Inkwell: Authors and Artists

    
"The 2025 forum drew hundreds of scientists, university leaders and​
entrepreneurs from across the globe. including Nobel Physics​
laureate Konstantin Novoselov, Fields Medalist Efim Zelmanov and​
Turing Award winner Andrew Chi-Chih Yao, who joined 127​
academicians, 77 university presidents from China and abroad, over​
400 scholars and more than 600 entrepreneurs and financiers. Experts​
emphasized the forum as a unique platform connecting scientists,​
educators and entrepreneurs."

Clearly these guys aren't, like, a Discord discussion group.
  

    
The Forum emitted an official 91 page document called "Tech​
Predictions and Future Visions 2049."  It reads like a 1990s WIRED​
magazine issue on steroids, "with Chinese characteristics."

10 Tech Visions

1. ASI: Intelligent machines will foster new ecosystems with​
human-machine synergy

2. General-purpose robots in all households and industries driving a​
revolution in productivity

3. Flying cars: Unlocking new value in urban spaces

4. Mirror world: A new reality born from seamless virtual-real​
fusion

5. The age of universal quantum computing: Affordable compute​
everywhere

6. New communications era: A quantum leap driven by agentic Internet

7. Advances in computational materials science drive breakthroughs
in room-temperature superconductivity, enabling adaptive materials

8. Commercial nuclear fusion: A new era of fully controllable and​
carbon-neutral clean energy

9. Reshaping human health by integrating molecular medicine with AI

10. Space travel: Navigating freely in space and the deep sea  
  

    
This may sound like standard starry-eyed  handwavey flying-car​
fodder, but I don't think that the science mandarins at the​
Tengchong Forum were kidding about any of  it.  Compared to Chinese​
documents I've read in the past decades, I don't think this thing is​
"state propaganda" or even "tech hype."  

I think it's a manifesto.

It's also written in a sleek, machine-assisted, super-erudite global​
English which you don't really expect to have Chinese throwing at​
you.  But: that was then, this is now.
  

    
Can you say something about representation from the U.S.?
  

    
I did some looking... the closest I can come to finding an attendee​
from the USA is Andrew Chi-Chih Yao, who spent much of his career at​
American universities including MIT, Stanford, and Princeton. He's a​
naturalized US citizen. He left the US, however, and is currently​
Dean of the Institute for Interdisciplinary Information Sciences​
(IIIS) in Tsinghua University in Beijing.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Yao>
  

    
Thanks. I couldn’t find any US participants for 2023 or 2024. 
  

    
As much as I love the list in #52 I've grown old and cynical 
waiting for any of them to happen.

Most of them would bump energy consumption drastically at 
a time when we're already ruining the planet powering our
current level of civilization for a very limited subset
of humanity.

More specifically ...

Number 8:  Commercial nuclear fusion has been "20 years
in the future" for nearly all my long life.  I see no reason
to believe implementation at scale won't continue to be 20 
years in the future for at least another 50 years.  Without 
fusion power generation how do we power the rest of these ideas?

Number 3: Flying cars.  99+% of the driving public can barely
manage to get around in 2D space.  Releasing them into 3D 
space would be catastropic.   This might be viable if AI 
progresses to the point where only a few specially trained
and licensed humans are allowed to control flying cars. 
If you can't have the fun of flying a car then they would seem
only be useful if they can go significantly faster than current 
cars.  Is that the plan?  How would 200 MPH flying cars be
of use in urban spaces?

Number 4: (mirror world) / number 6: (Agentic internet) and
number 5: (Quantum computing).  (Quantum computing seems necessary
for 4 and 6 to exist.)   Count me as an old curmudgeon but I 
think we should be working to encourage human interaction, 
not discourage it.   We need to do things for ourselves in
the real world, interacting with our fellow humans. 

Number 1: (New ecosystems with human-machine synergy).  Yeah,
that's pretty handwavey.  I'm not at all sure what this means.

