ARE YOU OPTIMISTIC ABOUT?"
Harvard University; Author, Warped Passages
Will Increasingly Value Truth (Over Truthiness)
is an "ism" like any other. People
reading these pages should recognize the responses as the
hopeful beliefs that they are. With this caveat, I'm optimistic
that people will increasingly value truth (over truthiness).
After recent digressions into beliefs and images dominating
current thought, I'm anticipating that society will increasingly
recognize and understand the value of knowledge. People will
want to make their own critical judgments, know more facts,
and stop deferring to questionable authorities or visual
media for their education. I don't necessarily think everyone
will do so. But I'm optimistic that the ones who do won't
remain a silent minority.
of my optimism stems from my experiences talking and writing
about the future of particle physics to the public and the
surge of interest I've found when people realize how much they
can learn and understand. All of us in the particle physics
community are eagerly awaiting the Large Hadron Collider (LHC),
a proton-proton collider being built in Switzerland that will
turn on in 2007 and begin its real operation in 2008. I'm optimistic
(with calculations that support my optimism) that this machine
will tell us about the nature of mass and explain to us the
weakness of gravity relative to the other known elementary
particle forces. I'm optimistic that we'll learn something
truly new and exciting about the fundamental nature of matter
and our world-maybe something as exciting as extra dimensions
of space—or perhaps something no one has even thought
about yet. Whatever the results will be, the LHC gives reason
to be optimistic.
Institute of Advanced Study, Author, Disturbing
( Human Accelerated Region 1) As a New Tool Leading Us
Toward a Deep Understanding of Human Nature
am generally optimistic because our human heritage seems to
have equipped us very well for dealing with challenges, from
ice-ages and cave-bears to diseases and over-population. The
whole species did cooperate to eliminate small-pox, and the
women of Mexico did reduce their average family size from seven
to two and a half in fifty years. Science has helped us to
understand challenges and also to defeat them.
am especially optimistic just now because of a seminal discovery
that was made recently by comparing genomes of different species.
David Haussler and his colleagues at UC Santa Cruz discovered
a small patch of DNA which they call HAR1, short for Human
Accelerated Region 1. This patch appears to be strictly conserved
in the genomes of mouse, rat, chicken and chimpanzee, which
means that it must have been performing an essential function
that was unchanged for about three hundred million years from
the last common ancestor of birds and mammals until today.
But the same patch appears grossly modified with eighteen mutations
in the human genome, which means that it must have changed its
function in the last six million years from the common ancestor
of chimps and humans to modern humans. Somehow, that little patch
of DNA expresses an essential difference between humans and other
mammals. We know two other significant facts about HAR1. First,
it does not code for a protein but codes for RNA. Second, the
RNA for which it codes is active in the cortex of the human embryonic
brain during the second trimester of pregnancy. It is likely
that the rapid evolution of HAR1 has something to do with the
rapid evolution of the human brain during the last six million
am optimistic because I see the discovery of HAR1 as a seminal
event in the history of science, marking the beginning of a
new understanding of human evolution and human nature. I see
it as a big step toward the fulfillment of the dream described
in 1929 by Desmond Bernal, one of the pioneers of molecular
biology, in his little book, "The World, the Flesh and
the Devil: An Enquiry into the Future of the Three Enemies
of the Rational Soul". Bernal saw science as our best
tool for defeating the three enemies. The World means floods
and famines and climate changes. The Flesh means diseases and
senile infirmities. The Devil means the dark irrational passions
that lead otherwise rational beings into strife and destruction.
I am optimistic because I see HAR1 as a new tool leading us
toward a deep understanding of human nature and toward the
ultimate defeat of our last enemy.
Psychiatrist, University of Michigan; Coauthor, Why
We Get Sick
Will Find New Ways To Block Pessimism
am optimistic that we will soon find effective new methods for
blocking pessimism. We are well on the way with antidepressants.
Side-effects remain a major problem, and some people do not respond,
but progress has been rapid. Findings from neuroscience
and genetics will provide the foundation, but the engine that
will drive new developments is the huge profit potential from
agents that relieve negative emotions. The anxiety and depression
drug market already tops 20 billion dollars per year just in
the USA. The promise of profits will yield new agents.
