Map of Transformational Technologies
from the you-can-get-there-from-here dept.
PatGratton writes "I've put together a map of transformational technologies and some of their consequences. If I'm missing an important technology or consequence, please let me know." This continues the discussion of the white papers project mentioned earlier.
(Click Read More… for notes on the diagram and the technologies mapped.)
- Diagram Notes
-
- Green boxes indicate current technology.
- The connection arrows show only a rough time ordering of technologies. Good arguments can be made for reverse arrows in several cases. (E.g., perhaps uploading can be achieved with macro technologies, then lead to AI, and then to nanotechnology.) In the interest of simplicity, I've left such ambiguities out.
- Some consequences are mutually exclusive (e.g., Strong Government and Weak Government).
- I would like to have better terms for some of these technologies. Position neutral suggestions are welcome.
- Technology Notes
-
- Morphics – a shorter version of "Morphological Freedom".-
- Guardian Economy – economy completely run by strong central government. Named after Jane Jacobs description of the Guardian ethical system.
- Transparency – David Brin's idea – in which surveillance runs both ways.
- Gift Economy – Stuff is free. Perhaps "Post Scarcity Economy" would be a better term.
- Borganisms – Collective organisms. Personally, I don't like this term because of it's probable negative connotations.
- Neurostructural Control – Redesign of the human neural system in order to modify basic drives or increase performance.
- Quantum Computing acts as an accelerant, but is neither necessary nor sufficient for other technologies – thus it is shown without connections.
..Pat Gratton
P.S. – Thanks to Chris Phoenix and Richard Fannon for their comments.
September 29th, 2000 at 11:05 AM
Other Planets and Satellites?
With nanotechnology comes the possibility of terraforming our neighbor Mars. Should this be added? I was reminded of it when I read "radical population growth."
There's also the idea of harvesting Helium-3 from the moon for use in fusion reactors. I read an article about that a while ago, but I unfortunately do not know the link.
How important would these be in the future?
September 30th, 2000 at 9:56 AM
Re:Other Planets and Satellites?
Good points!
I've generalized terraforming to "Space Colonization" and added that to the map.
Helium-3 generation is a too fine grained a detail to put on the map. Also, it seems like solar energy will be a more important energy source.
September 30th, 2000 at 2:13 PM
Topics missing: Self-Replicating Systems, …
I could go on for pages regarding these interconnections. First some logistics.
Are you using a tool for this, then translating it into an image? There are tools (VISIO??), that allow you to put together diagrams like this and move the boxes around in such a way that the links move with them. Does anyone have suggestions?
It was very hard for me to print the document due to an assortment of plugins (on my system PNG goes into QuickTime), the larger than single page format, etc. I'd suggest that you try to rearrange it so that it will print (perhaps in landscape mode) on a 300+DPI printer.
I have some specific suggestions about how it should be organized. I think on the left should be technologies. They might be arranged in two columns stuff that we have (Crypto, Genomics, CryoSuspension) in boxes of one color (blue?), and stuff that we don't have (Nanotech or AI) in another color (yellow?). The middle should be the applications of those technologies (perhaps ranging from probably-good (Physical Abundance) to neutral (Cryo-Reanimation?) to probably-bad (Nano Plagues). The horizontal arrangement of the applications might be in approximate development times or chronology (something sure to draw flak). Then on the right, probable outcomes or consequences that might occur (Guardian economy, Gift Economy, Sentient Speciation, etc.). Doing this may make the routing through various scenarios easier to see. I am assuming in some of my comments below, that Transformational Technologies should include those that transform potentially positively as well as negatively (depending on your frame of reference).
It seems in looking at this, you want a better way of diagramming the type of connection, some possibilities include: "ENABLES", "INFLUENCES", "NECESSARY FOR", "BLOCKS", "FEEDBACK LOOP". I'm sure someone with more structured programming experience than I can elaborate this better.