Number 2: (Robots) and number 9: (Medical Advances).  Those
would be really cool.  If they were universally available 
the would indeed be a boon.  I seriously question the ablility 
of our social/political system(s) to make those things univerally 
available if they existed.

Number 7: (Materials science).  This would seem to be another
required precursor to most of the other advances.

Number 10: (Space/Deep Sea travel).  Yes!  Great! -- as long
as we can refrain from treating these environments as badly
as we've treated the spaces we currently occupy.

How do I talk myself down off this ledge??
  

    
<hal> Number 8:  Commercial nuclear fusion has been "20 years
in the future" for nearly all my long life. ...

Laser pellet-ignition is a non-scaleable energy-book-keeping​
boondoggle. 

Assuming we can get a sustained plasma from ITER or elsewhere, the​
next two issues are getting the power out (lithium blanket?) and​
keeping the neutrons in (reduced-activation ferritic steels?).

Google's Gemini ("slow thinking") AI says : 

Summary Verdict: 2026–2028 is the "moment of truth." We will​
either see the first compact net-gain (SPARC) and direct conversion​
(Helion) work, or fusion will officially slide back into being a​
"mid-century" hope.


<hal> Without  fusion power generation how do we power the rest of​
these ideas?

Back to Fission.  SMR (Small/Safe) Modular Reactors : Trump is right​
in accelerating deployment, particularly on military bases where​
they can just be buried if they don't work.

or Cold Fusion ...  No, it ain't dead.
  

    
>, particularly on military bases where
> they can just be buried if they don't work.

In the past "just burying it" has not proved to 
be a good plan.
  

    
Via email from Sigmundur Halldorsson:

One Battle After Another just won the Critic Choice Awards, which is​
a first indication of which movie might win the Oscar, and this​
black comedy action thriller, written, co-produced, and directed by​
Paul Thomas Anderson is loosely based and inspired by the 1990 novel​
Vineland by Thomas Pynchon. It seems a movie reflection of our​
current times, while Vineland was set in 1984. Adam Curtis released​
Shifty last year, which deals with the period of the late 70s and​
into the 90s - a similar timeframe - but about the UK. It certainly​
feels like we've closed a chapter. It feels like we are no longer in​
the "liberal democracy" chapter and that the 30s look set to be a​
rerun of the last century, with "lebensraum" claims back on the​
table. Polycrisis seems exactly appropriate for the times, and we​
need some real ideas for how to avoid this rerun. Or maybe how we​
move to Ibiza...
  

    
@hal As much as I love the list in #52 I've grown old and cynical 
waiting for any of them to happen.

*Of course I feel just the same way, but I'm wondering of some of​
those things might more-or-less happen *in a Chinese way.*

The Chinese "flying car" thing particularly interests me because,​
for decades, "flying cars" have been the byword for  bad futurism. ​
They're glossy sci-fi power fantasies, and  not plausible as​
workaday vehicles, because they don't fit into the social and​
technical context of cars and car-use.
  

    
Some old and cynical objections:

Fuel-inefficient, way too expensive and polluting
Every driver has to somehow learn to fly
Wings don't fit in garages, bridges and tunnels
Normal traffic jams soon become dreadful aerial traffic jams
"Airplanes" have to lug the heavy bulk of a car with them
Cars have no good place to land and park
No spot on earth is safe from a plummeting car-crash
Borders become porous for car-borne smugglers, illegal migrants etc
  

    
But what if the "flying car" is free of those historical legacies of​
private cars and car-ownership?  Instead, it's re-cast as an aerial​
last-mile delivery vehicle for the "Chinese Belt and Road."  

It's a self-guided Chinese heavy drone,  and has no pilot.  It has​
small electric wheels so it can potter about on land like a​
golf-cart.  It's battery powered and built from ultralight​
composites.  Fleets of them arrive on rail-cars, they deploy and​
disappear on call, Waymo-style.  They're heavily state-regulated,​
full of spyware.  They move on carefully spaced routes, like​
cable-cars without the cable.  Also, they're built to look fancy and​
impressive.

