That being said, all this is if we manage to advance our technology fast enough so we can survive climate change and wars at massively destructive scale.
I think the pessimists of today will be proven wrong in a similar manner.
What I find absurd is that one could think that physical limits on technology are absurd. Physical limits are exactly the limits on technology, no more no less. The question is what those limits really are and in some cases we do not yet know them but for the most part we have a pretty good idea of what is and is not possible technology wise. It is simply up to us to try to maximize our potential within those limits.
I don't think so. We have no idea what those limits really are. What you're saying now would be like someone from the 1850s, before the invention of electricity, claims that there's no way that we can communicate instantaneously with people on the other side of the planet, actually scratch that, make that people from the next town over, because PHYSICS! I mean, it just isn't possible because we're limited by the physical distance, right?
I think it's silly to think that we can even predict what the new physical limits will look like in 100 years. At least I hope that is the case. Still pissed off that we don't have flying cars yet though.
The 21st century might look a bit lackluster so far.
But technology is not the product of sheer human brilliance, but rather something that was purchased with highly available cheap energy. Imagine your timeline of our exponential progress and you'll find it maps pretty well to this timeline of terawatts-hours of fossil fuels [1].
But in the next 100 years we face two related problems that stem directly from this abundance of cheap energy. One problem is the one caused by climate change and the other is the inevitable depletion of natural resource (including those very fossil fuels). The common HN response is that we'll magically fix both of these with "technology!" but once you realize that our technological brilliance is fueled by hydrocarbons you realize that solving the problem of hydrocarbons is pretty much trickier than all the other problems we've solved.
And the truth is, despite what people will tell you, we don't have any solutions to the real problems we're facing. We don't have any known viable pathway to large scale energy storage required for a fully renewable grid, we don't have any idea how to produce the liquid fuels at scale essential to a global economy (you need high energy density fuels to efficiently transport goods), we don't know how to engineer global scale carbon capture and storage.
And I know people will likely link to a bunch of research projects that "look promising!" But to go from promising research to global scale production takes... tons of energy.
Technological progress is just a proxy for high energy density fuel consumption. Given unlimited high energy density fuels and a planet with infinite resources, yes we would also produce exponentially more marvelous things. But the next challenge is how to deal with the consequence of burning far too many high energy density fuels on a limited planet and running into the limitations of energy.
Technological discovery doesn't just happen in a vacuum. There needs to be a societal production of potential new inventors and scientists. Where their interests lie is to some extent influenced by the culture they grow up in, and which research interests will receive funding (or societal status) is also dependent on culture, etc. Worse, if a problem has been widely solved using a bad solution, there is no real desire for a good one.
Take electrical engineering and circuit design as an example. I would make the case that despite the immense and obvious success of computers, our society is in some significant way worse off than it was 50 years ago if you were to measure our collective ability to solve new problems using electrical engineering. Fewer and fewer electrical engineers are being educated, while the competency threshold of the field is rising. As that threshold rises, our education system shifts from teaching people to invent things to teaching them about practical skills like how to work all the menus in [some modeling tool], and how to generate report templates for MS Word.
Software is so new that we've barely exceeded a single human lifespan (hardly enough time for information to get lost is it?), but how many times have you seen companies with a code base that was written by some greybeard in the 80's, which is critical to the success of the company but nobody understands? When the company realised that, did they try to address the root of the problem, or did they decide to keep piling shit on top of what they already had?
It may be that software itself is the problem. Software allows you to snapshot your current problem solving capacity and continue delivering it long after the problem solvers themselves are gone. Maybe if we're lucky, the current generation of AI researchers will get us to something that approaches human level intelligence before these problems become intractable.
It seems to me, but I might be wrong that we are procrastinating with global warming till the issue is really close, then the hair of everyone will stand and the entire population will help.
[1]: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/may/04/back-from-the-...
If the technology keeps getting cheaper, the markets will do the migration.
Note. The technology is getting better/cheaper because of investments, some of which is publicly funded.
E.g. a recent piece of news: https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevornace/2019/02/28/nasa-says...
Either Horizontally if we all die or Vertically, given enough time if you zoom-out enough.
There are still many many mysteries to solve about life, intelligence, and more generally about complex chemical processes.
Energy efficiency has a limit that we are very far from reaching (how to harvest all of the sun energy productively? without ruining life?)
Human systems: how to reduce waste, make transit faster, make people happier, avoid violence, etc.
I can't think of it all, but no we will not run out of things to discover/invent.
Transformative technologies of the kind that can impact all of humankind will most likely be done by a team of very high IQ individuals backed by a mega-corp or a state, most likely coming out of China or the US.
In the next 100 years ML algorithms and the underlying hardware will improve to a point where it’ll maintain context across a longer timeframe than humans are able to and will not only process large data volumes at random to stumble on something that works but it’ll use previously available knowledge across 50 years+ in order not to waste time in useless research directions.
Much like every other major technology I don’t believe these algorithms will exist in isolation and the tech will surface a multiple geographical places on earth.
These ML algorithms will work hand in hand with humanity to create the next transformative technologies and uncover the next set of fundamental laws of nature.
I think progress will be brought by teams, but not necessarily made up of "very high IQ individuals". I think incremental progress and community-driven improvements to technology will gradually take us to a new level of integration with the world and with each other.
At the same time I think we can't imagine too well how this will look like, much like how the sci-fi predictions about the world today were only tangentially correct.
unlimited energy, and a pollution free environment. the latter means not only renewable energy but the elimination of most forms of plastic and other pollutants. given how much plastic we use now, that is a major undertaking.
i also believe that with more and more automation, humanity will be able to free up resources to put into education, and there is no end to imagine what a society full of highly educated people can possibly achieve.
The global human population is limited and will likely peak and begin to decline within 100 years. [1] Many technologies are limited by the size of the supply chain required to produce them and the scale of factory required to make the technology cost-effective.
For an economy the size of a village, you are never going to have a self-sustaining technology level much higher than a blacksmith shop. Why? Because higher technology requires higher level inputs -- precision parts, refined materials, components that are produced in high tech factories.
The economy is like a pyramid, with the highest technology outputs being the few top layers at the top. Each higher tech layer depends on larger layers below -- the different components and feedstocks and tools required in production of that technology. The overall size of the economy limits the sustainable height of the pyramid.
Currently the economic/technology pyramid size is growing, driven by growth of human population and globalization of the economy. There are also efficieny effects where higher technology decreases the labor required for the lower layers of the pyramid.
When human population peaks and the economy is fully globalized, continued growth of the economic/technology pyramid will be limited to efficiency gains.
My feeling is population will have peaked but globalization will still be ongoing 100 years from now.
It is harder to forecast the limit of efficiency gains -- when robots are smart enough to generally do any work that humans can, what will be the efficiency limits on such robots? I don't expect that to be all played out in 100 years.
The big wildcard is if we extinct ourselves or otherwise cause a huge setback. Biotech is close to the level where engineering an extinction virus is a possible by a lone individual with access to the right lab. Can we survive the technological ability of genocide viruses becoming widespread?
[1] https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/sites/jrcsh/files/lutz_et_al_2018_d...