Now onto the meat of the discussion. Things that are may be modified, perhaps through the use of subdivided boxes, include:
Things that may be missing include:
I don't like the connection between Human Genomics and Anti-Aging. Genomics may accelerate our understanding of aging processes, but does not directly lead to interventions. You have to go from there through [Advanced Drugs (assisted by Robotics, petaflops computers, and perhaps AI) | Genome Augmentation (from simple gene therapies through complex auxiliary nuclei) | Organ Replacements (from bioengineered animals or human stem-cells) | Nanomedicine] before you get to Healthspan-/Lifespan- extension. Anti-aging does not lead to Radical Population Growth of the kind that Uploading can (because after uploading you potentially have Ultra-Low-Cost-Copying) and there is a high probability that nanotech based SRS can expand the economic base much faster than people can reproduce. There may be a path to Uploading, possibly through the application of microelectronics, AFM tips, biotech based sensors (i.e. no hard nanotech) to allow cryosuspendees to go directly to uploading. Similarly, there are paths to sophisticated implants and self-enhancement Borganisms/trans-/ultra-humans that goes through biotech|microelectronics|MEMS that does not require hard nanotech. Once you get to Genetic Design, you are clearly on your way to the same end-point (Borganisms). Uploading doesn't lead to Borganisms, unless it is through Downloading. Downloading might never be developed, since it is potentially such a step backward for the uploads.
Uploading|Planetary Dismantlement are potentially blocking links to Near|Far Space Access. Those concepts are "pre-limits-of-physics" concepts assuming people stay in sub-optimal human bodies. It is questionable whether after Uploading, you would ever want to explore those concepts. For example, if you expand your mental capacity to the limits that are probably available due to Low-Cost-Copying and Neurostructural Control, your information capacity occupies a significant fraction of a Matrioshka Brain, it may become very expensive to travel very far. (I'm assuming you would want to transfer your "mind" over a electromagnetic carrier wave, since that travels the fastest.) In those situations, you might opt for a limited Telepresence instead. This works across galactic distances if you survive thousands of years and can tolerate losing your telepresence due to slow reaction times. An "non-aging" uploaded mind, eventually travels many places anyway simply by waiting long enough.
A final observation is that there is an interesting juxtaposition that occurs with VR, because in our current form, Brain (hardware) supports Mind supports VR. In an uploaded entity, Computer (hardware) supports VR which supports many Minds. This suggests that Morphics of the mind (which seems to include Neurostructural Control), is substrate dependent. Trends in these areas will determine the evolutionary paths for Sentient Speciation and Increasing Complexity and Diversity.
September 30th, 2000 at 2:30 PM
Re: Space Colonization is an obsolete concept
Space colonization is a potentially obsolete concept in an era where nanotech based self-replicating systems, robots or AI, and uploading may be feasible. One of the big splits that may come for humanity is when the uploads want to dismantle the planets for computronium and the luddite biohumans want to save them for terraforming. There are paths through this conflict, if we develop deep seated commitments to diversity. I may have a moral obligation not to kill you, but I don't have a moral obligation to allow you to reproduce forever. Ultimately the universe has a limited supply of matter and energy and though we can probably solve the problem of peaceful coexistance, the "who gets to reproduce" problem seems to be intractable. The ultimate solution seems to be 1-for-1 replacements of individuals, i.e. you get to reproduce only when you have agreed to die. This is true whether or not you are a human, a virtual human in a VR, or an entire solar system sized Matrioshka Brain. (See my other long post to this topic for URLs).
October 1st, 2000 at 9:19 AM
Changes
I've made a number of changes to the map, which are detailed below. Many of the changes are to due to/inspired by Robert Bradbury's post above.
I'll try to get out responses to the various postings today, but I'm also working on a list of brief descriptions of all technologies, which will take higher priority.
The new map can be found here.
Changes
October 1st, 2000 at 9:14 PM
Update to v0.3
Version 0.3 of the Transtech Map is now available. This version includes hyperlinks to brief descriptions of each of the technologies.
