Even if 10-20% of people become parasitic shut ins, I truly believe it would free up people to pursue their dreams and passions in lieu of settling for a job out of necessity. People whom dream of becoming a writer will be encouraged by social conditions to pursue a career in writing. Let people travel, paint, cook, write, tinker, and philosophize. All it takes in one well placed note from a musician, or vision of a painter to inspire a scientist to create the next best thing.
I think that if you had infinite of everything, the only real thing of value would become human creativity and knowledge. We would have a society completely fueled by art learning. because if you think about it, a Monet painting is not valuable because of the paint and canvas that it's made of, it's valuable because of how, and more importantly, why it was created. The society would have no worries of money or power, so they could instead of working to keep the world alive, start working on learning more about the world around them and reflecting it in their stories and art.
Very well said. I understand that the elimination of an obstacle would bring fourth new and wider facets of challenges, thus paving way for new types of creativity.
***** Kaku and a lot of other techno-utopians dodge this fundamental point over and over. WWI and II did not break out because of scarcity. They happened because the human mind is flawed. The only way to create lasting happiness is by addressing the issues with the mind at the root level. Nanotechnology could actually help us to do that, but not in the way Kaku is talking about here.
as technology advances but our economies and societies don't advance at the same rate, we will either adapt to too these changes or these changes will end us.
@@Topspeedcraft thomas malthus was wrong though because technology grows geometrically so resource extraction grows geometrically, thus being able to keep up with population
I think that by the time nano tech is produced, robots will have taken most of the work force. Everyone is scientist or computer technician or anything that needs intellect and consciousness like artist and musician. People will work because they themselves want to work, No one will be forced to do anything, that is true freedom and that is utopia. Nano tech will break the boundary of what we think is reality right now.
If you can create anything you want out of nothing then why would we need money, which is going to work when they can just replicate what they have over and over again? If you think about it people won’t own anything, they can own everything they would like. A scarcity-free society that doesn't doesn’t have to do work because there is no more work left, where all your wants and needs are fulfilled. And once the robotization of the entire workforce is complete, there won’t be any more jobs left for humans to do because we can’t compete with a robot. Doctors are robots, teachers are robots, soldiers are robots, and architects are robots. What jobs are left for humans? Who’d hire a human when you can get a cheaper and more efficient robot in its place?
+nintendude60 Raw materials are never a problem; there are tons of raw materials in our own universe. Look at asteroids for example, One single asteroid in our solar system has $95.8 (£60) trillion of mineral wealth inside it - nearly the same as the annual GDP of the entire WORLD. NASA even found a whole planet made out of diamond. Of course there is the problem of getting there and mining the asteroids but overall there will be so much raw materials that we will never run out. No element is rare, gold, diamond, platinum all lose their value and are common place as rock. And then thing how easy it will be to make all those stuff: boat, car, airplane, spaceship… and even land. If you seen the movie Elysium they created a huge space station that the rich and powerful. Imagine having millions of those to support the growing population. Like the movie transcendence nanobots will be everywhere creating anything want and the only thing that limits you is your imagination. And as for the robots, no one owns them. Just like no one owns the moon, Self replicating robots that are everywhere building everything even inside your body, fixing up your organs and your cells, reversing aging, upgrading your body at a genetic level. You see why no one can own these bots considering any one that owns these bots will be at a god level and can literally control everything.
www9311 EXACTLY!!! I'm old enough to remember when there was no such thing as robots in the workplace... before they used them to build cars in Detroit. I watched as the high tech machines began to slowly replace the factory workers until their were hardly any. Now, there's no more Detroit. This is PRECISELY why I continue to criticize Dr. Kaku. For as much as I like the guy, he only looks at the positive side of technology, without ever discussing the other, negative aspects of it. WE NEED MORE JOBS, NOT MORE TOYS.
tiffsaver So you want everyone to produce less efficiently just so that you can keep getting paid to do a job you aren't good at? Just take welfare. That way you'd actually be less of a drain on the economy than if you got in the way of a robot building my car better than you.
www9311 Dear www.WhatTheFuck.com: What the hell does "welfare" have to do with robots and replacing people with automation, you ignorant moron? Do not respond to any of my posts, don't even READ them. You're certifiable.
I agree. In a world where there is no need for labour, everyone will have their own philosophical function, even if it's just knowing people and interacting with them and being part of their story.
It's hard for a Japanese or American to imagine a welfare state where everything is just handed out to you. Go to the Philippines, and believe me, Filipinos will have no existential angst in answering that "infinite plenty" dilemma
no he;s is just being realistic , he knows humans dont care enough and are not all educated enough to realize the true value of life , humans will become parasites if left unchecked - Wall E is a perfect example , star trek is a nice fantasy but the powers which control governments wont allow for money to end , they need it to control human beings on EARTH
Michio Kaku, you are the man! You explain such a wide variety of things well, clearly, and at just the right pace. When you pop up on news shows, talk shows, whatever, my mom and I are always excited to watch. And now, philosophy -- awesome!! :)
In star trek the replicator is essentially a molecular synthesiser or molecular factory. Today, there is barely any research into this tech. It's a desperately needed technology that need to be put into the public good.
I don't see how people would think everyone would sit on their bum all day. Maybe every once in a while, and especially if there was a transition from this system to that. But think about it. You do get bored eventually with doing nothing. Doing something valuable for society doesn't need to mean something as obvious as being a surgeon. Many people enjoy gardening, drawing, acting and in a society with the technology that eliminates scarcity for the necessities of life.... wouldn't people focus much more on aesthetics? And things that interest them? Think how far we could go if people were able to do exactly what they felt passion for. I wouldn't be sitting on my bum (well maybe I would, but it depends on what you are doing while sitting on your bum :) all day, I know that.
I would immerse myself in the study of making music, dance and performing, regardless of how old I am. Why am I not doing it now? Because it doesn't pay for those scarce resources I need to live.
Some people argue that facing adversity builds character and that wouldn't exist without the incentive to work hard and earn it. In a utopia, i would imagine people would definitely be able to follow their dreams without slaving away at a corporation or do manual labor for dirt shit money, though.
bigknockersOO I doubt that a "utopia" could ever exist in the true sense of the word. Adversity, depending on how you define that word, may always be a part of existence, even with an ideal world. There will always be new challenges, but it can be positive "adversity" rather than the negative adversity that is what we see so much of today.
People keep saying that nobody would go to work but what they dont realize is that there would be no more work to go to.... Everyone would just do what ever they do when they got free time and for the most part that would be hobbies and if you look around there are hobbies for everything. Those who would do nothing, dont do anything today either. So in that sense nothing would change but nobody would work but do their hobbies
The real question is, if we ever design and successfully construct a replicator (it's possible that nanotechnology will not be enough and picotechnology will be required), a machine that can be made at any scale with reasonable cost and free abundant materials as a source, from micro for houses to mega for constructing entire buildings, do we go ahead with it or do we censor it for reasons of "financial freedom" and not having 90% of all people being overweight to really fat? If money was no object, needed no work and I could do almost anything would I stay at home all the time and fat myself to oblivion watching lame TV shows and commenting on TH-cam? Hell no. I would barely stay home, travel as much as possible, visit the countries I have wanted to visit all over the years but I couldn't, write books for my pleasure and give them away for free, exercise, bungy jump, have more hobbies, parachute jump etc etc. I think this would be a perfect opportunity to not only fulfill my bucket list but also create a series of new bucket lists. Why would anyone want to rot away himself if he could do almost anything - with the only limit being how all this abundance would be shared and arranged? I do not think the societal rotting argument is valid at all.
yeah I know what you're saying. My question is, would the realizing of money as no object necessarily preclude the realizing of no societal rotting, or will we have to have some kind of social breakthrough before we are even able to conceive money in a completely symbolic light? Maybe at some crucial point in every person's educational development, every person is buying into a specific lie or maybe a series of strange ideas that rules out the possibility of moving into a stage like this.
