In this series, I will comment on the written feedback I received after my presentation. Also, I will answer the online questions asked by students I had no time to amply reply to during said presentation
Lehren für Unternehmensführer – das Leben, das Wissen, die Informatik und die Ethik
(Lessons For Managing Directors – Life, Knowledge, Computer Science and Ethics)
„Innovative Entrepreneurs“/ Summer Semester 2010
Leadership in growth-oriented enterprises
Here is another item of feedback I consider very important
“I, however, do not agree with the speaker when he gives the prognosis that not much will happen in the future as far as the “object“ is concerned.”
This is absolutely correct. I am afraid I failed to make it clear in my presentation that I meant this prognosis to refer to the traditional goals “further, faster, higher” in the “physical” (old) technologies. As I see it, the “further, faster, higher” is probably at the end if its rope. What I see as a future scenario is for the classical engineering disciplines to be about “more economical, lighter, easier”.
In this context, I like to refer to the term “Cheap Design” as introduced and made public by Rolf Pfeifer in his interview. Rolf Pfeifer is the founder and director of the Artificial Intelligence Laboratory at the Department of Informatics/University of Zurich. He gained a reputation through, for example, his cheap robots. Using totally innovative approaches, these robots show new ways in robotics and Artificial Intelligence. I recommend that you read his book: “How the Body Shapes the Way We Think: A New View of Intelligence” (Bradford Books).
But let us return to classical “object” technologies, for instance when it comes to mobility. If I take a modern Boeing 747 from Munich to San Francisco, the flying time will be considerably longer than it was thirty years ago with a 747. For reasons of economy, the planes have been designed to have a lower travel speed.
I know some people who, a dozen years ago, went from Paris to New York in the “Concorde” just for a meeting. They were back home in the evening. The times when such a thing could happen are probably over. There is no realistic indication suggesting that there will ever again be a time when regular flights will be serviced by supersonic airplanes.
Cars will be similarly affected. In the foreseeable future, individualized traffic as we know it today will no longer exist (except maybe for bigwigs and politicians). The high speeds on motorways will probably soon (10 years?) be a thing of the past. Individualized traffic will get considerably “less competitive”.
In the cities, the speed limit for cars will be lowered. Sooner or later, using private cars in big cities will have to be severely restricted. Now the question is: if most people live in mega cities – and if you cannot go by car in the big cities anyway – do you need cars at all?
Not to mention the fact that probably a future electronic mobility will look totally different from our mobility based on the combustion motor.
Let me just mention as a humorous aside that these days it is chariots which have the longest delivery time of all vehicles.
🙂 And if any of you believe in “beaming” (why not?), then I believe it will be a technology that fits more into informatics. After all, we are talking the transportation of information.
Gene and nano technologies might have some innovative potential. Personally, I tend to count the gene technology – which, incidentally, is met with a lot of scepticism among prudent people – among the informatics technologies.
As an “object” technology, nano technology seems to be on the proper path (smaller, more intelligent). The only thing I am worried about is whether or not we really need what it offers to provide us with.
What is worse, our approach to nano technology is not based on responsibility. Nano particles follow their own laws and they cross barriers (like the blood threshold of the brain) which used to be considered insurmountable. That is why I find it ethically irresponsible to produce nano particles without prior to it having thought about how to deposit them and other consequences. See also my article on this in the IF blog.
I am also sceptical about the new hopefuls such as nuclear fusion, hydrogen as a substitute for fossil energies and Desertec.
After all, the number of years until we can generate energy from particle fusion has constantly been predicted to be in 30 to 40 years (see: fusion constant in Wikipedia). And the costs for the first such nuclear reactor increase by the factor three every three years.
Producing hydrogen by using wind power in Patagonia sounds good. In theory, there is even enough land and wind. But the entire chain of logistics from the windmill to the final user in Europe would necessitate in investment volume that is unthinkable even today. And, due to other needs and facts, it will no longer be possible in the future.
The requirements for Desertec are similar. However, I am also critical for political reasons. Do not let us forget that Africa will need enormous amounts of energy just for survival.
On the whole, I doubt that the future will be characterized by technological mega projects following classical engineering concepts. The certainly necessary bunkering of carbon dioxide, too, will hardly be possible without huge technologies. What we need is creative solutions.
Finally, I ask myself if perhaps in the future “social progress” will be a lot more important for the sum of what is need for humane co-existence than “technological” advancement.
RMD
(Translated by EG)
P.S.
From now on, I will answer the online questions of my audience.
Loading ...