Changes from v0.2:
October 2nd, 2000 at 6:21 AM
Re:Update to v0.3
These are my comments to Transtech Map Details v0.3.1. This version is very good in terms of touching all of the related topics and providing brief overviews. (Of course as the PC or WWW have shown, it is the developments you don't anticipate that seem to have the biggest effects.)
Anti-Crypto: Has it been shown that with sufficiently long keys anti-crypto is a non-starter without quantum computing? A better question is whether people will go to the trouble to use these methods, e.g. email programs that are designed to thwart Carnivore. As Forrest Gump said, "Stupid is as stupid does".
AI/Robotics: IMO, AI is stuck in the bin of the complexity of a moving target. Someone once said that once a problem in AI is solved, it is no longer called "AI". For example, computers never used to be able to beat humans at most games, now they can beat humans at all games but "go". At the 1999 Contact conference, Minsky discussed the fact that the human brain uses a dozen or more methods to determine the distance to an object. Computers currently use only a few of those. When computers use all of the methods the brain uses, will we cease to call "distance estimation" an AI problem? There are many more examples. It is worth noting that Eliezer Yudkowsky has provided extensive documentation in these areas here. In addition, books by William Calvin are providing interesting insights into how the brain may actually work.
Biosphere Repair: As documented in my Understanding Nanotech post, to the Extropy Institute EMailList, the most commonly cited problem with the biosphere (global warming due to greenhouse gases), is NOT a problem in the nanotech era. Though my initial estimates may be somewhat optimistic, it seems safe to estimate that complete biosphere repair can be accomplished in 10-20 years. That is only a recovery of the global environment to its state ~2000 years ago. What will not be recoverable is the loss of unique nanoscale parts due to species extinctions. This argues strongly for the efforts seeking to freeze-preserve samples from environmental niches. Preserve now, analyze later!
Biotech: No, "possibly" regarding the creation of entirely new organisms. Any organism with artificial DNA in it, is by definition "new". The synthesis of entire microorganisms from their molecular components should occur before 2005.
Bioweapons: The concept of "race" has been soundly dissed by biologists. Just because humans with an huge amount of processing power in their brain think they can recognize a specific "race" or "individual", doesn't mean a bioweapon with a trillion or more times less processing capacity can do it! Common bioweapons concepts suffer strongly from the assumption that you can build AI into a simple bioweapon. Very unlikely!
Cloning: A minor point would be that current cloning methods extract a nuclei with its chromosomes rather than individual chromosomes. There is a distinction between stem cell technologies that are based on cells that are closer to the proto-genome and cloning based on adult cells that are reverted to a proto-genomic state (but may have shortened telomeres). It is crucial to understand that damage due to mutations comes from two sources — the length of time the cell has lived (mutations from cosmic rays, oxidative stress and endoradiation) and the number of divisions the cell has undergone (mutations from copying DNA). Producing a clone from a cell harvested from an adult (even a stem cell) reverted to a proto-genomic state does not produce an identical clone!
Cryosuspension: I have been told that there are countries where individuals may be euthanized and suspended without running afoul of legal traps. This should be explored in more detail as it solves the problem of people undergoing gradual decline of neural function (e.g. Alzheimers), that may not be restored with cryosuspension/cryorecovery.
Genetic Testing: The reductionist perspective suggests that we will discover single genes that lead to yes/no answers with regard to genetic traits & conditions. It is likely to be far more complex than that. Many traits and conditions are the result of many genes, implying that simplistic answers will not be forthcoming. It isn't clear to me how "force of law" applies to genetic testing. It seems that an interesting confrontation may occur between between existing laws that protect people with "disabilities" and possible future initiatives that seek to identify people who are violent or sociopaths.