If we had devices that could manufacture anything out of raw materials what would stop it from solving the obesity problem. What's to stop these nanobots from converting a human fat cells into something else. Instant weight loss. Also, the consequences for eating the food such as heart disease, high cholestorol, and so on and so forth would become a thing of the past as we could eat the food and have the full taste of the unhealthy food while nanobots in our body converted the food into nutritional substances. If the nanobots are breaking down items at the molecular level the possibilites are literally endless. The day society no longer has to be preoccupied with the acquisition of wealth and creating things for survival will begin the greatest human renaissance in history. Sure some people will sit in the house and rot as you say, but the nature of humans is to question and explore things that are not yet understood. When everyone had time and resources to fuel their curiosity the sheer magnitude of things that would blossum is truly mind boggling.
you forgot that life wasn't made for that purpose, changing natural balances will change everything and when i say everything i mean it. The world you know will never be the same again,giving the power of god to everyone will lead us in the most chaotic era of human history. The words i said dind't "pop" out of my head, this is real scenarios that already happened trough our history
In the meantime, we can also look forward to virtual reality. Once graphics get good enough (indistiguishable from the real world) and we finally achieve full 5 sense feedback (touch, smell, etc.), we will be able to experience, anything and everything we want.
***** Like drugs? It's weird that every time I think about Utopia I never add drugs into the mix. It's definitely interesting though. Who needs a Utopia if you can eternally pleasure yourself no matter what condition you in. You also just made me think about a virtual utopia in which we aren't even connected through the internet, instead we live in our own isolated "perfect" virtual universes. Fuck. This opens a whole new can of worms.
***** I wonder what humans would do in such a world. From my point, which is probably very naive, that really devalues existence. Damn. This blows my mind. If there were to be a god like the one in the bible, which I doubt, I would understand why introduce evil and pain in to the world. Then again, I probably only say that right now because I'm doing okay in life currently. I probably wouldn't be saying that if I were starving or being abused.
str8todamoney *"I would understand why introduce evil and pain in to the world."* The elimination of pain and suffering are not the only working motives. They are just a first step as they are major inhibitors to action and creativity. *"I probably wouldn't be saying that if I were starving or being abused."* Bless you for having insight enough to realize this. Surprisingly few take it that far. There are people who try to view the world through the eyes of others and people who don't. There is a gulf wider than the Grand Canyon between them.
***** Heh, that's so right. Living things attribute value to things that help maintain life. To say something is of intrinsic value is to ignore this fundamental issue. The dead value nothing. Right, wrong, good and bad are intrinsically bound to our values which per force are intrinsically bound to our physio/psycho/social make up. If you change our physiology to one which is impervious to harm and our present notions of good and bad go out the window. What happens to "theft" if everything and anything you could want or have was freely available and readily accessible? What would fidelity matter in a world where babies were all made in labs and there was no venereal disease? These few examples hopefully illustrate how our notions arise from our inherited physiology and culture.
Ivan Panchev Stopping human progress and suppressing technologies are two different things. Free electricity (Nikola Tesla), hydrogen fuel, cures for diseases, Just to name a few possibilities.
+Dave No, the corporate world will invent the replicator to sell to manufacturers. It will attempt to strictly control the technology via licensing, patents, and other legal methods. But they will ultimately fail because it only takes a single rogue agent to replicate a replicator and use the replicated replicator to replicate more replicators.
I can't even fathom how a government would function with near infinite resources. Why even have a government? Why even work if you could simply ask for food, fuel, and everything in between? I imagine a world like this might have a strange culture as well (why make music or art if there's no need for money?), but the scientific potential and advancement is incomprehensible to me. And I like that.
HerrWagnerfreund i think your wrong. people do lots of things simply because they find them interesting. you seem to think that people need to be coerced into action. perhaps they are by boredom or desire for novelty, fun and innovation? think back to when you were a child. you didn't do things for economic reward, you did them cos the were fun or interesting.
ichigo199 I did things for reward, but thats mostly because I was sick, I did need incentive to do something I didn't want to, like go out and mow the yard. Since I had grass allergies I would suffer doing this in 15 minutes I would be running inside sneezing and runny nosed, took me a whole day to get the yard mowed. Sometimes you do need to be coerced. Without work all we have left is working to better ourselves, but in the end people decide what that means to them, that could very well mean jsut sitting around, it could mean acting, or drawling. but I know that a life without reward, a life without conflict, really isn't much of a life at all.
im sure there will be plenty of rewards to be had in a post scarcity society. you don't need to artificially enforce hardship on people to make them better themselves
It all depends on whether these infinite resources were controlled by the few or were available to everyone, maybe with everyone having a rather small scale replicator at home for everything a home needs. What about the materials required to feed them, would they be available to everyone -and for what, for free?- or could any material be used to make anything? How would these materials be made (unless anything could be used), by whom and why? The few would surely want to control the replicators, or at least their source materials. If anyone has a replicator and free access to the required materials that would by default make working obsolete. Along with work and business money of any form would also become obsolete. Art, science, philosophy etc would turn into unpaid hobbies. Only volunteers would "work", exactly the same way the current volunteers work. Along the way there would have to be great advances in robotics and AI, for the completion of automation of all infrastructure, constructions, transportation, even all services. I predict not a few bored people would be found to volunteer for all that, maybe with an added incentive of higher level benefits that are not available to everyone having a replicator (just because you can create anything up to 1 meter size at home this does not help you travelling around the world every single day, some resources and services will have to be limited). So while money would go away no-one would stop anyone bartering for instance a trip to Japan for something big he needs which he cannot create at home or that he cannot be given more of.
You are spot on... We HAVE to have an imperfect society because if it was perfect, then no one would stand out as much as they do now. However, we should aim for perfection because even though it's impossible to have it perfect, trying to reach it is the best option.
For anyone who's curious, the episode Michio is taking about is actually an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation, "The Neutral Zone". However, the episode was set, I believe, in the year 2364, which would actually be the middle 24th Century. The episode had no commentary on nanotechnology, and Star Trek has never made claim that the replicator was based on nanotechnology. Also, the crew of the Enterprise certainly knew what money and a stockbroker were.
My take on the replicator that Dr. Kaku brought up I think is pretty optimistic, but given what I've seen tech companies do in America, and if such an invention were created, I imagine this happening: Some company buys up the patent for a replicator and puts limits upon limits in its programming, such as you can't make paper money, gold, diamonds, weapons, etc. And then they jack the price up SO high that it is only affordable to the very rich of the world. And for things to be replicated you still have to pay for it. Imagine it being connected to the internet much like a Kindle or an iPhone. And to get something, like say a set of clothes, you'd have to access a clothing site through the replicator and pay for it to be replicated. My reasoning behind this thinking is this: the iPhone, some of you might remember this but others it may take a while, but when the iPhone was released you had no choice of carrier, you had limited battery time and so on, so basically it was a very expensive brick. Thankfully, Apple did improve upon it but there are still problems. And that's what I see happening with the replicator if such an invention is made and we still have the same kind of economic models that we do today. It makes me think of the film "Elysium" where people had a machine that could cure any kind of illness but it was only accessible to the very rich, while the very poor were just stuck with their disease or had to use other methods of medicine. And that's what I see as far as a future for a replicator.
+JohanStarDragon unrealistic view of companies, their power and the kind of companies assuming power. Those companies will no longer exist. read Bold by peter diamandis it's an amazing book that shows the future of products and entrepreneurs smalll companies replacing and disrupting industries by relying on the power of society for interdependence as well as individual self empowerment.
Jake Mitchell I think that's a little too optimistic. A real world example as far as the power and the kind of companies assuming power is this: Turing Pharmaceuticals bought up a drug called "Deraprim" which was once 7.50 a tablet. After Turing bought it, they jacked up the price to 700 dollars per tablet. Given this example, somehow I can't imagine a company that has a Replicator product and wouldn't jack up the price of it because that's the way of business: profit. Even when it's matters of life and death.
I think you are more or less biased because of an evolutionary trait for information to filter first through the amygdala then the rest of the brain and positive information actually gets thrown to the wayside. Everything eventually becomes democratized. If you described the world today to a person 50-100 years ago they would say that it's too optimistic. free education, internet allowing everyone to have access to more books and knowledge than the library of congress and instant communication. The world will not stay the same and neither do companies. First off all many companies are trying to keep up. On average 15 years is the time a company will be disrupted, i.e. an industry will be deemed moot. We'll have the ability to have internet free because google and facebook are both rushing to establish worldwide free internet using satellites, balloons, and drones. Companies are loosing power, government will probably not be the same 100 years from now either, so who's to say anything.
Let's not attack the arguer, alright? As far as telling people 100 years ago about our time would we just explain the good parts and leave out the bad parts? As far as companies losing power, I'll believe it when it happens completely and I'll gladly admit to being wrong. After all, we've been wrong about predicting the future before. So perhaps something in the middle might happen.
