Hardcover
-
PICK UP IN STORECheck Availability at Nearby Stores
Available within 2 business hours
Related collections and offers
Overview
Humanity has reached a critical moment. Our world is unsettled and rapidly changing, and we face existential risks over the next century. Various outcomes—good and bad—are possible. Yet our approach to the future is characterized by short-term thinking, polarizing debates, alarmist rhetoric, and pessimism. In this short, exhilarating book, renowned scientist and bestselling author Martin Rees argues that humanity’s prospects depend on our taking a very different approach to planning for tomorrow.
The future of humanity is bound to the future of science and hinges on how successfully we harness technological advances to address our challenges. If we are to use science to solve our problems while avoiding its dystopian risks, we must think rationally, globally, collectively, and optimistically about the long term. Advances in biotechnology, cybertechnology, robotics, and artificial intelligence—if pursued and applied wisely—could empower us to boost the developing and developed world and overcome the threats humanity faces on Earth, from climate change to nuclear war. At the same time, further advances in space science will allow humans to explore the solar system and beyond with robots and AI. But there is no “Plan B” for Earth—no viable alternative within reach if we do not care for our home planet.
Rich with fascinating insights into cutting-edge science and technology, this accessible book will captivate anyone who wants to understand the critical issues that will define the future of humanity on Earth and beyond.
Product Details
| ISBN-13: | 9780691180441 |
|---|---|
| Publisher: | Princeton University Press |
| Publication date: | 10/16/2018 |
| Pages: | 272 |
| Sales rank: | 1,147,832 |
| Product dimensions: | 4.90(w) x 7.50(h) x 1.00(d) |
About the Author
Read an Excerpt
CHAPTER 1
DEEP IN THE ANTHROPOCENE
1.1. PERILS AND PROSPECTS
A few years ago, I met a well-known tycoon from India. Knowing I had the English title of 'Astronomer Royal', he asked, 'Do you do the Queen's horoscopes'? I responded, with a straight face: 'If she wanted one, I'm the person she'd ask'. He seemed eager to hear my predictions. I told him that stocks would fluctuate, there would be new tensions in the Middle East, and so forth. He paid rapt attention to these 'insights'. But then I came clean. I said I was just an astronomer — not an astrologer. He abruptly lost all interest in my predictions. And rightly so: scientists are rotten forecasters — almost as bad as economists. For instance, in the 1950s an earlier Astronomer Royal said that space travel was 'utter bilge'.
Nor do politicians and lawyers have a sure touch. One rather surprising futurologist was F. E. Smith, Earl of Birkenhead, crony of Churchill and the UK's Lord Chancellor in the 1920s. In 1930 he wrote a book titled The World in 2030. He'd read the futurologists of his era; he envisaged babies incubated in flasks, flying cars, and such fantasies. In contrast, he foresaw social stagnation. Here's a quote: 'In 2030 women will still, by their wit and charms, inspire the most able men towards heights that they could never themselves achieve'.
Enough said!
* * *
Back in 2003 I wrote a book which I titled Our Final Century? My UK publisher deleted the question mark. The American publishers changed the title to Our Final Hour. My theme was this: Our Earth is forty-five million centuries old. But this century is the first in which one species — ours — can determine the biosphere's fate. I didn't think we'd wipe ourselves out. But I did think we'd be lucky to avoid devastating breakdowns. That's because of unsustainable stresses on ecosystems; there are more of us (world population is higher) and we're all more demanding of resources. And — even more scary — technology empowers us more and more, and thereby exposes us to novel vulnerabilities.
I was inspired by, among others, a great sage of the early twentieth century. In 1902 the young H. G. Wells gave a celebrated lecture at the Royal Institution in London. 'Humanity', he proclaimed,
has come some way, and the distance we have travelled gives us some insight of the way we have to go. ... It is possible to believe that all the past is but the beginning of a beginning, and that all that is and has been is but the twilight of the dawn. It is possible to believe that all that the human mind has accomplished is but the dream before the awakening; out of our lineage, minds will spring that will reach back to us in our littleness to know us better than we know ourselves. A day will come, one day in the unending succession of days, when beings, beings who are now latent in our thoughts and hidden in our loins, shall stand upon this earth as one stands upon a footstool, and shall laugh and reach out their hands amidst the stars.