Lifespan Extension: It may be useful to put these in a more chronological sequence. Health-span extension comes before Life-span extension. Biotechnology extensions (esp. organ renewal) come before nanomedicine extensions. The lifespan of the universe is much longer than the lifespan of the energy and/or matter that would be required to support "life".
Low Cost Far Space Access: The problem of "acceptably low flight times" is irrelevant in the face of "lifespan extension" and to a greater degree "uploads". If you are "uploaded", "propellant" issues are irrelevant because you are effectively energy. You can be transmitted at the speed of light, therefore the cost is determined by (a) the cost of sending a nanoprobe to the destination to construct a receiver and (b) the amount of information that must be transmitted (which relates to Telepresence (remote sensing) technologies).
Low Cost Near Space Access: The emphasis is on the wrong aspect of nanotechnology. It isn't the "high strength materials" that is important, it is the "self-replicating systems" that is important. If you have self-replicating systems then power and the space ships become "low-cost". With enough cheap power available, you could build the space ships out of lead. With self-replicating systems, you could build a space-ship factory factory and your lead space ships would be effectively "free". Diamondoid technology is irrelevant to near-space-access. Studies show it is a simply a question of demand which in turn is related to the fact that humans are not designed to live in space. Therefore the only viable industry in space is tourism. If you have nanotech that enables near space access, you also have nanotech that mine asteroids, do robotic exploration, dismantle planets, etc. that eliminates the need for humans to go into space. The interesting aspect of near/far space access is whether or not they are feasible and provide an escape from a Guardian Economy.
Micro Cost Copying: It may be useful to differentiate between Copyright protection and Patent protection. While making a copy of something may now be inexpensive, the emphasis may be in the wrong area. Given that Patents allow for protection on the use of a process, rather than the protection of a copy, should the focus be on the "act of copying" rather than the "number of copies" or "use of a copy"? (This is an ill-formed idea that I'm throwing into the ring…)
Morphics: Actually biotech will provide a fair amount of morphing capability. If you can observe an example of it in nature (e.g. skin color flexibility), then biotech will enable it for humans.
Nanoplagues: This discussion suffers from the assumption that offense occurs in an environment where no defensive preparations are occuring. Any sane defensive environment would design micro-sampling strategies that would detect and eliminate stealth phases of nanoplagues. The immune system in the human body does this. This is also discussed in Stephanson's The Diamond Age. It is irresponsible to discuss nanoplagues without assuming complementary strategies in nano-immune-systems.
Nanobodied Intelligences: There appears to be a lack of consideration that intelligence scales with three factors — the amount of matter used to provide the substrate for the intelligence , the communication delays between the components that make up the intelligence and the heat dissipation required for the intelligence. A 1 cm3 nanocomputer may have ~104 times human brain capacity based on Ops-speed and 107 times human brain throughput based on reduced volume (and reduced propagation delays). Said nanocomputer also radiates 104 times the amount of heat produced by a human brain. Stealth feasibility of such technologies assumes that they think and/or replicate at very low rates. As with Nanoplagues, such entities are not able to "hide" if they are active. If NIs are active, others should be able to detect them. If NIs are inactive, others should be able to out-engineer or out-grow them.
Nanotech: Since nanotech enables self-replicating systems, and self-replicating systems require matter and energy as inputs, the perspective of "not require vast mining or material movement infrastructures" is questionable. For nanotech to achieve its full potential, e.g. "space stalks" would require extensive material reformation.
Nanoweapons: Any discussion of nanoweapons is incomplete if radiation defenses are not discussed!!! Using macroscale devices it is relatively easy to produce UV, X-rays, particle-beams, etc., that "sterilize" nanoscale devices. It is common practice to fall into the nanoweapons "trap" without acknowledging that defenses against such devices do exist.
Physical Abundance: Molecular manufacturing has nothing to do with physical abundance! It is self-replicating systems that are the important factor with regard to abundance. If I can produce a tooth-brush factory factory then tooth-brushes become "free". In no way is molecular manufacutring required. Self-replicating-systems SHOULD NOT be confused with molecular nanotechnology.