+JohanStarDragon Not attacking you specifically it's a bias in all of us. I was just pointing that we all have ways of looking at things. I used to look at the world exactly like you and now I don't. I've seen it from both perspectives. it's not about predicting the future it's happening now. kodak is gone replaced overnight. similarly innovation replaces with democratized information. for example people don't pay for cds or even individual songs now they can pay monthly and have access to all the songs they want. 3d printing has made it so that divergent industries, a new car manufacturer can set up new companies complete with design for a couple million--previously(4 years ago it costed close to a billion to start a competitive car company). Things are getting cheaper, and even free in some cases, more widespread, and democratized. in the early 2000s college researchers put the entire dna of smallpox one of the deadliest diseases online. and the way information and the future is heading companies and the government can't catch up, it's a fucking powerhouse and things are super hard to regulate. With one replicator, which by the way would probably be cheap because of the raw materials needed, it could replicate the materials for another one. Or one of the hundreds of crowdfunded research facilities, or even independent or private groups would create another in a matter of years if that. from then if it's illegally given to someone they can scan it and democratize the information so anyone can create it. essentially making everyone rich and not dependent which wouldn't be a bad thing for companies. all companies want is money. they need money to buy materials and feed themselves. Essentially replicators make having a company a moot point as creating materials is free and food is free and abundant. . .
they wouldn't be a parasite if they aren't living off anyone else. there'd be no reason for most people to work, people work to produce things. if there is nothing to produce then labor would be obsolete. Scientists and artists who create new things would still have reason to work but that's about it.
+campbecc Exactly. I believe in a Utopian society which consists of 'parasites' people will tend towards doing more with their life, be it education or leisure. Not to mention the fact that the replicator can not provide things such as Social experiences but can easily act as a medium for it.
The problem of the uselessness of people will come way before the molecular replicator... We just need to wait until robots substitutes most of humans jobs and we will face that uselessness problem
"Maybe a few parasite types might exist, but what does it matter, it is their choice then and nobody should bother it, because they aren't taking from anyone." It isn't a problem unless the number of parasite types reach a certain critical mass. ...then it becomes a huge problem.
Exactly. In that ideal case there is no such thing as a parasite. Retired people go decades without working. There're perfectly healthy lifestyles that emerge from this. This would probably happen to a greater extent with resource abundance. No sane person in such a society would work for basic resources I think novelty would be the new hot commodity. There will always be human desires that are too grandiose for the current technology. This will create a limited supply which human will fight for
Even if (or when) the replicator is made by humans, I don't think people will have nothing to trade. Technology has advanced much over the years but jobs don't decrease, we just find new ways to help each other and trade for that help. Creating a replicator when you don't have one, diagnosing problems with your replicator, fixing those problems, designing art, counciling, prostitution, and even rare metals (I mention this because human bodies cannot change atoms and the sun's functions are quite dangerous for household use) are some things I can think of which could still be important things to do in the future. People of the past could not fathom the jobs we have today, and I think people of today similarly cannot fathom many of the jobs of the future.
Well, with fusion you can create heavier atoms from lighter atoms and with fission you can do the opposite... So, it´s theoretically possible to change anything into anything... But I think what he meant was just an example and not based on real life.
Well I think man is predictable. We are curious, we'll work as hard as we can to understand the molecular replicator and not stop there. We are impatient, we'll build it the second we are able to without enough consideration, one group of people will own it. We want to feel good, we'll somehow work to help everyone get a hold of the replicator as quasi we are sincere, but abuse every kind of power that comes with it for a long time. After all, now adaptation to technology is part of human evolution, and Utopian societies cannot be flawless.I think we should chill about all this exciting new stuff and reconsider our way of advancing to another type of civilization as a planet.
What a needlessly pessimistic way of seeing things. If a society is built upon freedom and self determination, and each individual has his basic needs fulfilled, and the motivation behind excessive greed is eliminated in a post scarcity economy, there would be no need for conflict or spite between two human beings. People would no longer be obsessed with the accumulation of things. Hunger and suffering would be eliminated, and we would have grown out of our infancy. That's the endgame. Sure, it could still exist, but it would have no reason to. And despite what you may think, no human wants to hate. Hate is not naturally acquired, it is taught.
Triannosaurus I think you're misunderstanding that analogy. It means that as a species humanity collectively would have achieved a godly level of power. Everyone is equally at an advantage, on equal footing, and collectively they uphold humanity's power. There isn't anything to gain in terms of personal ambition, except in terms of power. And to get to the top of the scale of power, hard work has to be done to increase rank. Gone would be the motivation for people to scheme and take material things away from others in order to gain rank in the social hierarchy, and if they did nothing would be lost or gained on either side. We have to think outside of modern capitalist ideology, where in order for one person to prosper, he has to stand on the backs of the less fortunate. This socialist society is COMPLETELY egalitarian, excluding politics. I feel you should watch Star Trek, namely the Next Generation. It holds a unique way of seeing the future, and as Kaku describes in this video, it's a viable one.
Harbinger Reaper I see where your coming from, but it still doesn't change my views on it. There will always be evil in the world, even if we are free from scarcity.
I've been asking myself these same questions for 20 years since I learned of nanotech. One more thing...someday soon we will download our medication. Once downloaded we'll place our finger on a small box which has taken the downloaded "recipe", made the chemistry, and hyposprays it into our finger.
Kaku, you first stated that humans have the need to make a contribution, doing something, then you say if we aren't obeyed to have jobs that changes it. I lack to see the correlation. If there would be no jobs, these motivations would not change, actually with more access people would invent more etc. Resources scarcity doesn’t exist now, it’s only establish by our actual economic system (Savage-Capitalism). Scarcity gives more value to a resource for example. Just look at your TV, there are billions of them, small, big, giants, and are made to last few years. Imagine if we made the best tv with top technology (extendable in size, durable, etc) to everyone in the world. We would use less resources than now. We can feed everyone in the world yesterday, it’s just that the markets have no profit at selling food to poor people. See its this things that scream, lets put a science based economy (Resource Based Economy) in the place of these philosophical idea (Capitalism) that will never resolve problems like war, starvation and wealth to everyone, unsustainability...
I wish that time would come, not because it would make life easy, but because that would allow for everyone to focus on things they truly want to do instead of sacrificing their dreams for work.
religion keeps people in line by the threat of some after death judgment of their actions. Morality through fear leaves some very large gaps and is subject to severe misinterpretations. If it were up to me id add ethics and different kinds of psychology/sociology classes to the curriculum starting with the 5th grade. Understanding and education will take you farther then blind faith and fear of the after life dictating ones actions. One should do the right thing because they understand the impact of their decisions, not because it was written in some book thousands of years ago.
Well that seems to be what is happening. We keep creating new tools, and we continue to become capable of more things everyday. I hope you know that when the government creates something new they test it out for fifty years before releasing it to the public. It's not like everyone owns tank. Sometimes power falls into the hands of a genocidal maniac. People tend to do the right thing. God allows it. Christians are naturally paranoid.
AlzFrodo I've heard the voice of God, he would rather I become independent for the system. They are corrupt, and yes he allows it. I was a chid being abused, and he told me who to tell.
why can't we have both? a spiritually-enlightened utopia? I believe the bible calls this "heaven", and even says this heaven will come to earth one day. how do you suppose that's gonna happen?
That's what they call "self-actualization." Consider this: "Many of the normal motives of civilized life-snobbishness, money-grubbing, fear of the boss, etc.-had ceased to exist." George Orwell - Homage to Catalonia page 104. It seems when the situation improves, ie. more freedom and equality, people's behavior also improves. I would think the same w the end of economic and social alienation. You're comment about an artistic world reminds me of the Situationist and their New Babylon project.
In the fifth century B.C., the Chinese philosopher Mo Ti noted that a pinhole can form an inverted and focused image, when light passes through the hole and into a dark area. Writing in the fourth century B.C., Aristotle also mentioned this principle. By the fifteenth century, artists and scientists were using this phenomenon to make observations. So the original camera was not invented for the military. The military just took the already thought of idea and enhanced it for their own purposes.
Look at Neil Gershenfeld's talks at the MIT site, the replicator isn't 100 years away, it's 20 years away (or so their roadmap suggests). Remember the Star Trek communicator, StarTrek started in 1966, cell phones were available (but expensive in 1983 (the Dynatek brick phone) and the first clamshell phone (reminecent of the StarTrek communicator was released in 1996 Motorolla's StarTAC).