His rather purple prose still resonates more than a hundred years later — he realised that we humans aren't the culmination of emergent life.
But Wells wasn't an optimist. He also highlighted the risk of global disaster:
It is impossible to show why certain things should not utterly destroy and end the human story ... and make all our efforts vain ... something from space, or pestilence, or some great disease of the atmosphere, some trailing cometary poison, some great emanation of vapour from the interior of the Earth, or new animals to prey on us, or some drug or wrecking madness in the mind of man.
I quote Wells because he reflects the mix of optimism and anxiety — and of speculation and science — which I will try to convey in this book. Were he writing today he would be elated by our expanded vision of life and the cosmos, but he would be even more anxious about the perils we face. The stakes are indeed getting higher; new science offers huge opportunities, but its consequences could jeopardise our survival. Many are concerned that it is 'running away' so fast that neither politicians nor the lay public can assimilate or cope with it.
* * *
You may guess that, being an astronomer, anxiety about asteroid collisions keeps me awake at night. Not so. Indeed, this is one of the few threats that we can quantify — and be confident is unlikely. Every ten million years or so, a body a few kilometres across will hit the Earth, causing global catastrophe — so there are a few chances in a million that such an impact occurs within a human lifetime. There are larger numbers of smaller asteroids that could cause regional or local devastation. The 1908 Tunguska event, which flattened hundreds of square kilometres of (fortunately unpopulated) forests in Siberia, released energy equivalent to several hundred Hiroshima bombs.
Can we be forewarned of these crash landings? The answer is yes. Plans are afoot to create a data set of the one million potential Earth-crossing asteroids larger than 50 metres and track their orbits precisely enough to identify those that might come dangerously close. With the forewarning of an impact, the most vulnerable areas could be evacuated. Even better news is that we could feasibly develop spacecraft that could protect us. A 'nudge', imparted in space several years before the threatened impact, would only need to change an asteroid's velocity by a few centimetres per second to deflect it from a collision course with the Earth.
If you calculate an insurance premium in the usual way, by multiplying probability by consequences, it turns out to be worth spending a few hundred million dollars a year to reduce the asteroid risk.
Other natural threats — earthquakes and volcanoes — are less predictable. So far there is no credible way to prevent them (or even predict them reliably). But there's one reassuring thing about these events, just as there is about asteroids: their rate isn't increasing. It's about the same for us as it was for Neanderthals — or indeed for dinosaurs. But the consequences of such events depend on the vulnerability and value of the infrastructure that's at risk, which is much greater in today's urbanised world. There are, moreover, cosmic phenomena to which the Neanderthals (and indeed all pre-nineteenth-century humans) would have been oblivious: giant flares from the Sun. These trigger magnetic storms that could disrupt electricity grids and electronic communications worldwide.
Despite these natural threats, the hazards that should make us most anxious are those that humans themselves engender. These now loom far larger, and they are becoming more probable, and potentially more catastrophic, with each decade that passes.
We've had one lucky escape already.
1.2. NUCLEAR THREATS
In the Cold War era — when armament levels escalated beyond all reason — the superpowers could have stumbled towards Armageddon through muddle and miscalculation. It was the era of 'fallout shelters'. During the Cuban missile crisis, my fellow students and I participated in vigils and demonstrations — our mood lightened only by the 'protest songs', such as Tom Lehrer's lyrics: 'We'll all go together when we go, all suffused with an incandescent glow'. But we would have been even more scared had we truly realised just how close we were to catastrophe. President Kennedy was later quoted as having said that the odds were 'somewhere between one out of three and even'. And only when he was long retired did Robert McNamara state frankly that 'we came within a hairbreadth of nuclear war without realizing it. It's no credit to us that we escaped — Khrushchev and Kennedy were lucky as well as wise'.
We now know more details of one of the tensest moments. Vasili Arkhipov, a highly respected and decorated officer in Russia's navy, was serving as number two on a submarine carrying nuclear missiles. When the United States attacked the submarine with depth charges, the captain inferred that war had broken out and wanted the crew to launch the missiles. Protocol required the top three officers on board to agree. Arkhipov held out against such action — and thereby avoided triggering a nuclear exchange that could have escalated catastrophically.