They will relieve much suffering.
am pessimistic, however, about our ability to use them wisely.
Pessimism is not a problem, it is a useful emotional state. When
the boat overturns a mile out to sea, optimism about one's ability
to swim to shore is deadly. When a hurricane is approaching,
optimism is fine nine times out of ten, then comes Katrina. When
deciding whether to invade a foreign country, optimism about
receiving a warm welcome can result in a catastrophe that changes
the whole course of history for the worse.
to think optimism is superior to pessimism is a deep-rooted illusion. Optimism
is useful in propitious situations. Pessimism is useful in dangerous
situations. For the fortunate, life now is vastly safer and
more secure than it was, so pessimism is less necessary. But
unintended consequences of blocking pessimism are likely. Already
thousands of employees are subjected to motivational exercises to
foster positive thinking. What will happen when we all can
choose to feel positive most of the time? The world will be
better in many ways, and worse in others that are hard to predict.
Feuilleton (Arts & Ideas) Editor, Sueddeutsche
Will Overcome Agnotology (The Cultural Production Of Ignorance)
you heard this one by Conan O'Brien: Yesterday, a group of scientists
warned that because of global warming, sea levels will rise so
much that parts of New Jersey will be under water. The bad news?
Parts of New Jersey won't be under water. Or this one by Jay
Leno: Heating bills this winter are the highest they've been
in five years, but the government has a plan to combat rising
bills. It's called global warming. Not their best jokes, but
this year global warming became one of the staple topics of late
makes me very optimistic, because jokes are hard evidence of
sociological currents. A joke can only work on national TV, if
the majority of viewers is able to understand the cultural reference
in a split-second and if a general consensus allows the joke
to take sides. If Leno makes fun of global warming—great.
It's now part of the collective subconscious. It means the general
public made up its mind on the subject.
is quite a change from just two and a half years ago. In the
summer of 2004 Hollywood director Roland Emmerich released his
disaster movie, The Day After Tomorrow. He openly said
he wanted to use his film to combat the widespread ignorance
about climate change in the US. To emphasize how serious he thought
the subject, he invited numerous scientists and activists to
make the point that very ignorance about global warming might
be one of the greatest obstacles for a solution.
film was written accordingly. To bring the audience up to speed,
large parts of the first act were spent on Dennis Quaid as a
paleoclimatologist, who did a lot of reciting of scientific facts
and fictions, not unlike the endless science dialogues between
Spock and Kirk, which had to set up the outer worldly realities
in Star Trek.
disaster might have bombed at the box office, but it did trigger
a chain reaction. Media attention to climate change rose. TV
features about endangered polar bears created emotional impact.
Sales of hybrid cars went up. Seven Northeastern states have
signed the Kyoto protocol, an initiative followed by more than
300 cities. Several Hollywood stars like Brad Pitt, Keanu Reeves
and Leonardo di Caprio currently work on documentaries about
global warming, which will raise the topic's profile for an audience
normally not interested in scientific matters even further. Now
even notoriously fatalistic Christian fundamentalists see earth
as a gift from God mankind has to protect.
is of course not just about the power of pop culture. It's not
even just about climate change. This is about a society's choice
between listening to science and falling prey to what Stanford
science historian Robert N. Proctor calls agnotology (the cultural
production of ignorance), Production has been booming. The editing
of NASA reports about climate change. The political sanctification
of coma patient Terri Schiavo. The introduction of intelligent
design into curriculae. All those efforts have all just served
the purpose of creating a widespread will to ignore facts and
a nation purposely kept in the dark about an imminent danger
for so long manages to overcome public inertia and become acutely
aware of a complex issue like global warming in the span of two
years, it means that the power of reason is ultimately able to
overcome the forces of ignorance driven by economic interests
and religious dogma. This is a universally optimistic outlook
on history. And not to forget that this ability to swiftly react
as a collective is still most important in the US. The number
of leading research facilities, the economic power, the pioneering
spirit and entrepreneurial verve put the US in a leadership position
that can affect not just global affairs, but down the line maybe
even the weather.
