
5 - algae farming, again, scale question
6 - carbon sequestration, the environmentalist's favorite but completely untested and massively expensive
7 - fungus diesel, more scale issues
8 - peridotite, the carbon absorbing rock - deep strip mining to save the environment! how ironic!
Nope - the one that will change the world - by providing nearly free electricity from mere seawater - that's what we'll do with all that arctic ice-melt - $0, 0 carbon! - is the amazing BlackLight. You heard it here first. . .if it's, um, real. . .
Posted by: StreetWalker at Jan 1, 2009 11:45:18 PM
Eno's comment (pg10) about change in collective feeling (pessimism vs optimism) was interesting. Many different comments relating to global communications and interdependence. Interesting to compare with previous year's ideas too.
Posted by: CB at Jan 2, 2009 12:11:05 AM
What about the nuclear tests done in the atmosphere (by the french, I believe?). For a blast powerful enough to produce said EMP, wouldn't the nuclear fallout be much more destructive? The radioactive particles would follow the air currents - and thus cause problems for everyone. I can't help but remember some "documentary" that said something like this in relation to solar flares.
Posted by: arbition at Jan 2, 2009 4:02:55 AM
I have no opinion on this. It's way above my pay grade. But the writing, particularly the first sentence, is so poor it certainly casts doubt on the message.
Posted by: whosonfirst at Jan 2, 2009 6:30:24 AM
I worry about the end of silicon as much as I worry about the end of carbon life. I think the odds are real low
Posted by: simone at Jan 2, 2009 11:25:56 AM
"But it will happen since it is extremely unlikely that we will be able to get rid of all nuclear weapons and the probability for it to happen at any given time will never be zero." Errrr... aren't there dozens of low probability disasters we know will most likely happen at some point? It's not clear to me why we should worry about this one more than an asteroid strike or a super volcano exploring...
Posted by: Sol at Jan 2, 2009 11:57:21 AM
I too find Edge.org to be full of self-important blowhards. but if you are an academic working on problem A, and you think problem B is the really important problem that will change the world, why not immediately switch to researching B? As a society, we should welcome arrogant geniuses as preferable to mediocrities working on minimum-publishable-unit papers to get tenure. oth, Edge's 'Third Culture' rhetoric about awkward scientific debates replacing the humanities is fully deserving of ridicule.
Posted by: DK at Jan 2, 2009 1:26:41 PM