Post-Cuba assessments suggest that the annual risk of thermonuclear destruction during the Cold War was about ten thousand times higher than the mean death rate from asteroid impact. And indeed, there were other 'near misses' when catastrophe was only avoided by a thread. In 1983 Stanislav Petrov, a Russian Air Force officer, was monitoring a screen when an 'alert' indicated that five Minuteman intercontinental ballistic missiles had been launched by the United States towards the Soviet Union. Petrov's instructions, when this happened, were to alert his superior (who could, within minutes, trigger nuclear retaliation). He decided, on no more than a hunch, to ignore what he'd seen on the screen, guessing it was a malfunction in the early warning system. And so it was; the system had mistaken the reflection of the Sun's rays off the tops of clouds for a missile launch.
Many now assert that nuclear deterrence worked. In a sense, it did. But that doesn't mean it was a wise policy. If you play Russian roulette with one or two bullets in the cylinder, you are more likely to survive than not, but the stakes would need to be astonishingly high — or the value you place on your life inordinately low — for this to be a wise gamble. We were dragooned into just such a gamble throughout the Cold War era. It would be interesting to know what level of risk other leaders thought they were exposing us to, and what odds most European citizens would have accepted, if they'd been asked to give informed consent. For my part, I would not have chosen to risk a one in three — or even a one in six — chance of a catastrophe that would have killed hundreds of millions and shattered the historic fabric of all European cities, even if the alternative were certain Soviet dominance of Western Europe. And, of course, the devastating consequences of thermonuclear war would have spread far beyond the countries that faced a direct threat, especially if a 'nuclear winter' were triggered.
Nuclear annihilation still looms over us: the only consolation is that, thanks to arms control efforts between the superpowers, there are about five times fewer weapons than during the Cold War — Russia and the United States each have about seven thousand — and fewer are on 'hair trigger' alert. However, there are now nine nuclear powers, and a higher chance than ever before that smaller nuclear arsenals might be used regionally, or even by terrorists. Moreover, we can't rule out, later in the century, a geopolitical realignment leading to a standoff between new superpowers. A new generation may face its own 'Cuba'— and one that could be handled less well (or less luckily) than the 1962 crisis was. A near-existential nuclear threat is merely in abeyance.
Chapter 2 will address the twenty-first-century sciences — bio, cyber, and AI — and what they might portend. Their misuse looms as an increasing risk. The techniques and expertise for bio- or cyberattacks will be accessible to millions — they do not require large special-purpose facilities like nuclear weapons do. Cybersabotage efforts like 'Stuxnet' (which destroyed the centrifuges used in the Iranian nuclear weapons programme), and frequent hacking of financial institutions, have already bumped these concerns up the political agenda. A report from the Pentagon's Science Board claimed that the impact of cyberattack (shutting down, for instance, the US electricity grid) could be catastrophic enough to justify a nuclear response.
But before that let's focus on the potential devastation that could be wrought by human-induced environmental degradation, and by climate change. These interlinked threats are long-term and insidious. They stem from humanity's ever-heavier collective 'footprint'. Unless future generations tread more softly (or unless population levels fall) our finite planet's ecology will be stressed beyond sustainable limits.
1.3. ECO-THREATS AND TIPPING POINTS
Fifty years ago, the world's population was about 3.5 billion. It is now estimated to be 7.6 billion. But the growth is slowing. Indeed, the number of births per year, worldwide, peaked a few years ago and is now decreasing. Nonetheless, the world's population is forecast to rise to around nine billion, or even higher, by 2050. This is because most people in the developing world are still young and have not had children, and because they will live longer; the age histogram for the developing world will come to look more like it does for Europe. The largest current growth is in East Asia, where the world's human and financial resources will become concentrated — ending four centuries of North Atlantic hegemony.
Demographers predict continuing urbanisation, with 70 percent of people living in cities by 2050. Even by 2030, Lagos, São Paulo, and Delhi will have populations greater than thirty million. Preventing megacities from becoming turbulent dystopias will be a major challenge to governance.
Population growth is currently underdiscussed. This may be partly because doom-laden forecasts of mass starvation — in, for instance, Paul Ehrlich's 1968 book The Population Bomb and the pronouncements of the Club of Rome — have proved off the mark. Also, some deem population growth to be a taboo subject — tainted by association with eugenics in the 1920s and '30s, with Indian policies under Indira Gandhi, and more recently with China's hard-line one-child policy. As it turns out, food production and resource extraction have kept pace with rising population; famines still occur, but they are due to conflict or maldistribution, not overall scarcity.