Computer Scientist, Yale University; Chief Scientist,
Mirror Worlds Technologies; Author, Drawing Life
Future of Software
I am optimistic about the future of software, because more and
more people are coming out of the closet every month — admitting
in public that they hate their computers.
the last month I've heard three people shouting (or muttering)
curses at their machines. One was a bona fide software virtuoso!
These particular three were ticked off about (1) an airline website
that was so badly designed it was useless, (2) a commercial web-site-building
tool (bought for real money) that made it nearly impossible to
build simple structures and (3) a home PC that, despite reasonably
sophisticated software counter-measures, was so junked-up with
viruses that starting a word processor took five minutes.
file systems and desktop and spreadsheets, the word processors
and mailers and database programs we rely on are vintage 1984
or older. They're as obsolete as a 1984 PC. When I first described
the "empty computer" model in the early '90s, people
thought I was crazy. Many still do—but fewer each year
(and I guess that's progress). There was a larger jump in admitted
cases of computer- and software-hatred in '06 than in any previous
year I remember.
who blandly assume that hardware will (somehow) keep getting
better while software stays frozen in time are looking wronger
every month. In the empty-computer world of the near future,
your information assets have all been bundled-up, encrypted and
launched into geosynchronous orbit in the Cybersphere; computers
are interchangeable devices for tuning in information. (If computers
are so cheap, why does everyone need to carry one around with
him? We don't make you carry a desk and chairs around with you;
we can afford to provide chairs and flat surfaces wherever you
the empty computer world it will take five minutes to upgrade
to a new machine (throw the old one out, plug the new one in—your
information stays in orbit where it's always been); comfortable
large-screen public computers will be available all over the
place. And instead of expanding into a higher-and-higher-entropy
mess, the Web will implode into a "blue hole": a single
high-energy information beam that holds all the world's digital
Law: the computer industry revolutionizes itself at least once
a decade. We're nearly due for the next revolution.
Psychologist, University of Virginia
Baby Boomers Will Soon Retire
am optimistic about the future of social science research because
the influence of the baby boom generation on the culture and
agenda of the social sciences will soon decrease. Don't get me
wrong, many of my best friends are boomers, and technically I'm
one too (born in 1963). I am grateful for the freedom and justice
that the activists of the 1960s and 1970s helped bring to the
United States. But if there is a sensitive period for acquiring
a moral and political orientation, it is the late teens and early
20s, and most of those whose sensitive periods included the Vietnam
war and the struggles for civil rights seem to have been permanently
marked by those times. Many young people who entered Ph.D. programs
in the social sciences during the 1970s did so with the hope
of using their research to reduce oppression and inequality.
This moral imprinting of a generation of researchers may have
had a few detrimental effects on the (otherwise excellent) science
they produced. Here are two:
Moralistic antinativism. The deep and politicized antipathy
to 1970s sociobiology produced a generation of social scientists
wary of nativism in general and of evolutionary thinking in
particular. Nobody these days admits to believing
that the mind is a blank slate at birth, but in practice I
have noticed that social scientists older than me generally
begin with a social learning explanation of everything (especially
sex differences), and then act as though it is "conservative" (scientifically)
or "liberal" (politically) to stick with social learning
unless the evidence against it is overwhelming, p<.05, which
it rarely is. But shouldn't we use p<.5 here? Shouldn't
we always let nativist and empiricist explanations both have
a go at each question and then pick the one that has the better
fit, overall, with the evidence? I look forward to the day
when most social scientists learned about the astonishing findings
of twin studies in their twenties, and very few know who Stephen
Jay Gould was.
Moral Conformity Pressure. Imagine an industry in which
90% of the people are men, male values and maleness are extolled
publicly while feminine values are ridiculed, and men routinely
make jokes, publicly and privately, about how dumb women are,
even when women are present. Sounds like a definition of hostile
climate” run wild? Now replace the words male” and
female” with liberal” and conservative,” and
we have a pretty good description of my field —social
psychology—and, I suspect, many other areas of the social
sciences. I have no particular fondness for conservatives.