Quantum Computing: It remains to be demonstrated that quantum computing would have a "revolutionary effect on many aspects of computing". The realms in which it has been demonstrated that quantum computing can be applied are a very small subset of the phase space of computing. There is a great deal of hype about the impact of quantum computing with very little examination as to how extensive its applications will be.
Runaway AI: The crucial question here is whether or not the AI has a moral obligation (or respect) for other sentient life-forms.
Sentient Speciation: This point begs the question of a satisfactory definition for the "human" species. Are children with an extra chromosome (Down's Syndrome) human? What about other genetic defects? What about enhanced humans?
Space Colonization: This topic seems too integrated. One cannot terraform planets while disassembling them! You have to make choices between the paths and lumping them into a single category does not allow distinctions to be made.
Telepresence: It is worth noting that telepresence can operate over very long timescales (light-years distance) if the environment for the remote-sensor can tolerate very long response times.
Uploading: It is useful to add a link to minduploading.org.
October 2nd, 2000 at 1:56 PM
Re:Topics missing: Self-Replicating Systems, …
Tools
I'm using Visio and then translating to gif/png.
Format
I initially had a problem with generating gif files, but that's fixed now – future versions will be in gif format. Visio does have other output formats (ai,cgm,eps, etc.), so I can generate an output in one of those formats if necessary. I've squeezed the map down as far as I can without sacrificing clarity. You might try printing on two letter sized pages in landscape orientation.
I don't think that rearrangement into columns would be useful – it would render the connecting arrows unreadable. Also, it can be difficult to divide boxes into technologies and applications/consequences. For example, Borganisms might be applications of implants and/or uploading, but there would also be quite a bit of technology behind it (what sort of protocols do you use? what configurations are possible and what are they best for?). Similarly for Gift Economy – while it might tend to follow naturally from pre-conditions, it might also require a certain set of rules and maintenance procedures, i.e., it might something of a technology.
I would have liked the horizontal be more time reflective, but that's just too hard to predict, and would require that the map be expanded substantially horizontally.
I thought of using red for bad technologies/consequences and green for good technologies/consequences, but decided that it was better to stay position neutral. Position neutrality reduces the debate while still getting the important information across.
Green is already used to indicate (at least partially) available technologies, thus leaving black indicate unavailable technologies.
BTW, I essentially optimized for rough causal ordering, minimum size and maximum readability. Maximizing readability requires minimizing the amount by which arrows overlap text boxes.
Links
The links are all of the type: "leads to", "enables" or "helps enable". Other links are possible, but the visual clutter would be too great. Also, I think that to provide finer information on the type of link, I would have to provide a fairly detailed discussion of how the two topics are linked – which is more than I wanted to do with this version of the map.
Zero Cost Copying -> Ultra Low Cost Copying
Point taken, but it's a bit of a mouthful. I've switched to "Micro Cost Copying."
Quantum Computing
I'm also dubious about the scale-up possibility. However, it has gotten a lot of attention within the community, and if it did work would have revolutionary effects.
Quantum Memory
I'm not familiar with this. But it sounds like just a memory technology (albeit, a potentially very high density one). How would it transform the world – especially in contrast to other very high memory technologies?
Biotech SRS
I've added in Biotech, however…
My understanding is that if biotech reaches the point where we can use it to programmatically assemble virtually arbitrary (but chemically stable) configurations of matter, then it has become nanotech (i.e., biotech might be a path to nanotech). OTOH, if it doesn't reach that level of control, then biotech doesn't have the same range of possibilities as (hard) nanotech. For example, Low Cost Space Access, derives in large part through the construction of high strength materials, and Physical Abundance stems in large part from arbitrary programmability. Thus I have not added links from Biotech to these boxes.
Cloning/Stem-Cell Research
In my detail notes, I place Stem-Cell research as part of Biotech, not cloning.