Worst case, we'll end up like in the movie Idiocracy. But I think you hit the nail on the head, and not just developing our creativity but also experiencing other people's creativity. We'll still need currency to essentially buy other people's time, such as watching a musical, dance, or athletic performance. And we'll still want to watch new movies or read new books. And it's not just artistic creativity, but we'll still need emergency workers, ethicists, scientists, teachers, athletes, etc.
Dr. Kaku is one of the most intelligent people on Earth today, listening to his words is pure entertainment and brain candy. A sad day will be when I run out of Dr. Kaku videos to watch :(
As a biologist, I have to correct Dr. Kaku and say that ribosomes synthesize proteins, not DNA. In fact, it is the special class of molecular machine called DNA polymerases that synthesize DNA.
He has a very good point of material needs being covered. However, as we all know, we have many crucial needs that cannot be fulfilled by physical things (i.e. knowledge of oneself, knowledge of nature, affection, connection etc.). I think it will be great time to finally focus on the really important issues and questions that we have to overlook today because they don't have immediate practical value and we still need to make a living. Such a scenario should be particularly exciting for a physicist since we still know so little about where the universe came from, what's the drill with dark matter and other important research that can't be done today because of material limitations.
By reconstructing the nucleus of the atom as well as the electron configuration, altering elements is a viable possibility to out pace scarcity. It takes a substantial amount of energy at the moment but with the right combination of chemistry and physics it can be done efficiently.
I'm pretty sure that Professor Kaku doesn't try and pass himself off as a God among men. He actually seems incredibly humble. He presents new ideas based on the laws of physics and modern day science, though there is no way of completely proving (or disproving) the validity of his statements until technology catches up with his visions. So your arguments for why he is "stupid" and how he "doesn't know shit" can't really hold up under scrutiny. But to be honest, I am slightly in love with him.
The philosophical point of view that Mr. Kaku is, apparently, espousing does not take into account the fact that people, human beings, are the ultimate adaptive species. While it may be true that at the start of a utopian era there will be some portion of humanity that chooses to ignore the needs of the many to selfishly pursue their own interests, I believe this will be a short lived phenomena. We will adapt. We will grow. We will build. For the betterment of us all.
"People say that the monetary system produces incentive this may be true in limited areas but it also produces GREED,embezzlement,corruption, pollution,jealousy,anger,crime,war,poverty,tremendous scarcity, and unnecessary human suffering.Human behavior is subject to the same laws as any other natural phenomenon.No one is born with greed, prejudice, bigotry, patriotism and hatred; these are all learned behavior patterns. If the environment is unaltered,similar behavior will reoccur" Jacque Fresco
ANSWER: "The Anarchists were still in virtual control of Catalonia and the revolution was still in full swing. To anyone who had been there since the beginning it probably seemed even in December or January that the revolutionary period was ending; but when one came straight from England the aspect of Barcelona was something startling and overwhelming. It was the first time that I had ever been in a town where the working class was in the saddle." George Orwell - Homage to Catalonia page 4.
he has a point. You can't make glass into wood by reassembling matter at the atomic level, you would have to go to subatomic level, that's not nanotechnology, not even pico- or femto-, that's attotechnology
What happens when you no longer have to work for what you want, and you are readily provided with everything you want is that art, pleasure, and enlightenment become the focus of a society.
he talks about labor like it wouldn't be made obsolete by a replicator. a post scarcity society would have a completely new relationship to work, as it would no longer be a requirement.
You can have only one top foor in the building. People will compete for that or something else to be above others. It is in our nature. It keeps us going.
Now this is what I love about science and technology. It helps to make things more affordable for people. When matter replicators become a reality, there won’t be a fucking class system anymore, no more wars or crime since one of the main reasons for it is a lack of resources, more people will go to college and be educated becuz people won’t have to pay for that shit anymore but too bad I’ll be an old man wen it’s commercially available but my children or grandchildren will be alive to see it and live in a world that is a much better place.
Lack of motivation in a world so abundant doesn't make sense to me. The more "free" time I have the happier I am. The happier I am, the more productive and socially coherent I am. Never created anything for survival tickets.
I believe that when a utopia is finally created (if we get that far), that is when humanity will truly begin to start working maybe not instantly but eventually we will start working together on really meaningful and deep issues in the world and that in general the human experience and consciousness will be of a higher quality and more enjoyable. No more working 9-5 to on assembly line or whatever for someones egotistical needs. But rather begin to appreciate and understand life on a daily basis
Yes, because only people who belong to a certain group would hate when someone says that group doesn't exist. Especially when the person who said 500,000 people didn't exist was trying to TEACH people. I mean, who could possibly hate that? Oh right, INTELLIGENT PEOPLE.
Mr Kaku you are underestimating humanity. HOw could the same being that created nanotechnology refused do work? People refused to work on this actual caos society because they have no opportunity to do what they want to do.
I do read books actually. I've actually read a brief history of time, though it was quite complex (and most of it was quite over whelming!), I found a lot of the concepts quite interesting. The reason I and many others like Professor Kaku is because his ideas are fantastical and futuristic, and based on solid science. I think his show "Sci-Fi Science" is him in a nutshell. So basically, the reason you don't like him is because he is famous? And because people like his theories? C'mon.
This concept is a fun one to think of. I was caught off guard when I looked up from what I was doing to realize he is a bit drunk. Red eyed, red cheeks. He must have sat down with a few friends and a couple of cold ones before recording this. I am no where near as bright as this man. But I got to say, subversive? I do not think that word means what you think it means. For a man like this, I guess this is just fun to do any way. Cheers to utopia.
He was being quick to the point. Would you rather he explains the processes of Transcription and Translation instead? You're right, but for layman's sake it makes for an easier understanding.....But don't get me wrong, as a med student I appreciate a good Okazaki Fragment or Phosphodiester Linkage as much as the next guy
Glass and wood have some similar atoms like silicone, oxygen, carbon, and hydrogen. To be fair to you though, you probably would need additional materials to get all of the atoms that are needed to create wood since wood is pretty complex, but that might not even be a necessity if the technology can do nuclear fusion/fission.
my point is... the question is not what will happend, but what we will do with it... creativity will grow greatly when freedom of every resourse to get is avalable when creating something, even today, the only limmitations you have are what you can think of. it wont change much in future, but it will grow.
Some physicists believe that first lab testing of replicating technology will occur in 15-20 years. And when replicator become available there will still be some jobs left: scientists, entertainment industry (actors, singers, clothes designers, ect) and luxury services (something like geisha for the wealthy).
I believe even with a replicator the law of economics will still exist (particularly micro-economics). A fundamental rule of economics lies on the value of goods being based on scarcity. 2 points to this: 1) the reason why we use gold as a monetary base is because of its scarcity as a commodity. (Yes, some people may say that we moved a floating dollar in the 70's but the reality is central banks still rely on gold reserves as a proxy in global monetary exchanges). 2) the basis of bitcoin relies to an element of productivity/scarcity. Bitcoins are numbers found after solving a complex equation. The reason why this is used is because it requires computing power (energy and capital) and time which makes the product scarce. Now going back on the replicator, by its nature the replicator will use energy, raw material and time to replicate. Hence the products that are most difficult (costly/challenging) to replicate will be the ones that are the most scare, hence likely of most value. So going back on the example. Probably as pointed out glass may become a commodity because it would be easy to replicate but making a lightsaber may be more difficult because it requires a rare crystal. So companies that can make lightsabers would be considered more valuable than those that make making glass. Hence I believe the laws of economics will still exist even with the replicator and so will the stock market and brokers.
It would be the golden age where the main per suit of society would be based not on the ability to preserve or concentrate but judged by the level of wisdom one has
Hunter and gatherer populations have had infinite abundance for thousands of years without conflicts. You can even see it today in certain indigenous populations in the Amazon and Congo basin. Having a system based on scarcity with monetization leveling the playing field is a new concept.
That doesn't mean that progress would stop. Priorities and goals might shift upward. Think of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. People's desires might actually elevate rather than stagnate.
When you have replicators, there's no point for work anymore anyways...the only point is to pursue your passions and your dreams....we become the 'brains' of our civilization while the replicators and robots become the 'brawn'...sounds like paradise.
