COMMENT ⊗   VALID 00002 PAGES
C REC  PAGE   DESCRIPTION
C00001 00001
C00002 00002	.require "memo.pub[let,jmc]" source
C00014 ENDMK
C⊗;
.require "memo.pub[let,jmc]" source;
.cb APPROPRIATE SCIENCE FOR THE NEXT 50 YEARS


	The term "appropriate science" leads me to fear that someone wants
to declare some other science inappropriate.  All knowledge is
appropriate, and science is the one reliable way of obtaining knowledge.
That there is inappropriate science suggests that there is appropriate
ignorance.  Since the handout didn't mention "inappropriate science", my
fears are somewhat mollified, and I won't pursue the matter further unless
it comes up.

	I shall take the question as asking what can we reasonably hope
to discover in the next 50 years that will be intellectually the most
interesting and which will most benefit human welfare.
It is easier to think of useful technology, because science tends to
be unexpected, while there is plenty of insufficiently exploited science
on which to build more technology.
Therefore, I shall ask for some appropriate technology (not much of
which will be "appropriate technology" in the fashionable sense),
but first I will obediently hope for some scientific discoveries.
.item←0

	#. I don't know any objective criteria for deciding that
one scientific field is more interesting than another, so favorites
must involve personal taste.  I think my own field
of artificial intelligence may be one of the most interesting
during the next fifty years.  It studies the general relation
between intellectual goals and the means for their achievement.
To solve its problems we must obtain a scientific understanding
of common sense, of pattern recognition and judgment.  Reaching
human-level intelligence will require at least one major conceptual
breakthrough, and we cannot say whether this will be achieved in
the next fifty years.

	#. One can always hope that social science will take off and
make some discoveries that will permit improved social organization.
Social science is difficult, because social phenomena are intrinsically
confident, but politics provides additional difficulties.  Namely,
when the political power of a group can be advanced by a belief
about society, such a belief gains power beyond that supplied by
observation, experiment and logic.  In my opinion, the level of
objectivity of American social science has declined in the last
fifteen years because of this.
Even the objectivity of natural science and engineering is being
subjected to distortion for political ends.  (There is a certain
similarity between the Sun Day movement and Lysenkoism.  Hopefully,
the differences outweigh the similarities).

	Nevertheless, logic is a powerful intellectual force, and
if intellectually convincing discoveries are made, they will eventually
be believed.  Unfortunately, there is no evidence that social science
is about to make a major advance, but much can happen in fifty years.

	#. If artificial intelligence research results in a
scientific theory of common sense, we will be able to separate
sensible argument from nonsense in an objective
way.  This will have a major effect on public discussion.

	#. A really good electric battery for cars will free us
from fossil fuels for transportation and complete a nuclear and/or
solar solution of the energy problem.  It is hard to say whether
this is mainly a scientific problem or whether it is just a matter
of technology.

	#. The biggest problem affecting humanity is the shortness
of life.  We would all like to live much longer, and major increases
in life span are not possible without scientific advance.  Overcoming
the presently identified diseases won't have a major effect.

	#. Anything that will help make widespread space travel
possible will be of great benefit.  In the first place, the dispersion
of humanity in the solar system and beyond will reduce the danger
that nuclear war will wipe out humanity.  Secondly, there is a
substantial danger that some ideology - for example, that implicit
in SWOPSI 185, will gain a political monopoly, and humanity will
stagnate.  Space travel can put off this danger for a few billion
years.

	#. One should not rule out the possibility of modifying
human beings to make them function better.  Modifications to babies
or genetic modifications raise ethical problems, but modifications
that adults can voluntarily undergo are somewhat less problematical.
It is unfortunate that none of the drugs that became popular in the
1960s turned out to be any good.  More scientific understanding may
give us better luck next time.


%3Technology%1

.item←0
	#. Energy.  The transition from fossil fuel to nuclear energy
would proceed rapidly and smoothly were it not for the anti-energy
movement.  Most likely, this movement will dissipate before it has caused
very great suffering.

	#. Home computer terminals.  Cheap computers have given rise
to a new hobby, but the home computer terminal that can access all
of society's information is technologically ready and will be as
revolutionary as the telephone.  I will dwell on only one aspect of
this - its effect on public controversy.

	At present it is difficult to get one's views before the
public.  The difficulty has two parts.  The first part is that people
only have a certain amount of time for public affairs and get read
or listen to everything.  This difficulty seem irremediable short
of redesigning human being.  The second difficulty is in making one's
views available to the public and has three components - expense,
delay and semi-monopoly.  Publishing a book or newspaper is expensive,
and there is rooom only for a certain amount of material.  Delay is
inevitable, so that a replies are often ineffective even when
cogent.  Third, a periodical is often reluctant to give much space
to counterarguments its point of view.  (The %2Stanford Daily%1
wouldn't print my criticism of Sun Day).

	Consequently, the most effective style of controversial
speech or writing often ignores potential counter-arguments, secure
in the belief that only a small part of the audience will ever hear
any.  %2New York Times%1 editorials are particularly inclined to
ignore even already well-publicized counter-arguments.  The situation
seems to be worse today than it was in the nineteenth century, and in
this regard it is interesting to compare the Ford-Carter debates with
the Lincoln-Douglas debates.
One might suppose that this is a moral problem or a social
problem, but curiously enough, it is going to be solved by mere
technology.

	When all published material is in publically accessible disk files
in which anyone can store material, and when almost all households have
terminals, publication will be accomplished by declaring a file public.
Then, when the President attacks the AMA or the oil companies, the
reader can ask his terminal, %2"I wonder what they said in reply to
that"%1.  The prospect of an immediate right of reply will make the
President's speech writers think harder and produce more cogent
arguments - designed to withstand criticism.  I hope this will have
a substantial effect in improving public life.

	#. Any technology such as building robots that would substantially
reduce the cost of construction relative to average income would be
very important.

	#. The most valuable resource is human labor, and
this is still the most important resource to be conserved.  I.e.,
energy intensive is still better than labor intensive.