But I do have a need for them. I study morality, and I have
found that conservative ideas (about authority, respect, order,
loyalty, purity, and sanctity) illuminate vast territories
of moral psychology, territories that have hardly been noticed
by psychologists who define morality as consisting exclusively
of matters of harm, rights, and justice. If social psychology
had been a morally diverse field, we would have done a much
better job of studying the full expanse of human morality,
and we'd be in a much better position right now to understand
the morality of radical Islam.
younger social scientists be more morally diverse than the baby
boom generation? Maybe not. But if they make it through their
sensitive periods without seeing themselves as part of a revolution,
they just might be more open to diverse ideas about the origins
of mind, the scope of morals, and the workings of society.
Professor of Journalism, New York University;
formerly journalist, Science magazine; Author, Zero:
The Biography Of A Dangerous Idea
In Its Optimism
easy to be a pessimist. These are dark times for physics in the
United States. One by one, national laboratories are shuttering
their high-energy physics experiments; within a few years there
won't be a single U.S. accelerator exploring the energy frontier.
As NASA squanders billions and billions of dollars on the International
Space Station and on lunar exploration, it is tearing the guts
out of its other programs—the ones that provide actual
is a transplant to the U.S. Before 1900, you could count the
number of great American physicists on one hand. A few decades
later, the U.S. had become the premier power in theoretical and
experimental physics, thanks to refugees from Hungary, from Austria,
from Germany, from Italy, from Denmark, and from all across Europe.
The transplant took root and flourished.
though the future is dimming for American physics, there is room
for optimism—the prospects for major discoveries are the
brightest they've been in years. We are in the midst of a cosmological
revolution; we are beginning to understand the physical laws
that governed the early universe. Before the end of the decade,
European experiments, such as the Planck satellite and the Large
Hadron Collider at CERN will allow physicists to delve deeper
than ever before into the story of the infant cosmos. While physics
in the United States is withering, there will be fertile soil
where a transplant can take root once again.
Former Europe editor, Time Magazine; Author, The
World in a Phrase
Will Allow People To Take Individual Action to Tackle a Global
am optimistic that 'purchasing power' can be brought to bear
on the problem of climate change. For too long climate change
has been one of those huge, complex, difficult issues people
felt they could safely ignore. The science was complicated
and there were persuasive voices arguing that it was all a
myth anyway. Plus, climate change was just too abstract to
get worked up about. 'Sure Bangladesh and the Netherlands might
be aquatic theme parks in a hundred years, but yesterday my
job was outsourced to India. Which problem is more urgent?' Now,
few people seriously dispute the science, and climate change
is having tangible effects on people's lifestyles. I may not
care what happens to island nations and fragile ecosystems
on the other side of the planet, but I'll be damned if my annual
skiing vacation is going to be ruined for lack of snow.
are more informed and concerned, but they still feel like there's
not much they can do. A survey carried out earlier this year
by the U.K. Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
(DEFRA) found that 70% of respondents said they believed their
lifestyles had an impact on climate change; only 40% of those
people said they thought they could do something to change that.
There are two basic motivations for human beings to alter their
behavior: fear and self-interest. I'm not optimistic that will
change. I am optimistic, however, that people are now genuinely
scared by climate change and that an appeal can be made to their
self-interest in the form of Personal Carbon Trading (PCT).