We can't specify an 'optimum population' for the world because we can't confidently conceive what people's lifestyles, diet, travel patterns, and energy needs will be beyond 2050. The world couldn't sustain anywhere near its present population if everyone lived as profligately — each using as much energy and eating as much beef — as the better-off Americans do today. On the other hand, twenty billion could live sustainably, with a tolerable (albeit ascetic) quality of life, if all adopted a vegan diet, travelled little, lived in small high-density apartments, and interacted via super-internet and virtual reality. This latter scenario is plainly improbable, and certainly not alluring. But the spread between these extremes highlights how naive it is to quote an unqualified headline figure for the world's 'carrying capacity'.
A world with nine billion people, a number that could be reached (or indeed somewhat exceeded) by 2050, needn't signal catastrophe. Modern agriculture — low-till, water-conserving, and perhaps involving genetically modified (GM) crops, together with better engineering to reduce waste, improve irrigation, and so forth — could plausibly feed that number. The buzz phrase is 'sustainable intensification'. But there will be constraints on energy — and in some regions severe pressure on water supplies. The quoted figures are remarkable. To grow one kilogram of wheat takes 1,500 litres of water and several megajoules of energy. But a kilogram of beef takes ten times as much water and twenty times as much energy. Food production uses 30 percent of the world's energy production and 70 percent of water withdrawals.
Agricultural techniques using GM organisms can be beneficial. To take one specific instance, the World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that 40 percent of children under the age of five in the developing world suffer from vitamin A deficiency; this is the leading cause of childhood blindness globally, affecting hundreds of thousands of children each year. So-called golden rice, first developed in the 1990s and subsequently improved, delivers beta-carotene, the precursor of vitamin A, and alleviates vitamin-A deficiency. Regrettably, campaigning organisations, Greenpeace in particular, have impeded the cultivation of golden rice. Of course, there is concern about 'tampering with nature', but in this instance, new techniques could have enhanced 'sustainable intensification'. Moreover, there are hopes that a more drastic modification of the rice genome (the so-called C4 pathway) could enhance the efficiency of photosynthesis, thus allowing faster and more intensive growth of the world's number one staple crop.
Two potential dietary innovations do not confront a high technical barrier: converting insects — highly nutritious and protein rich — into palatable food; and making artificial meat from vegetable protein. As for the latter, 'beef' burgers (made mainly of wheat, coconut, and potato) have been sold since 2015 by a California company called Impossible Foods. It will be a while, though, before these burgers will satisfy carnivorous gourmands for whom beetroot juice is a poor substitute for blood. But biochemists are on the case, exploring more sophisticated techniques. In principle, it is possible to 'grow' meat by taking a few cells from an animal and then stimulating growth with appropriate nutrients. Another method, called acellular agriculture, uses genetically modified bacteria, yeast, fungi, or algae to produce the proteins and fats that are found in (for instance) milk and eggs. There is a clear financial incentive as well as an ecological imperative to develop acceptable meat substitutes, so one can be optimistic of rapid progress.
(Continues…)
Excerpted from "On the Future"
by .
Copyright © 2018 Princeton University Press.
Excerpted by permission of PRINCETON UNIVERSITY PRESS.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.