Nanomedicine/Nanosurgery/Robotic Surgery
Good points. I've consolidated the two nanosurgery boxes into a single Nanomedicine box. "Robotic Surgery" is a little too fine grained for this chart.
Anti-Aging -> Lifespan Extension
Agreed. Changed.
Robotics
I'm modified the AI box to include Robotics. (I didn't see how Robin's paper applied though.) However, what you're talking about is a robotically provided service – which is really an instance of Service Abundance, which will be added to the next version of the map.
Bioweapons
Agreed. Added.
Nuclear Technology
Yes, applications might show up within boxes such as Nanoplagues, but nuclear by itself is old news, so I'm leaving it off the map.
Microelectronics
That's computing. Which is assumed (and unshown) background technology.
MEMS
I've left it off because it's transformative power is limited and because it's likely to be leapfrogged.
Planetary Disassembly
I count that as part of Space Colonization.
Matrioshka Brains
That's covered under Space Colonization and Sentient Speciation. (Yep, Space Colonization is fairly inclusive – if we were closer to it, I'd probably break it up more.)
Extinction of the Human Branch of Technological Civilizations] and [Infinitely Increasing Complexity & Diversity
Excellent – now we're talking big picture! I've abstracted a little bit and rendered these as Winner Takes All and Stable Sentient Diversity.
Wealth per Individual
That falls under Physical Abundance and Service Abundance.
Environmental Quality
Agreed. Added as Biosphere Repair.
SETI/CETI
Good point. I've added Extraterrestial Intelligence.
Space Hazards
Doesn't seem a big enough topic. Besides, it's somewhat covered under Low Cost Near Space Access and Space Colonization.
Human Genomics & Lifespan Extension
I've removed the Human Genomics box. Lifespan Extension now links from Biotech.
Uploading and Radical Population Growth
Uploading kind of goes both ways – it's likely to lead to more rapid population growth than biological Lifespan Extension, but at the same time, it reduces space consumption, and opens up options like time sharing.
Non-nanotech Uploading
Agreed – there might be a non-nanotech path, but that would be using pretty much current technologies, which aren't shown on the map, and thus no arrow.
Borganisms through Biotech|Microelectronics|MEMS
Presumably through implants or uploading. If I included Microelectronics or MEMS, I would probably show these links. My main concern here would be that this would require human-conducted surgery – and I figure that most people would be very reluctant to undertake casual brain surgery. The biotech connection is less clear to me. Do you have a detailed scenario of the biotech application?
Uploading Doesn't Lead to Borganism
Perhaps Borganism was the wrong word. I meant something more like Group Minds.
Uploading and Space Access
I regard uploading as pretty much a requirement for low cost far space access – it keeps down the shipping costs. Massive minds might find it too expensive to send their entire mind, but might copy off small pieces, send them out as tourists, and then reintegrate them when they return.
Morphics and VR
"Morphics of the Mind" is an oxymoron in my terminology – "Morphics" refers specifically to an entities body (or apparent body in VR). However, neurostructural control will almost certainly be much more powerful for uploads then it will be for biological brains.
October 2nd, 2000 at 2:45 PM
Re:Update to v0.3
It might be an interesting statement on local group population makeup and/or state of the human knowledge pool that no psychological or sociological technologies (are there any?) are on the map.
October 3rd, 2000 at 1:01 AM
Foresight in Psychology & Sociology
Samantha raises an interesting point. I would think that psychology is wrapped up in Neurostructural Control. Psychology currently seems to focus on understanding how genetic and environmental influences generate the minds we have, rather than on how it might create the minds we would desire.
Sociology seems to feed into the Sentient Speciation area. There doesn't appear to be a robust examination of how the creation of species might enrich our perspective and contribute to our understanding of how to interact which such species.
I agree that these are areas that need much more work.
October 3rd, 2000 at 5:15 PM
Re:Update to v0.3
I'll incorporate some of these comments into the next version of the map details, but I think that most of belong elsewhere. I'll cover where in a later post.