European Union's Emission Trading Scheme (ETS), launched in 2005,
has been a qualified success. The system allocates a set of emissions
credits (representing the amount of carbon a firm is permitted
to produce) to industrial installations. There is an effort now
under way to extend the scheme to the airline industry. If a
company doesn't use all of its credits, it can sell them to other
companies that have exceeded their own quotas. The idea is to
make it expensive for corporations to emit the greenhouse gases
that cause climate change while at the same time making it financially
attractive for them to limit those emissions. Several organizations
are now experimenting with applying this idea to individuals.
would be the economic equivalent of microgeneration; instead
of every person generating his or her own power through solar
panels or wind turbines, each person would generate his or her
own carbon portfolio. PCT would work on the same principles as
the E.U. system, but individuals instead of industries would
be allotted carbon credits, which they could sell, trade or use
as they see fit. PCT could also have potential social welfare
benefits: Children could be given carbon credits at birth, which
would then (hopefully) increase in value, so that by the time
they're adults they could cash some of them in to fund education,
professional training or a first home purchase. PCT would allow
people to take individual action to tackle a global problem,
thus easing the existential angst so many of us feel when confronting
something this immense. We could help save the planet and make
money in the process! What's not optimistic about that?
Professor, The University of Washington School
of Medicine; Author, A Brain For All Seasons
global warming at a seasonal social gathering and see what happens,
now that skepticism has turned into concern and sorrow. They
will assume that you're a pessimist about our prospects. "Not
really," I protest. That earns me a quizzical look.
a minute," she says. "If you're an optimist, why do
you look so worried?"
you think it's easy, being an optimist?"
scientists look worried these days. We've had a steady diet of
bad news coming from climate scientists and biologists. To become
even a guarded optimist, you have to think hard.
I reflected, the history of science and medicine shows that,
once you mechanistically understand what's what, you can approach
all sorts of seemingly unsolvable problems. I'm optimistic that
we will learn how to stabilize climate.
the window of opportunity is closing. Fifty years have now passed
since the first unequivocal scientific warnings of an insulating
blanket of CO2 forming around the planet. Politicians apparently
decided to wait until something big went wrong.
has. We have already entered the period of consequences. Climate
scientists have long been worried about their children's future.
Now they are also worried about their own.
Faustian bargain over fossil fuels has come due. Dr. Faustus
had 24 years of party-now, pay-later—and indeed, it's exactly
24 years since Ronald Reagan axed the U.S. budget for exploring
alternative fuels. This led to doubling our use of cheap coal,
the worst of the fossil fuels. They're planning, under business
as usual, to re-double coal burning by 2030—even though
we can now see the high cost of low price.
devil's helpers may not have come to take us away, but killer
heat waves have started, along with some major complications
from global warming. We're already seeing droughts that just
won't quit. Deserts keep expanding. Oceans keep acidifying. Greenland
keeps melting. Dwindling resources keep triggering genocidal
wars with neighbors (think Darfur). Extreme weather keeps trashing
of them will get worse before they get better.
tipping points can lead to irreversible demolition derbies. Should
another big El Niño occur and last twice as long as in
1983 or 1998, the profound drought could burn down the rain forests
in Southeast Asia and the Amazon—and half of all species
could go extinct, just within a year or two.
has become so short that we must turn around the CO2 situation
within a decade to avoid saddling our children with the irreversible
consequences of a runaway warming. That means not waiting for
a better deal on some post-Kyoto treaty. It means immediately
scaling up technologies that we know will work, not waiting for
something better that could take decades to debug.
isn't optional. It is something that we simply have to do. The
time for talk is past.
see why you're worried," she says. "But what's your
optimistic scenario for dealing with this fossil fuel fiasco?"
starters, I think it likely that the leaders of the major religious
groups will soon come to see climate change as a serious failure
of stewardship. And once they see our present fossil fuel use
as a deeply immoral imposition on other people and unborn generations,
their arguments will trump the talk-endlessly-to-buy-time business
objections— just as such moral arguments did when ending
slavery in the 19th century.
the developed nations are fully capable of kick-starting our
response to global warming with present technology—enough
to achieve, within ten years, a substantial reduction in their
own fossil fuel uses. How?
farmers will prosper as pastures grow modern windmills to keep
the cows company.
parking lots, already denuded of trees, are perfect places for
acres of solar paneling. Drivers will love the shaded parking
spaces they create.