If you mean Trek, they did have a moneyless society: Gillian: "Don't tell me, they don't use money in the 23rd century?" Kirk: "Well, we don't." And in revolutionary Spain: "Money has been abolished. Neither the standard currency of Spain (the peseta) nor local money is used in transactions within or between any of the collectives of the county or district." The Anarchist Collectives by Sam Dolgoff. When's our turn?
Want to get Smarter, Faster?
Subscribe for DAILY videos: bigth.ink/GetSmarter
Everytime this guy presents an idea; i sit and poder it for hours; Quite a good investment. 5 minutes of his time turns into hours of my time
Now I know where my time goes.
Yeah mine is same
Yeah, just like in Inception
This dude is my hero, and hes from my home town in California, san jose.
Vry convinient hero u have
Even if 10-20% of people become parasitic shut ins, I truly believe it would free up people to pursue their dreams and passions in lieu of settling for a job out of necessity. People whom dream of becoming a writer will be encouraged by social conditions to pursue a career in writing. Let people travel, paint, cook, write, tinker, and philosophize. All it takes in one well placed note from a musician, or vision of a painter to inspire a scientist to create the next best thing.
Yes my dude. I like this idea.
I think that if you had infinite of everything, the only real thing of value would become human creativity and knowledge. We would have a society completely fueled by art learning. because if you think about it, a Monet painting is not valuable because of the paint and canvas that it's made of, it's valuable because of how, and more importantly, why it was created. The society would have no worries of money or power, so they could instead of working to keep the world alive, start working on learning more about the world around them and reflecting it in their stories and art.
It's so deep!
Very well said. I understand that the elimination of an obstacle would bring fourth new and wider facets of challenges, thus paving way for new types of creativity.
What cannot be priced has real value.
Nikolaos Skordilis well said
*****
Kaku and a lot of other techno-utopians dodge this fundamental point over and over. WWI and II did not break out because of scarcity. They happened because the human mind is flawed. The only way to create lasting happiness is by addressing the issues with the mind at the root level. Nanotechnology could actually help us to do that, but not in the way Kaku is talking about here.
He is referring to the final episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation season 1, "The Neutral Zone".
as technology advances but our economies and societies don't advance at the same rate, we will either adapt to too these changes or these changes will end us.
Thomas Malthus' theory of population expansion also here, population grows geometrically, but resources only grow arithmetically
@@Topspeedcraft thomas malthus was wrong though because technology grows geometrically so resource extraction grows geometrically, thus being able to keep up with population
I think that by the time nano tech is produced, robots will have taken most of the work force. Everyone is scientist or computer technician or anything that needs intellect and consciousness like artist and musician. People will work because they themselves want to work, No one will be forced to do anything, that is true freedom and that is utopia. Nano tech will break the boundary of what we think is reality right now.
If you can create anything you want out of nothing then why would we need money, which is going to work when they can just replicate what they have over and over again? If you think about it people won’t own anything, they can own everything they would like. A scarcity-free society that doesn't doesn’t have to do work because there is no more work left, where all your wants and needs are fulfilled. And once the robotization of the entire workforce is complete, there won’t be any more jobs left for humans to do because we can’t compete with a robot. Doctors are robots, teachers are robots, soldiers are robots, and architects are robots. What jobs are left for humans? Who’d hire a human when you can get a cheaper and more efficient robot in its place?
+nintendude60
Raw materials are never a problem; there are tons of raw
materials in our own universe. Look at asteroids for example, One single
asteroid in our solar system has $95.8 (£60) trillion of mineral
wealth inside it - nearly the same as the annual GDP of the entire WORLD. NASA
even found a whole planet made out of diamond. Of course there is the problem
of getting there and mining the asteroids but overall there will be so much raw
materials that we will never run out. No element is rare, gold, diamond,
platinum all lose their value and are common place as rock. And then thing how
easy it will be to make all those stuff: boat, car, airplane, spaceship… and
even land. If you seen the movie Elysium they created a huge space station that
the rich and powerful. Imagine having millions of those to support the growing
population. Like the movie transcendence nanobots will be everywhere creating anything
want and the only thing that limits you is your imagination. And as for the
robots, no one owns them. Just like no one owns the moon, Self replicating
robots that are everywhere building everything even inside your body, fixing up
your organs and your cells, reversing aging, upgrading your body at a genetic
level. You see why no one can own these bots considering any one that owns
these bots will be at a god level and can literally control everything.
Yeah but if the robots mine the asteroids and bring the minerals back here
any person can have access
no one, they just self replicating robots that have a per-programmed task of listening to humans.
Utopia isn't a place. It's a state of mind.
Well said my friend, I can see light in your philosophy. :D
Interesting theory, but it's hard to get into a utopian state of mind when I can't afford rent.
www9311
EXACTLY!!! I'm old enough to remember when there was no such thing as robots in the workplace... before they used them to build cars in Detroit. I watched as the high tech machines began to slowly replace the factory workers until their were hardly any. Now, there's no more Detroit. This is PRECISELY why I continue to criticize Dr. Kaku. For as much as I like the guy, he only looks at the positive side of technology, without ever discussing the other, negative aspects of it. WE NEED MORE JOBS, NOT MORE TOYS.
tiffsaver So you want everyone to produce less efficiently just so that you can keep getting paid to do a job you aren't good at? Just take welfare. That way you'd actually be less of a drain on the economy than if you got in the way of a robot building my car better than you.
www9311
Dear www.WhatTheFuck.com:
What the hell does "welfare" have to do with robots and replacing people with automation, you ignorant moron? Do not respond to any of my posts, don't even READ them. You're certifiable.
Dr. Kaku, you inspire me to live just to see what the future holds!!
And I like ya' and I want cha'
Every Michio Kaku video I watch put the biggest smile on my face. I love him!
we all love Michio. One of the most brilliant minds of our time.
How can you label people as parasites in a society where there is no need for human labor?
I agree. In a world where there is no need for labour, everyone will have their own philosophical function, even if it's just knowing people and interacting with them and being part of their story.
It's hard for a Japanese or American to imagine a welfare state where everything is just handed out to you. Go to the Philippines, and believe me, Filipinos will have no existential angst in answering that "infinite plenty" dilemma
no he;s is just being realistic , he knows humans dont care enough and are not all educated enough to realize the true value of life , humans will become parasites if left unchecked - Wall E is a perfect example , star trek is a nice fantasy but the powers which control governments wont allow for money to end , they need it to control human beings on EARTH
mel saint Because the capitalist fucked the Japanese and the American real good
Light oF Chicago Because WALL-E is such a perfect example
We can finally self actualize.
Michio Kaku, you are the man! You explain such a wide variety of things well, clearly, and at just the right pace. When you pop up on news shows, talk shows, whatever, my mom and I are always excited to watch.
And now, philosophy -- awesome!! :)
In star trek the replicator is essentially a molecular synthesiser or molecular factory. Today, there is barely any research into this tech. It's a desperately needed technology that need to be put into the public good.
"What is money"
I don't see how people would think everyone would sit on their bum all day. Maybe every once in a while, and especially if there was a transition from this system to that. But think about it. You do get bored eventually with doing nothing. Doing something valuable for society doesn't need to mean something as obvious as being a surgeon. Many people enjoy gardening, drawing, acting and in a society with the technology that eliminates scarcity for the necessities of life.... wouldn't people focus much more on aesthetics? And things that interest them? Think how far we could go if people were able to do exactly what they felt passion for. I wouldn't be sitting on my bum (well maybe I would, but it depends on what you are doing while sitting on your bum :) all day, I know that.
I would sit on my bum all day playing computer games.
I would immerse myself in the study of making music, dance and performing, regardless of how old I am. Why am I not doing it now? Because it doesn't pay for those scarce resources I need to live.
Some people argue that facing adversity builds character and that wouldn't exist without the incentive to work hard and earn it. In a utopia, i would imagine people would definitely be able to follow their dreams without slaving away at a corporation or do manual labor for dirt shit money, though.
bigknockersOO
I doubt that a "utopia" could ever exist in the true sense of the word. Adversity, depending on how you define that word, may always be a part of existence, even with an ideal world. There will always be new challenges, but it can be positive "adversity" rather than the negative adversity that is what we see so much of today.
krytonic0 I would LIVE the computer/video game >:D Why do we love them so much? Because we want to do what THEY do, no?