I can describe them, but since this is 02026, I can also  just slop​
one up.
 https://flic.kr/p/2rQZ7N7

That vehicle is *technically* a flying car, it's just not Henry​
Ford's idea of an American-yeoman privately owned-and-maintained​
flying car.  Also, nobody drives it.  A Chinese platform drives it.
  

    
I still don't think these "cars" make much practical and functional​
sense, but they might be urban prestige vehicles, like today's​
driverless car biz in San Francisco and Austin.  A town like​
Tengchong might subsidize prestigious "flying cars" just to mess​
with the heads of tourists.  Hey look!  We've got 'em, you don't!

In "the season" in Ibiza the sky's chock-full of aircraft.  That's​
noisy and annoying, but also makes you feel like part of the action.​
Like: look at all those suckers kiting in today!  Man, we really​
matter!

"The Chinese are thrifty and practical, they would never do that!" ​
The Chinese have their own freakin' space-station, okay?  That was​
then, this is now.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiangong_space_station#
  

    
Flying cars are as practical as humanoid robots, jet packs or​
personal dirigibles might make more sense if we assume a human​
future, a bit questionable at this point. We humans seem rather​
intent on self-extinction. Perhaps a few billionaires can survive a​
bit longer than the rest of us, but they won't need flying cars in​
their bunkers.
  

    
But let's ignore apocalyptic thinking in the moment, and consider​
the "world order."

That world order is currently what you might call multipolar. Global​
power is distributed among several major actors, not dominated by a​
single dominant state or hegemon.  The United States, China, and to​
a lesser extent the European Union and Russia have been shaping​
economic, military, and diplomatic dynamics. 

We've had cconomic globalization bringing countries together through​
trade, investment, and supply chains, but that reality faces growing​
challenges from protectionism (e.g. Trumpian trade wars), tech​
competition, and regional trade blocs. There are substantial and​
growing geopolitical tensions, e.g. U.S.–China strategic rivalry​
over technology, influence, and security in the Indo-Pacific,​
Russian assertiveness (aggressiveness) in its neighborhood and​
potentially in Europe, and rowdy Middle Eastern conflicts that​
affect energy and regional/global stability. 

Global governance institutions like the UN, the World Trade​
Organization, and the World Health Organization are struggling with​
emerging challenges... climate change, pandemics, and digital​
regulation. They are often constrained by great-power politics. 

Meanwhile, issues like climate crisis, immigration, and inequality​
can bring both cooperation and contention among states, nonstate​
actors, and civil society, shaping a world where power, norms, and​
economic interdependence are constantly being renegotiated.

Weirdness in the USA over the last year, via the aggressive​
Trump/MAGA bolt toward authoritarianism - protofascism or fascism,​
as I mentioned in an earlier post - threatens to throw everything​
out of whack. The current administration pretends that the climate​
energy doesn't exist in order to bolster the fossil fuel economy,​
and Trump has signaled an intention to take power of all of the​
Western Hemisphere, including Greenland, Canada, Central and South​
America. 

Does this pretty much summarize the State of the World? Am I missing​
something?
  

    
Flying cars but yes, they’re heavy drones — and they’re also​
public transit. 
  

    
slip

<52> strikes me as the same list of, basically, extrapolations that​
the Chinese trot out.  They're in the habit now of wanting to define​
the future.  If, or when, any of these fully materialize it would of​
course be very important but I believe the most decisive changes are​
those that are discontinuous.  No one (or very few people) saw them​
coming.  Very few people saw fracked oil coming but not only has it​
transformed energy markets but it's had huge geopolitical​
implications.  Where did the electronics industry come from?  You​
can in fact trace its origins but its effects have been seen as​
magical.

Of course how do you see or detect discontinuous?  Actually, I'm not​
sure discontinuous, in the mathematical sense, actually exists say​
in technology or society.