Carbon Tax will replace most of those deducted from paychecks
and create a big wave of retrofitting homes and businesses.
brightly lit grocery stores with giant parking lots will compete
poorly with warehouses that deliver web and phone orders within
the hour, like pizza. Smaller neighborhood grocery stores will
once again do a big walk-in business and they will compete with
the warehouses by offering "green bicycle" delivery.
toll gates will become the norm on commuter highways. (Yes, I
know, but remember that the paycheck was just enriched by eliminating
withholding for income tax.)
limits will be lowered to 50 mph (80 kmh) for fuel efficiency
and, as in 1973, drivers will marvel at how smoothly the traffic
flows. Double taxes will apply to vehicles with worse-than-average
fossil fuel consumption, reducing the number of oversized vehicles
with poor streamlining. Hybrids and all-electric cars will begin
to dominate new car sales.
firm, fast schedule will be established for retiring or retrofitting
existing coal plants. My bet is that adding nuclear power plants—France
gets 78% of its electricity that way, New Jersey 52%—will
prove safer, cheaper, and faster than fixing coal.
the quarter-century time scale, let us assume that the new rapid
transit systems will reduce car commuting by half. The transition
to electric and hydrogen vehicles will shift transportation's
energy demands to greener sources, including biofuels, geothermal,
tidal, and wave generation.
highly efficient binding energy extractors (BEEs, the fourth-generation
nuclear power plants) will be running on the spent fuel of the
low-loss DC transmission lines will allow, via cables under the
Bering Strait, solar-generated electricity to flow from the bright
side to the dark side of the earth.
in this 25-year time frame, we ought to see some important new
technology making a difference, not just improvements in what
we already use. For example, we might encourage rapid adaptation
of the whale's favorite food, the tiny phytoplankton which provide
half of the oxygen we breathe as they separate the C from the
the shell-forming plankton sink to the ocean bottom when they
die, their carbon is taken out of circulation for millions of
years. Forests can burn down, releasing their stored carbon in
a week, but limestone is forever. If shell-forming plankton could
thrive in warmer waters with some selective breeding or a genetic
tweak, their numbers might double and start taking our excess
CO2 out of circulation.
even if we invent—and debug—such things tomorrow,
it can take several decades before an invention makes a dent
in our urgent problem. And all this assumes no bad surprises,
such as the next supersized El Niño killing off the Amazon
and, once we lack all those trees, increasing the rate of warming
mid-century, let us suppose that we have begun extracting more
CO2 from the atmosphere than we add.
will only happen if the technology of the developed world has
become good enough to compensate for what's still going on in
the overstressed nations that are too disorganized to get their
energy act together.
CO2 levels fall enough to counter the delayed warming from past
excesses, we will begin to see a reversal of droughts and violent
weather— though the rise in sea level will likely continue,
a reminder to future generations of our 20th-century Faustian
Samuel Johnson said in 1777, "when a man knows he is to
be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully."
need to turn on a dime—by which I mean, close to what we
saw in the United States after the bombing of Pearl Harbor.
a standing start in late 1941, the automakers converted—in
a matter of months, not years—more than 1,000 automobile
plants across thirty-one states... In one year, General Motors
developed, tooled, and completely built from scratch 1,000 Avenger
and 1,000 Wildcat aircraft... GM also produced the amphibious
'duck'—a watertight steel hull enclosing a GM six-wheel,
2.5 ton truck that was adaptable to land or water. GM's duck
`was designed, tested, built, and off the line in ninety days'...
Ford turned out one B-24 [a bomber] every 63 minutes....
— Jack Doyle, Taken for a Ride, 2000
there's a source of optimism: we did it before. Indeed, GM currently
needs a new purpose in life (and I'd suggest repurposing the
manned space program as well). All of that talent is badly needed.
great challenges come great opportunities and I'm an optimist
about our ability to respond with innovation. Countries that
innovate early will have an economic edge over the laggards.
present civilization is like a magnificent cathedral, back before
flying buttresses were retrofitted to stabilize the walls. Civilization
now needs a retrofit for stabilizing its foundations. It will
be a large undertaking, not unlike those that once went into
building pyramids and cathedrals. I'm optimistic that the younger
generation can create a better civilization during the major
makeover—provided that those currently in the leadership
can stop this runaway coal train, real fast.
change is a challenge to the scientists but I suspect that the
political leadership has the harder task, given how difficult
it is to make people aware of what must be done and get them
moving in time. It's going to be like herding stray cats, and
the political leaders who can do it will be remembered as the
same kind of geniuses who pulled off the American Revolution.