People keep saying that nobody would go to work but what they dont realize is that there would be no more work to go to.... Everyone would just do what ever they do when they got free time and for the most part that would be hobbies and if you look around there are hobbies for everything. Those who would do nothing, dont do anything today either. So in that sense nothing would change but nobody would work but do their hobbies
I remember thinking of a replicator in 3rd grade. Its really cool to see an actual physicist talk about what i dreamed of.
The real question is, if we ever design and successfully construct a replicator (it's possible that nanotechnology will not be enough and picotechnology will be required), a machine that can be made at any scale with reasonable cost and free abundant materials as a source, from micro for houses to mega for constructing entire buildings, do we go ahead with it or do we censor it for reasons of "financial freedom" and not having 90% of all people being overweight to really fat? If money was no object, needed no work and I could do almost anything would I stay at home all the time and fat myself to oblivion watching lame TV shows and commenting on TH-cam?
Hell no. I would barely stay home, travel as much as possible, visit the countries I have wanted to visit all over the years but I couldn't, write books for my pleasure and give them away for free, exercise, bungy jump, have more hobbies, parachute jump etc etc. I think this would be a perfect opportunity to not only fulfill my bucket list but also create a series of new bucket lists. Why would anyone want to rot away himself if he could do almost anything - with the only limit being how all this abundance would be shared and arranged? I do not think the societal rotting argument is valid at all.
yeah I know what you're saying. My question is, would the realizing of money as no object necessarily preclude the realizing of no societal rotting, or will we have to have some kind of social breakthrough before we are even able to conceive money in a completely symbolic light? Maybe at some crucial point in every person's educational development, every person is buying into a specific lie or maybe a series of strange ideas that rules out the possibility of moving into a stage like this.
If we had devices that could manufacture anything out of raw materials what would stop it from solving the obesity problem. What's to stop these nanobots from converting a human fat cells into something else. Instant weight loss. Also, the consequences for eating the food such as heart disease, high cholestorol, and so on and so forth would become a thing of the past as we could eat the food and have the full taste of the unhealthy food while nanobots in our body converted the food into nutritional substances. If the nanobots are breaking down items at the molecular level the possibilites are literally endless. The day society no longer has to be preoccupied with the acquisition of wealth and creating things for survival will begin the greatest human renaissance in history. Sure some people will sit in the house and rot as you say, but the nature of humans is to question and explore things that are not yet understood. When everyone had time and resources to fuel their curiosity the sheer magnitude of things that would blossum is truly mind boggling.
you forgot that life wasn't made for that purpose, changing natural balances will change everything and when i say everything i mean it. The world you know will never be the same again,giving the power of god to everyone will lead us in the most chaotic era of human history. The words i said dind't "pop" out of my head, this is real scenarios that already happened trough our history
I would indeed continue to write, paint, photograph, photoshop and live my life. Walk up to replicator and say, "Vodka Martini ~ stirred, not shaken."
In the meantime, we can also look forward to virtual reality. Once graphics get good enough (indistiguishable from the real world) and we finally achieve full 5 sense feedback (touch, smell, etc.), we will be able to experience, anything and everything we want.
***** Like drugs? It's weird that every time I think about Utopia I never add drugs into the mix. It's definitely interesting though. Who needs a Utopia if you can eternally pleasure yourself no matter what condition you in. You also just made me think about a virtual utopia in which we aren't even connected through the internet, instead we live in our own isolated "perfect" virtual universes. Fuck. This opens a whole new can of worms.
Or you could just directly stimulate the pleasure center of your brain and make you think you like everything a lot.
***** I wonder what humans would do in such a world. From my point, which is probably very naive, that really devalues existence. Damn. This blows my mind. If there were to be a god like the one in the bible, which I doubt, I would understand why introduce evil and pain in to the world. Then again, I probably only say that right now because I'm doing okay in life currently. I probably wouldn't be saying that if I were starving or being abused.
str8todamoney
*"I would understand why introduce evil and pain in to the world."*
The elimination of pain and suffering are not the only working motives. They are just a first step as they are major inhibitors to action and creativity.
*"I probably wouldn't be saying that if I were starving or being abused."*
Bless you for having insight enough to realize this. Surprisingly few take it that far. There are people who try to view the world through the eyes of others and people who don't. There is a gulf wider than the Grand Canyon between them.
*****
Heh, that's so right. Living things attribute value to things that help maintain life. To say something is of intrinsic value is to ignore this fundamental issue. The dead value nothing. Right, wrong, good and bad are intrinsically bound to our values which per force are intrinsically bound to our physio/psycho/social make up. If you change our physiology to one which is impervious to harm and our present notions of good and bad go out the window. What happens to "theft" if everything and anything you could want or have was freely available and readily accessible? What would fidelity matter in a world where babies were all made in labs and there was no venereal disease? These few examples hopefully illustrate how our notions arise from our inherited physiology and culture.
I could listen to this guy talk all day, such a brilliant mind 😜
Everybody would become equal! That makes for an happy future!! :D YAY!!
Udumfucc not necessarily
I learn alot of from you mr. Kaku. Your logic and theory are above the levels. I wish you long life and more birthdays to come.
just having michio kaku is utopia-beyond the speed of mind...-as allways perfect in this world in every.js
The corporate world would never allow replicators to common place.
Ivan Panchev Stopping human progress and suppressing technologies are two different things. Free electricity (Nikola Tesla), hydrogen fuel, cures for diseases, Just to name a few possibilities.
+Dave No, the corporate world will invent the replicator to sell to manufacturers. It will attempt to strictly control the technology via licensing, patents, and other legal methods. But they will ultimately fail because it only takes a single rogue agent to replicate a replicator and use the replicated replicator to replicate more replicators.
+Michael Hadida
REPLICATE-CEPTION
+Dave im sure it will get to the common place, it's just that the rich ones will always be better
Ivan Panchev they wont live worse than the poor
I can't even fathom how a government would function with near infinite resources. Why even have a government?
Why even work if you could simply ask for food, fuel, and everything in between?
I imagine a world like this might have a strange culture as well (why make music or art if there's no need for money?), but the scientific potential and advancement is incomprehensible to me.
And I like that.
HerrWagnerfreund i think your wrong. people do lots of things simply because they find them interesting. you seem to think that people need to be coerced into action. perhaps they are by boredom or desire for novelty, fun and innovation?
think back to when you were a child. you didn't do things for economic reward, you did them cos the were fun or interesting.
ichigo199 I did things for reward, but thats mostly because I was sick, I did need incentive to do something I didn't want to, like go out and mow the yard. Since I had grass allergies I would suffer doing this in 15 minutes I would be running inside sneezing and runny nosed, took me a whole day to get the yard mowed. Sometimes you do need to be coerced. Without work all we have left is working to better ourselves, but in the end people decide what that means to them, that could very well mean jsut sitting around, it could mean acting, or drawling. but I know that a life without reward, a life without conflict, really isn't much of a life at all.
im sure there will be plenty of rewards to be had in a post scarcity society.
you don't need to artificially enforce hardship on people to make them better themselves
Is here somebody, who can explain existence of 12 millions of volunteers?
It all depends on whether these infinite resources were controlled by the few or were available to everyone, maybe with everyone having a rather small scale replicator at home for everything a home needs. What about the materials required to feed them, would they be available to everyone -and for what, for free?- or could any material be used to make anything? How would these materials be made (unless anything could be used), by whom and why? The few would surely want to control the replicators, or at least their source materials. If anyone has a replicator and free access to the required materials that would by default make working obsolete.
Along with work and business money of any form would also become obsolete. Art, science, philosophy etc would turn into unpaid hobbies. Only volunteers would "work", exactly the same way the current volunteers work. Along the way there would have to be great advances in robotics and AI, for the completion of automation of all infrastructure, constructions, transportation, even all services. I predict not a few bored people would be found to volunteer for all that, maybe with an added incentive of higher level benefits that are not available to everyone having a replicator (just because you can create anything up to 1 meter size at home this does not help you travelling around the world every single day, some resources and services will have to be limited).
So while money would go away no-one would stop anyone bartering for instance a trip to Japan for something big he needs which he cannot create at home or that he cannot be given more of.
There is somebody know that star trek episode is talk about? But i love this man...
Daniele filipson tng the neutral zone. S1ep26
You are spot on...
We HAVE to have an imperfect society because if it was perfect, then no one would stand out as much as they do now. However, we should aim for perfection because even though it's impossible to have it perfect, trying to reach it is the best option.
