Nearby, in the long-depopulated villages, you can see stirrings of life:
This is the text of my keynote speech at the 34th Chaos Communication Congress in Leipzig, December You can also watch it on YouTube, but it runs to about 45 minutes. As a working science fiction novelist, I take a professional interest in how we get predictions about the future wrong, and why, so that I can avoid repeating the same mistakes.
Science fiction is written by people embedded within a society with expectations and political assumptions that bias us towards looking at the shiny surface of new technologies rather than asking how human beings will use them, and to taking narratives of progress at face value rather than asking what hidden agenda they serve.
In this talk, author Charles Stross will give a rambling, discursive, and angry tour of what went wrong with the 21st century, why we didn't see it coming, where we can expect it to go next, and a few suggestions for what to do about it if we don't like it. I'm Charlie Stross, and it's my job to tell lies for money.
Or rather, I write science fiction, much of it about our near future, which has in recent years become ridiculously hard to predict.
Our species, Homo Sapiens Sapiens, is roughly three hundred thousand years old. Recent discoveries pushed back the date of our earliest remains that far, we may be even older. For all but the last three centuries of that span, predicting the future was easy: Let that sink in for a moment: Then something happened, and the future began to change, increasingly rapidly, until we get to the present day when things are moving so fast that it's barely possible to anticipate trends from month to month.
As an eminent computer scientist once remarked, computer science is no more about computers than astronomy is about building telescopes. The same can be said of my field of work, written science fiction.
Scifi is seldom about science—and even more rarely about predicting the future.
But sometimes we dabble in futurism, and lately it's gotten very difficult. How to predict the near future When I write a near-future work of fiction, one set, say, a decade hence, there used to be a recipe that worked eerily well.
Buildings are designed to last many years. Automobiles have a design life of about a decade, so half the cars on the road will probably still be around in You look at trends dictated by physical limits, such as Moore's Law, and you look at Intel's road map, and you use a bit of creative extrapolation, and you won't go too far wrong.
If I predict that in LTE cellular phones will be everywhere, 5G will be available for high bandwidth applications, and fallback to satellite data service will be available at a price, you won't laugh at me.
It's not like I'm predicting that airliners will fly slower and Nazis will take over the United States, is it? And therein lies the problem: As it happens, airliners today are slower than they were in the s, and don't get me started about Nazis. Nobody in was expecting a Nazi revival inright? Only this time round Germans get to be the good guys.
But unfortunately the ratios have changed.
Ruling out the singularity Some of you might assume that, as the author of books like "Singularity Sky" and "Accelerando", I attribute this to an impending technological singularity, to our development of self-improving artificial intelligence and mind uploading and the whole wish-list of transhumanist aspirations promoted by the likes of Ray Kurzweil.
Unfortunately this isn't the case. I think transhumanism is a warmed-over Christian heresy. While its adherents tend to be vehement atheists, they can't quite escape from the history that gave rise to our current western civilization.
Many of you are familiar with design patterns, an approach to software engineering that focusses on abstraction and simplification in order to promote reusable code. When you look at the AI singularity as a narrative, and identify the numerous places in the story where the phrase " Indeed, the wellsprings of today's transhumanists draw on a long, rich history of Russian Cosmist philosophy exemplified by the Russian Orthodox theologian Nikolai Fyodorvitch Federovby way of his disciple Konstantin Tsiolkovskywhose derivation of the rocket equation makes him essentially the father of modern spaceflight.Automatic works cited and bibliography formatting for MLA, APA and Chicago/Turabian citation styles.
Now supports 7th edition of MLA. This course was created by Rebecca Epperly Wire. You can contact her through the Facebook community group with questions. You can say thank you to her with a gift. Please review the FAQs and contact us if you find a problem.
Credits: 1 Recommended: 10th, 11th, 12th (This is typically the 11th grade course.) Prerequisite: Literature. The correct answer is %, obtained as follows: Out of 10, women, have breast cancer; 80 of those have positive mammographies. From the same 10, women, 9, will not have breast cancer and of those 9, women, will also get positive mammographies.
COMMUNIQUE #3 Haymarket Issue "I NEED ONLY MENTION in passing that there is a curious reappearance of the Catfish tradition in the popular Godzilla cycle of films which arose after the nuclear chaos unleashed upon Japan.
Jan 26, · Once asked how he was going to approach the song and dance centrepiece of Singin’ In The Rain, Gene Kelly famously replied, “It’s going to be raining and I’m going to be singing.5/5.
Singing in the Rain is an American comedy musical film starring Gene Kelly, Debbie Reynolds, Donald O’Connor and Jean Hagen, and directed by Gene Kelly and Stanley Donen.
It offers a comic depiction of Hollywood, and its .