Software and Design Pioneer.
a turquoise sky on a December afternoon. Out of the window
I see the Rhein river meandering far below me, the last rays
of sunlight shimmering on the surface, a storm is passing through
from France heading towards Cologne. To check on it, I push
a button, the screen fills with dozens of little widgets: I
have a quick look at the realtime weather animation loop for the last 6 hours and can see that most of it will pass to the North.
little bell sound, ah, an sms text message coming in from my
daughter in London: her final cake worked well! I smile, bet
she is happy now, on the way to her diploma in Patisserie at the Cordon Bleu cooking school. I flip open the cell phone Qwerty keyboard and type a smiley with hugs at her with both thumbs.
a window pops up on the very large screen: it's my old pal
Ben, who happens to be online in Santa Barbara. In the Chat
window he sends me an image from NASA:
the newly found evidence for water, flowing down the sides
of a crater on Mars. He also pastes in a link to the NASA site:
the super resolution files. I download a handful and watch
a couple hundred megabytes come down.
That's a case for the other machine: I drag the images over to the T221,
9 million pixels at 200dpi, what a wonder to behold. Water
on Mars! We had just seen the HD documentary by the BBC on
the amazing tenacity of life, the Mariani trench 11,000m below
the surface, they keeping finding life in surprising complexity
in the most unlikely places. I smile again: In my lifetime
there may be irrefutable evidence of life outside of Earth.
Ben suggests a Go game, but at the same time there is now a window with Matt and Mike: we have been working on cool new software for quite a while - except there is one twist: they happen to live outside of Auckland, in the forests of northern New Zealand, more like the antipode of
my place in Europe. But it works well: the new version is ready,
Matt sends it encrypted while the three of us chat together,
with annotated screenshots of 'bugs'. We could switch to VoiP
or live camera, but it's helpful to have the written record
Yanking the mouse to a corner: the widgets re-appear and a few world-time clocks tell me that it's 8 am where they are, wow, up early! I glance at some headlines on slashdot, digg, heise, arstechnica, perlentaucher. I see the NPR news headlines, the Tate Gallery rss shows an exhibition of Holbein, sweet... didn't I just read about him on edge.org? Where is that Tate St. Ives anyway? I switch to Google Earth and swoop down on the UK from space.
the mouse to the other corner: the screen fills with tiny colorful
images, probably 100 of them, all the files currently open
shown in miniature. I find the NASA shots and drag them over
to the side into a folder for science stuff. Quite a collection
of bits and pieces there, years of collecting them. Attached
for a few hundred bucks is a terabyte worth of muse
and ponder. Dozens of reference books, the Encyclopedia
Brittanica, what a dream.
Come to think of it, I should send that to the other two kids. My boys are 15 and 11 now, a voracious age. I ping the younger one, ask if he has time for Dad just now. I send him a sweet physics simulation LineRider and the lovely SandGame particle system applet, he will have fun with that. In the meantime a quick scan at the news for a good description of the water on Mars events. New Scientist has a nice writeup, Wired a good story with side by side comparisons. I print the page into a pdf file, drag it over to him. The older one pops up, has some new jokes for me. He loves to read them and to create his own. I tell him to google "2.3 trillion missing" and watch the YouTube video. Ponder a little.
will come over here soon. Sweet, we can go to the mediaeval
Christmas market. Drive down to Innsbruck for real snow. I
should get a few movies for us to watch. Are they ready for "Aguirre"? Maybe "2001" ? Christopher sent "5th Element" on BluRay. Perhaps "Amelie", next summer we go to Paris. Now that piano is in my ear... A quick change to the music store, a search for Yann Tiersen, there is almost everything he ever made. A few clicks, a few bucks and the soundtrack is here. I burn a CD for the trip. Click in Wikipedia, what has he been up to? Duet with Jane Birkin and Cocteau Twins, neat, missed that!
