[Cross-posted from Numinous Nonsense]

Never is about 18 months long. - Buff Duff

Duff and I were discussing various trends yesterday while hanging out at “the office.” At that point he mentioned how in the past he had routinely thought things would not happen (such as his adoption of cellular technology or the wide adoption of wi-fi), and that he had routinely been wrong (by about 18 months). In other words, he would say, “Wireless technology will never be widespread” and around 18 months or so later it had become just that.

Ray Kurzweil, who I mention incessantly, has a helpful distinction when it comes to most trends (at least those related to information growth) that explains the common person’s inability to accurately grasp future possibilities.

Most long-range forecasts of what is technically feasible in future time periods dramatically underestimate the power of future developments because they are based on what I call the “intuitive linear” view of history rather than the “historical exponential” view. My models show that we are doubling the paradigm-shift rate every decade … we won’t experience one hundred years of technological advance in the twenty-first century; we will witness on the order of twenty thousand years of progress (again, when measure by today’s rate of progress), or about one thousand times greater than what was achieved in the twentieth century

One who has adopted the intuitive linear model will likely assume—knowingly or unknowingly—that the next x number of years (in terms of the rate of progress) will look like the last x number of years. Someone using the historical exponential view rather then simply making that blanket assumption actually looks at the historical data and notices mathematical trends. From this foundation one can then make much more accurate assumption about future trends. Because, as Kurzweil points out information technology trends are exponential, so we can expect the next 5 years to be exponentially different then the last 5 years. This of course is why, as Duff rightly pointed out, never is about 18 months long. And that holds true even for those of us who are well informed but still operating from an intuitive linear model of the future.

[Cross-posted from Numinous Nonsense]

While I take global warming very seriously, and am committed to taking specific actions to help prevent it, it’s interesting to consider the perspective of techno-enthusiast Ray Kurzweil, as his opinions and models for predicting the future tend to re-frame everything. From a question and answer piece published in the Washington Post this summer, in response to questions of global warming:

Columbia, Md.: I have been following your career with great interest since my office acquired one of your first reading machines. And I have been fascinated by the SINGULARITY IS NEAR. I am also impressed with Al Gore’s arguments that the global warming problem should be near the top of everyone’s agenda. He claims that climate scientists say we have only about ten years, absent a concerted effort and political will to solve the problem, before the planet has reached a point where it’s too late to prevent catastrophic consequences. Do you believe, given your arguments about progress acceleration, that these scientists are unduly pessimistic? Do you think that accelerated technology alone—even without political will to solve the problem—will save the planet?

Ray Kurzweil: None of the global warming discussions mention the word “nanotechnology.” Yet nanotechnology will eliminate the need for fossil fuels within 20 years. If we captured 1% of 1% of the sunlight (1 part in 10,000) we could meet 100% of our energy needs without ANY fossil fuels. We can’t do that today because the solar panels are too heavy, expensive, and inefficient. But there are new nanoengineered designs that are much more effective. Within five to six years, this technology will make a significant contribution. Within 20 years, it can provide all of our energy needs. The discussions talk about current trends continuing for the next century as if nothing is going to change. I think global warming is real but it has been modest thus far - 1 degree f. in 100 years. It would be concern if that continued or accelerated for a long period of time, but that’s not going to happen. And it’s not just environmental concern that will drive this, the $2 trillion we spend on energy is providing plenty of economic incentive. I don’t see any disasters occuring in the next 10 years from this. However, I AM concerned about other environment issues. There are other reasons to want to move quickly away from fossil fuels including environmental pollution at every step and the geopolitical instability it causes.

So this argument would seem to support C4’s seeing global warming *as if* it will be a problem.  It must also be noted that while I appreciate Kurzweil’s perspective, I never lay my hat on any of his predictions.