I think of it as the same thing but I was watching an Ed Frenkel​
youtube video on mathematical physics.  Frenkel is a mathematician​
at Cal who frequently works in mathematical physics.  Infinity​
figures into the video and I posted that I believe that while​
infinity exists in our brains I don't believe it exists in the​
natural world.  He actually responded basically agreeing with me. ​
To the extent that an academic who wants to remain in good standing​
can agree to a nonstandard view.

So if infinity doesn't exist (in the world) then much, but not all,​
of mathematical discontinuity doesn't exist.  Not though that​
infinity isn't in fact vital to mathematics.  Instead of​
discontinuity, I'll call those changes in the world radical,​
unexpected, and transformative.
  

    
> ...for decades, "flying cars" have been the byword for bad futurism.

I find discussions on the subject highly entertaining for similar reasons:
'bad futurism' combined with a bit of 'tabloid journalism' maybe?

The subject is interesting mainly because of the punditry it inspires!

It reminds us about how we think and collectively create the future. We
don't seem to get there by thinking linearly. Not every 'chain of thought'
we can construct makes sense.

We've actually had flying cars since the 40's and I'd like to think that
it was 'good futurism' that kept them from going into production.

For examples see: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_car>
   
And for the last twenty years or more, lots of serious thinking has gone 
into the modern, evolved version of the "flying car" topic: 

   "Advanced Air Mobility & Urban Air Mobility" (AAM & UAM)

<https://tsrc.berkeley.edu/innovative-mobility-research/urban-air-mobility>

And it looks like a commercial launch of an air taxi service is about to
take place:

<https://www.jobyaviation.com/news/dubai-air-taxi-network-takes-flight/>

At this point, "flying car" may be the click-bait term for some serious
advancements in the good old "carriage trade."
  

    
Flying cars are fun to think about, but as for how we "think and​
collectively create the future" - it would help if we had some​
confidence that we *will* have a future. I'm not going to be around​
much longer, but personally, I'm not concerned whether those who​
follow will have flying cars. I'm concerned whether they'll have​
potable water, food to eat, some form of healthcare, and various​
planetary resources sufficient to sustain a life worth living. 
  

    
I continue to believe that the greatest threat to humanity is​
climate change and see that, for example, yields in maize, wheat and​
rice are already falling.  I believe the most obvious way climate​
change collapses civilization is in destroying food production.

But now with all these geopolitical tensions - and a rise in​
craziness - nuclear holocaust is again back up the rankings.  There​
I think the most likely scenario is that an exchange of as few as​
100 weapons would trigger nuclear winter.  Most of humanity is in​
the northern Hemisphere; that's where the exchange occurs; and, with​
nuclear winter, we again have crops that fail and mass starvation.

Or one triggers the other.  Climate shocks raise tensions between​
nations and some set of nations launch a nuclear exchange.

But we could redefine "resources sufficient to sustain a life worth​
living."  The world oligarchy crushes us all into a poverty that can​
be described in this fashion.  They decide a large demographic​
winnowing is in order.  We revolt but they send out their armies of​
robot soldiers since, push comes to shove, you don't know if the​
human ones are going to be reliable.
  

    
I got a ground-based personal jetpack three years ago and it
changed my life. Some people call it an e-bike but I know better.
  

    
Riding on air!
  

    
I cannot find much to recommend "Tech, Predictions and Future​
Visions 2049." I cannot find the 91-page account of the forum's​
comings and goings. I cannot find evidence that 127 academics, 77​
university presidents, 400 scholars and 600 entrepreneurs attended​
FROM ALL OVER  THE WORLD. It seems to have been an invitational ​
forum, and it appears to have been limited to the  Pacific Rim. I​
don't see much that is new, and there are many superior​
prognostications by eminent academics available. I could be wrong​
and hope I am. Just my two cents. 
  

    
Other more cogent prognostications? 

https://groupdocs.vip/look-up/gA00UI/600244/4982160-ai-2041-ten-visions-for-ou
r-future

https://eu.36kr.com/en/p/3351695076864647