My much-better-half comes over for a hug: time to go, we have lots of errands before the holidays. She flies across the autobahn past 220 km/h with a grin, the navigator detects a traffic jam ahead, rerouting us across the river, just a 10 minute detour, not bad. Could get some gas though: all the nearest gas stations are shown, I click on one, it takes us there. Pause the favorite song while I go in, grab a couple magazines and newspapers. No cash, I slide the plastic through the slit and leave. She already entered the address we want to go to first, tricky access through the maze of one-way streets around the old town area. Minus 3 outside, we snuggle in the heated seats, on the screen the closest Thai restaurants ...
Obviously I could go on ad nauseum here, but this is not a description of technology per se. The emphasis is on quality of life. On the benefits of tools, the liberating freedom. My real point: Humans are feeble. We forget. We have become numb to all the wonder.
To see the weather in pictures from space, animated over time, what a wonder that would have been to the Wright brothers...or James Cook, Vasco da Gama, Marco Polo..? To be in realtime communication with your family, what a wonder that would have been for Bach who had 20 children (half of which died in infancy. I didn't even touch on the advances in health and medicine, of course).
To see cellphones and billions of sms would have boggled Tesla, Edison, Bell, Reis, Meucci. To send a probe to other planets, and personally own the resulting images in startling clarity, what a dream that would have been for a Huygens, Mercator, Kepler, Galileo...
collaborate on your work with colleagues on the other side
of the world as if they are in the next room, how liberating
is that freedom! To travel safely, quickly, effortlessly, with
an all-knowing friend guiding you, what would any of them say
to that? Researchers added up that Goethe traveled over 37.000
km in his lifetime, in more than 180 excursions but: on foot, horseback and carriages!
Add a zero for a guy like Humboldt. They would have marveled — or cried — at our options to go anywhere, see anything, meet anyone.
To be able to see all the works of all the great artists, and keep a copy to then examine up-close, at your leisure, in your own home — to listen to the music of any composer, new or old...what an absolute dream in itself that would have been for any and all of them! Consider you hear about 'that new Beethoven symphony': you would have to physically travel to a performance somewhere, and even then you could only hear that one, not any of the others, and: you would likely forget it, since you would hardly get a chance to hear it again to build a long term memory of it. Never mind mentioning movies here, or radio, television, let alone the web.
To get to research done anywhere, by anyone, to share the findings and writings, duplicate them instantly, store them and save them, catalog them and index them, searchable among billions, in seconds...to have your own copy of the books, your own Brittanica, how blissful that would have made Jules Verne with his 20.000 wooden boxes of index card snippets, or any of the other universally interested scientists like Athanasius Kircher or T.H. Huxley, Newton or Leibniz. And what's more, your own Sphynx, divining nearly any answer to any question. find any fact, in minutes if not seconds, an advisor like no Sun-king or Emperor, Kaiser or Pharaoh could ever buy with all the gold in their empires.... that's Google now in a smartphone in the pockets of teenagers.
Surely any of the ancient Greeks would spontaneously combust at the sight of almost any household object on any shelf in any department store. And yes, I realize, that still won't make us automatically and constantly happy, duhh. And is there a list of evils and downsides that came with all those advances? You bet. I could switch hats and drown in drivel about all that...
But the question stands: what am I optimistic about? And I think it simply bears repeating:
Countless scientists over the millennia dedicated their lives to discoveries, to solutions, to inventions and explanations. They had visions of bettering the fate of humanity, of seeking truths and finding answers, and they paid for it with enormous efforts and in many cases with their life. Their combined body of bodies stands in front of us, in awe, and... in tears. We have achieved almost all their dreams, we have freedom in every sense like never before in history and: we are ungrateful bastards about it!
Let us just be content again. Plain happy. Period. I am calling for a New Contentism.
From that vantage point, looking at the incredible options and tools for all of us, is there reason to be optimistic for the future that we could make good use of them? You bet!