Table of Contents
Preface, vii,
INTRODUCTION, 1,
1 DEEP IN THE ANTHROPOCENE, 11,
2 HUMANITY'S FUTURE ON EARTH, 61,
3 HUMANITY IN A COSMIC PERSPECTIVE, 120,
4 THE LIMITS AND FUTURE OF SCIENCE, 165,
5 CONCLUSIONS, 201,
Notes, 229,
Index, 237,
What People are Saying About This
"On the Future, by a leading senior scientist and written in a charming and crystalline style, provides the kind of wisdom humanity most needs to make our way on through the twenty-first century."—Edward O. Wilson, professor emeritus, Harvard University “Curious about the future? Here, one of the world’s most eminent scientists takes you through what will happen and why. On the Future is excellent!”—Eric Schmidt, former executive chairman of Google“From climate change to biotech to artificial intelligence, science sits at the center of nearly all decisions that civilization confronts to assure its own survival. Martin Rees has created a primer on these issues, and what we can do about them, so that the next generation will think of us not as reckless custodians of their inheritance, but as brilliant shepherds of their birthright.”—Neil deGrasse Tyson, coauthor of Welcome to the Universe"Martin Rees offers a compelling vision of our future—on Earth and in space."—Elon Musk, founder, CEO, and CTO of SpaceX and cofounder and CEO of Tesla Motors“Prophecy may be a lost art, but I can think of no better way to envision what lies ahead than this book—a multidimensional meditation by one of our most distinguished and wise scientific minds on where we are headed and what we can do to right the ship of our civilization. In a time when it is hard to find a dream of the future that is not dystopian, Martin Rees sees and writes with rigor, clarity, and hope.”—Ann Druyan, writer, producer, and director of Cosmos "In clear and simple prose, Martin Rees lays bare the catastrophic dangers now facing humanity: nuclear, biotech, cyber, and climate. Modern science, he says, created these dangers but still provides the only path forward. A real wake-up call."—Jerry Brown, governor of California“On the Future is a very important book that should be widely read and acted upon. Martin Rees combines his deep scientific insights and compassion for humanity’s welfare to address, in clear and elegant prose, the major issues facing human civilization today, some of which are not now commonly considered. Whether or not you agree with all the points he makes, you must take them very seriously indeed.”—Roger Penrose, author of Fashion, Faith, and Fantasy in the New Physics of the Universe"An engaging analysis of the most important issues facing the world, sprinkled with insight and suffused with wisdom and humanity."—Steven Pinker, author of Enlightenment Now“Are we heading for a utopian or dystopian future? Martin Rees believes it’s down to us. But the one thing we must not do is put the brakes on technology. Science, applied wisely, offers humanity a bright future, but we must act now. In this visionary book, and despite his many fears, Rees adopts a refreshing and cautiously optimistic tone.”—Jim Al-Khalili, author of Paradox: The Nine Greatest Enigmas in Physics“A breathtaking journey through thrilling advances in science and technology that may address society’s most vexing challenges, On the Future is ideal reading for all citizens of the twenty-first century."—Marcia K. McNutt, president of the National Academy of Sciences"What if we got one of the smartest people alive to figure the odds on how we might be able to survive our ability to do ourselves in? We have that person in Martin Rees, and his thoughtful answers in this book."—Alan Alda“As Yogi Berra said, ‘It’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future.’ But in this readable and thought-provoking book, Martin Rees shows the challenges we and our planet face—and why scientists need to engage citizens in the choices that are made.”—Shirley M. Malcom, director of education and human resources programs at the American Association for the Advancement of Science“For anyone who wants to consider the choices we have in our future and the implications of those choices, this is the book to read. Rees is a clear thinker and graceful writer, and he expresses an encouraging optimism about the future, if we can avoid some of our current species-limiting behaviors. Rees’s projections are grounded in today’s scientific knowledge and a scientist’s sense of probability and presented with a deep sense of humility.”—Rush D. Holt, CEO of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and former U.S. Representative from New Jersey“On the Future is a delightful intellectual treat and a must-read for everyone on Earth—and beyond, if aliens exist. With wisdom and originality, Martin Rees, our most accomplished living astronomer, addresses the most important of subjects—the future of humanity and the scientific advances and risks it brings. His deep personal insights are unique and exciting and his many anecdotes are enjoyable. I couldn’t put it down.”—Abraham Loeb, Harvard University “In this outstanding book, the always brilliant Martin Rees addresses the key problems of our day, putting humanity’s perils and prospects in perspective—from climate change, to the future of artificial intelligence, to the threat of bioterrorism, to the chance for future space adventurers to spread out into the universe. Rees is one of the deepest and clearest thinkers on these subjects, and his book sparkles with gems of insight and humor.”—J. Richard Gott, coauthor of Welcome to the Universe“In this short and mighty book, Rees grapples with the exhilarating promise and frightening possibilities of today’s vast scientific advancements, situating himself somewhere between the techno-optimists and dystopian naysayers. On the Future provides tremendous insight into science’s great expanse and beseeches us all to get involved and advocate for long-term policies that will keep future generations safe. The future of humanity and the planet rests in our hands.”—Rachel Bronson, president and CEO of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
“On the Future will captivate readers. Martin Rees stands at the top of our informed thinkers about futurology.”
—Pedro G. Ferreira, author of The Perfect Theory: A Century of Geniuses and the Battle over General Relativity
Related Subjects
Videos