For anyone who's curious, the episode Michio is taking about is actually an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation, "The Neutral Zone". However, the episode was set, I believe, in the year 2364, which would actually be the middle 24th Century. The episode had no commentary on nanotechnology, and Star Trek has never made claim that the replicator was based on nanotechnology. Also, the crew of the Enterprise certainly knew what money and a stockbroker were.
My take on the replicator that Dr. Kaku brought up I think is pretty optimistic, but given what I've seen tech companies do in America, and if such an invention were created, I imagine this happening:
Some company buys up the patent for a replicator and puts limits upon limits in its programming, such as you can't make paper money, gold, diamonds, weapons, etc. And then they jack the price up SO high that it is only affordable to the very rich of the world. And for things to be replicated you still have to pay for it. Imagine it being connected to the internet much like a Kindle or an iPhone. And to get something, like say a set of clothes, you'd have to access a clothing site through the replicator and pay for it to be replicated.
My reasoning behind this thinking is this: the iPhone, some of you might remember this but others it may take a while, but when the iPhone was released you had no choice of carrier, you had limited battery time and so on, so basically it was a very expensive brick. Thankfully, Apple did improve upon it but there are still problems. And that's what I see happening with the replicator if such an invention is made and we still have the same kind of economic models that we do today.
It makes me think of the film "Elysium" where people had a machine that could cure any kind of illness but it was only accessible to the very rich, while the very poor were just stuck with their disease or had to use other methods of medicine.
And that's what I see as far as a future for a replicator.
+JohanStarDragon unrealistic view of companies, their power and the kind of companies assuming power. Those companies will no longer exist. read Bold by peter diamandis it's an amazing book that shows the future of products and entrepreneurs smalll companies replacing and disrupting industries by relying on the power of society for interdependence as well as individual self empowerment.
Jake Mitchell
I think that's a little too optimistic. A real world example as far as the power and the kind of companies assuming power is this: Turing Pharmaceuticals bought up a drug called "Deraprim" which was once 7.50 a tablet. After Turing bought it, they jacked up the price to 700 dollars per tablet. Given this example, somehow I can't imagine a company that has a Replicator product and wouldn't jack up the price of it because that's the way of business: profit. Even when it's matters of life and death.
I think you are more or less biased because of an evolutionary trait for information to filter first through the amygdala then the rest of the brain and positive information actually gets thrown to the wayside. Everything eventually becomes democratized. If you described the world today to a person 50-100 years ago they would say that it's too optimistic. free education, internet allowing everyone to have access to more books and knowledge than the library of congress and instant communication. The world will not stay the same and neither do companies. First off all many companies are trying to keep up. On average 15 years is the time a company will be disrupted, i.e. an industry will be deemed moot. We'll have the ability to have internet free because google and facebook are both rushing to establish worldwide free internet using satellites, balloons, and drones. Companies are loosing power, government will probably not be the same 100 years from now either, so who's to say anything.
Let's not attack the arguer, alright?
As far as telling people 100 years ago about our time would we just explain the good parts and leave out the bad parts? As far as companies losing power, I'll believe it when it happens completely and I'll gladly admit to being wrong. After all, we've been wrong about predicting the future before. So perhaps something in the middle might happen.
+JohanStarDragon Not attacking you specifically it's a bias in all of us. I was just pointing that we all have ways of looking at things. I used to look at the world exactly like you and now I don't. I've seen it from both perspectives. it's not about predicting the future it's happening now. kodak is gone replaced overnight. similarly innovation replaces with democratized information. for example people don't pay for cds or even individual songs now they can pay monthly and have access to all the songs they want. 3d printing has made it so that divergent industries, a new car manufacturer can set up new companies complete with design for a couple million--previously(4 years ago it costed close to a billion to start a competitive car company). Things are getting cheaper, and even free in some cases, more widespread, and democratized. in the early 2000s college researchers put the entire dna of smallpox one of the deadliest diseases online. and the way information and the future is heading companies and the government can't catch up, it's a fucking powerhouse and things are super hard to regulate. With one replicator, which by the way would probably be cheap because of the raw materials needed, it could replicate the materials for another one. Or one of the hundreds of crowdfunded research facilities, or even independent or private groups would create another in a matter of years if that. from then if it's illegally given to someone they can scan it and democratize the information so anyone can create it. essentially making everyone rich and not dependent which wouldn't be a bad thing for companies. all companies want is money. they need money to buy materials and feed themselves. Essentially replicators make having a company a moot point as creating materials is free and food is free and abundant. . .
they wouldn't be a parasite if they aren't living off anyone else. there'd be no reason for most people to work, people work to produce things. if there is nothing to produce then labor would be obsolete. Scientists and artists who create new things would still have reason to work but that's about it.
+campbecc Exactly. I believe in a Utopian society which consists of 'parasites' people will tend towards doing more with their life, be it education or leisure. Not to mention the fact that the replicator can not provide things such as Social experiences but can easily act as a medium for it.
The problem of the uselessness of people will come way before the molecular replicator...
We just need to wait until robots substitutes most of humans jobs and we will face that uselessness problem
This is why I love Michio Kaku so much! My hero!
"Maybe a few parasite types might exist, but what does it matter, it is their choice then and nobody should bother it, because they aren't taking from anyone."
It isn't a problem unless the number of parasite types reach a certain critical mass.
...then it becomes a huge problem.
Exactly. In that ideal case there is no such thing as a parasite.
Retired people go decades without working. There're perfectly healthy lifestyles that emerge from this. This would probably happen to a greater extent with resource abundance. No sane person in such a society would work for basic resources
I think novelty would be the new hot commodity. There will always be human desires that are too grandiose for the current technology. This will create a limited supply which human will fight for
Even if (or when) the replicator is made by humans, I don't think people will have nothing to trade. Technology has advanced much over the years but jobs don't decrease, we just find new ways to help each other and trade for that help.
Creating a replicator when you don't have one, diagnosing problems with your replicator, fixing those problems, designing art, counciling, prostitution, and even rare metals (I mention this because human bodies cannot change atoms and the sun's functions are quite dangerous for household use) are some things I can think of which could still be important things to do in the future. People of the past could not fathom the jobs we have today, and I think people of today similarly cannot fathom many of the jobs of the future.
Nanotechnology will aid in the fight for supremacy, not utopia
That is a very profound and beautiful statement, "What is money?"
Well, with fusion you can create heavier atoms from lighter atoms and with fission you can do the opposite... So, it´s theoretically possible to change anything into anything... But I think what he meant was just an example and not based on real life.
I just know I would sit on my ass all day and watch 300 year old tv shows.
***** no, maybe, I would hope they have sex robots that look 99.9% real
Well I think man is predictable. We are curious, we'll work as hard as we can to understand the molecular replicator and not stop there. We are impatient, we'll build it the second we are able to without enough consideration, one group of people will own it. We want to feel good, we'll somehow work to help everyone get a hold of the replicator as quasi we are sincere, but abuse every kind of power that comes with it for a long time. After all, now adaptation to technology is part of human evolution, and Utopian societies cannot be flawless.I think we should chill about all this exciting new stuff and reconsider our way of advancing to another type of civilization as a planet.
As long as Humans have free will, there will never be a Utopia. If the Human race had the power of a god, we will be instinct in the matter of years.
What a needlessly pessimistic way of seeing things. If a society is built upon freedom and self determination, and each individual has his basic needs fulfilled, and the motivation behind excessive greed is eliminated in a post scarcity economy, there would be no need for conflict or spite between two human beings. People would no longer be obsessed with the accumulation of things. Hunger and suffering would be eliminated, and we would have grown out of our infancy. That's the endgame. Sure, it could still exist, but it would have no reason to. And despite what you may think, no human wants to hate. Hate is not naturally acquired, it is taught.
Harbinger Reaper So if we all had the power of a god, you don't think some crazy person would use those powers to his advantage?
Triannosaurus I think you're misunderstanding that analogy. It means that as a species humanity collectively would have achieved a godly level of power. Everyone is equally at an advantage, on equal footing, and collectively they uphold humanity's power. There isn't anything to gain in terms of personal ambition, except in terms of power. And to get to the top of the scale of power, hard work has to be done to increase rank. Gone would be the motivation for people to scheme and take material things away from others in order to gain rank in the social hierarchy, and if they did nothing would be lost or gained on either side. We have to think outside of modern capitalist ideology, where in order for one person to prosper, he has to stand on the backs of the less fortunate. This socialist society is COMPLETELY egalitarian, excluding politics. I feel you should watch Star Trek, namely the Next Generation. It holds a unique way of seeing the future, and as Kaku describes in this video, it's a viable one.