Biotech: Dropped "possibly" in new version.
Bioweapons: Granted "race" may be difficult to define exactly, but there are strong correlations that might be exploited (e.g., Europeans tend to retain the ability to produce lactase into adulthood, while other races don't).
Genetic Testing: Dropped "force of law" in new version.
Lifespan Extension: I fold "Healthspan Extension" into "Lifespan Extension".
Low Cost Far Space Access: "Acceptably low flight times" is important even to an upload if it cares about what happens while it's away. Sending the intelligence as an EM signal qualifies as "not accelerating the propellant". (An alternative approach would be to encode the intelligence in a high density memory pellet, and then fire the pellet towards the target system using a relativistic speed accelerator.)
Micro Cost Copying: I don't see a substantial difference between the "act of copying" and the number of copies. (I.e., if you charge per act of copying, then that's the same as charging for number of copies.)
Nanoplagues: The box represents not just nanoplagues, but methods taken to counter them.
Physical Abundance: See my previous response on "Biotech SRS".
Runaway AI: In the next version of the Map, I'm adding a "Sovereign AI", where questions such as innate ethics of such intelligences can be addressed.
Sentient Speciation: Admittedly, the boundary between human and non-human intelligences will become a bit fuzzy, but the same is true of concepts of color. Answering the question of "What counts as a different species of intelligence?" will be an important question under this topic. (And most likely a word other than genetics motivated "species" will be required.)
Space Colonization: What I mean is something like: making use of resources found in space on a large scale. Whether you rip planets apart and use them to build Dyson Spheres, or terraform them, or settle on them after modifying humans/intelligences to fit within the native ecospheres, you're still colonizing space.
October 3rd, 2000 at 5:16 PM
Re:Update to v0.3
First, sociology is actually already well represented. Cyber/Physical Surveillance, Cyber/Physical Transparency, Cyber Anonymity, Strong/Weak Government, Guardian/Gift Economy, Winner Take All, Stable Sentient Diversity and Group Minds are all either dominated by sociological concerns or have strong sociological factors. Most of the other technologies have strong sociological/psychological implications – that's a large part of what makes them "transformational".
Second, "technology" is not generally used in terms of psychology and sociology. In part that's usage (one talks of psychological techniques and methods), and in part that's due to the fact that sociology and psychology tend not to suggest possibilities to us as natural sciences do. Knowledge of other planets and Newtonian physics suggests space travel. Knowledge of the role of chromosomes in development suggests cloning. Psychology and sociology tend not to make suggestions like this – or at least not suggestions profound enough to qualify as transformational.
Third, the sociological and psychological spaces have been fairly well explored already (e.g., different systems of government, different economic systems, different cultural institutions), and thus are less likely to produce radical transformations.
But, I'm open to suggestions…
October 3rd, 2000 at 5:19 PM
What's Next?
The first question asked in Transtech Questions (see previous Nanodot post), was "What technologies are we talking about and how do they interrelate?" The map as it stands now answers that question quite well – at a high level.
So, what to do next? There are a number of possibilities…
In regards to the last possibility, I would like to standardize on link terms, and use them to search and compare the positions espoused at different web sites. In particular, I would like to make it possible for the user to configure what happens when he clicks on a box in the map, or on a heading in the brief description list. The click might take him to the summary listing (as it does now), or it might take him to a page with Robert's comments, or to a split frame with both comments shown, or to a discussion site like Nanodot, or to set of links appropriate for that topic. The HTML/JavaScript, etc. for the linking page would be easy to do, but it wouldn't be really useful unless other sites provided a useful way to handle the links – which means primarily that we would need to agree on the subject terms. If Robert doesn't object, I'll do test version using his comment above.
October 14th, 2000 at 5:45 PM
Upgrade to v0.4
New versions of Transtech Map and Transtech Questions are available:
Transtech Questions changes
Transtech Map and Details changes