Harbinger Reaper I see where your coming from, but it still doesn't change my views on it. There will always be evil in the world, even if we are free from scarcity.
Triannosaurus That seems rather dogmatic of you. Where's your argument?
I've been asking myself these same questions for 20 years since I learned of nanotech. One more thing...someday soon we will download our medication. Once downloaded we'll place our finger on a small box which has taken the downloaded "recipe", made the chemistry, and hyposprays it into our finger.
I believe that capt. picard said that without the need for material things, humans have instead embraced the concept of improving themselves.
Kaku, you first stated that humans have the need to make a contribution, doing something, then you say if we aren't obeyed to have jobs that changes it. I lack to see the correlation. If there would be no jobs, these motivations would not change, actually with more access people would invent more etc.
Resources scarcity doesn’t exist now, it’s only establish by our actual economic system (Savage-Capitalism). Scarcity gives more value to a resource for example.
Just look at your TV, there are billions of them, small, big, giants, and are made to last few years. Imagine if we made the best tv with top technology (extendable in size, durable, etc) to everyone in the world. We would use less resources than now.
We can feed everyone in the world yesterday, it’s just that the markets have no profit at selling food to poor people. See its this things that scream, lets put a science based economy (Resource Based Economy) in the place of these philosophical idea (Capitalism) that will never resolve problems like war, starvation and wealth to everyone, unsustainability...
Just take my money! :D
what is money???! XD
Japanese genes
asian..
I wish that time would come, not because it would make life easy, but because that would allow for everyone to focus on things they truly want to do instead of sacrificing their dreams for work.
JC Denton, at your service.
My vision of the planet is augmented.
this is why humans need GOD! because we take things over board when we have nothing to believe in besides our own imagination
Yeh lets give humans less boundaries and rules to ruin the world even more. Good idea
religion keeps people in line by the threat of some after death judgment of their actions. Morality through fear leaves some very large gaps and is subject to severe misinterpretations.
If it were up to me id add ethics and different kinds of psychology/sociology classes to the curriculum starting with the 5th grade. Understanding and education will take you farther then blind faith and fear of the after life dictating ones actions.
One should do the right thing because they understand the impact of their decisions, not because it was written in some book thousands of years ago.
Well that seems to be what is happening. We keep creating new tools, and we continue to become capable of more things everyday.
I hope you know that when the government creates something new they test it out for fifty years before releasing it to the public.
It's not like everyone owns tank.
Sometimes power falls into the hands of a genocidal maniac.
People tend to do the right thing.
God allows it.
Christians are naturally paranoid.
AlzFrodo I've heard the voice of God, he would rather I become independent for the system. They are corrupt, and yes he allows it.
I was a chid being abused, and he told me who to tell.
why can't we have both? a spiritually-enlightened utopia? I believe the bible calls this "heaven", and even says this heaven will come to earth one day. how do you suppose that's gonna happen?
That's what they call "self-actualization." Consider this: "Many of the normal motives of civilized life-snobbishness, money-grubbing, fear of the boss, etc.-had ceased to exist." George Orwell - Homage to Catalonia page 104. It seems when the situation improves, ie. more freedom and equality, people's behavior also improves. I would think the same w the end of economic and social alienation. You're comment about an artistic world reminds me of the Situationist and their New Babylon project.
In the fifth century B.C., the Chinese philosopher Mo Ti noted that a pinhole can form an inverted and focused image, when light passes through the hole and into a dark area. Writing in the fourth century B.C., Aristotle also mentioned this principle. By the fifteenth century, artists and scientists were using this phenomenon to make observations.
So the original camera was not invented for the military. The military just took the already thought of idea and enhanced it for their own purposes.
Look at Neil Gershenfeld's talks at the MIT site, the replicator isn't 100 years away, it's 20 years away (or so their roadmap suggests). Remember the Star Trek communicator, StarTrek started in 1966, cell phones were available (but expensive in 1983 (the Dynatek brick phone) and the first clamshell phone (reminecent of the StarTrek communicator was released in 1996 Motorolla's StarTAC).
Worst case, we'll end up like in the movie Idiocracy. But I think you hit the nail on the head, and not just developing our creativity but also experiencing other people's creativity. We'll still need currency to essentially buy other people's time, such as watching a musical, dance, or athletic performance. And we'll still want to watch new movies or read new books. And it's not just artistic creativity, but we'll still need emergency workers, ethicists, scientists, teachers, athletes, etc.
Dr. Kaku is one of the most intelligent people on Earth today, listening to his words is pure entertainment and brain candy. A sad day will be when I run out of Dr. Kaku videos to watch :(
As a biologist, I have to correct Dr. Kaku and say that ribosomes synthesize proteins, not DNA. In fact, it is the special class of molecular machine called DNA polymerases that synthesize DNA.
He has a very good point of material needs being covered. However, as we all know, we have many crucial needs that cannot be fulfilled by physical things (i.e. knowledge of oneself, knowledge of nature, affection, connection etc.). I think it will be great time to finally focus on the really important issues and questions that we have to overlook today because they don't have immediate practical value and we still need to make a living. Such a scenario should be particularly exciting for a physicist since we still know so little about where the universe came from, what's the drill with dark matter and other important research that can't be done today because of material limitations.
By reconstructing the nucleus of the atom as well as the electron configuration, altering elements is a viable possibility to out pace scarcity. It takes a substantial amount of energy at the moment but with the right combination of chemistry and physics it can be done efficiently.
Now: 12AM... thinking... damn I start watching Michio Kaku's videos at 9PM damn I love listening to this man!
I'm pretty sure that Professor Kaku doesn't try and pass himself off as a God among men. He actually seems incredibly humble. He presents new ideas based on the laws of physics and modern day science, though there is no way of completely proving (or disproving) the validity of his statements until technology catches up with his visions. So your arguments for why he is "stupid" and how he "doesn't know shit" can't really hold up under scrutiny. But to be honest, I am slightly in love with him.
So glad I subscribed to this channel. This is awesome.
The philosophical point of view that Mr. Kaku is, apparently, espousing does not take into account the fact that people, human beings, are the ultimate adaptive species. While it may be true that at the start of a utopian era there will be some portion of humanity that chooses to ignore the needs of the many to selfishly pursue their own interests, I believe this will be a short lived phenomena. We will adapt. We will grow. We will build. For the betterment of us all.
"People say that the monetary system produces incentive this may be true in limited areas but it also produces GREED,embezzlement,corruption, pollution,jealousy,anger,crime,war,poverty,tremendous scarcity, and unnecessary human suffering.Human behavior is subject to the same laws as any other natural phenomenon.No one is born with greed, prejudice, bigotry, patriotism and hatred; these are all learned behavior patterns. If the environment is unaltered,similar behavior will reoccur" Jacque Fresco
ANSWER: "The Anarchists were still in virtual control of Catalonia and the revolution was still in full swing. To anyone who had been there since the beginning it probably seemed even in December or January that the revolutionary period was ending; but when one came straight from England the aspect of Barcelona was something startling and overwhelming. It was the first time that I had ever been in a town where the working class was in the saddle." George Orwell - Homage to Catalonia page 4.
he has a point. You can't make glass into wood by reassembling matter at the atomic level, you would have to go to subatomic level, that's not nanotechnology, not even pico- or femto-, that's attotechnology
"There are only two tragedies in life. One is not getting what one wants. The other is getting it." - Oscar Wilde
What happens when you no longer have to work for what you want, and you are readily provided with everything you want is that art, pleasure, and enlightenment become the focus of a society.
he talks about labor like it wouldn't be made obsolete by a replicator. a post scarcity society would have a completely new relationship to work, as it would no longer be a requirement.
You can have only one top foor in the building. People will compete for that or something else to be above others. It is in our nature. It keeps us going.
I mean, it's a pretty huge simplification of the Ribosome, but it certainly does the job of inciting interest in laymen.
Michio Kaku is probably the most interesting theoretical scientist to date.
Now this is what I love about science and technology. It helps to make things more affordable for people. When matter replicators become a reality, there won’t be a fucking class system anymore, no more wars or crime since one of the main reasons for it is a lack of resources, more people will go to college and be educated becuz people won’t have to pay for that shit anymore but too bad I’ll be an old man wen it’s commercially available but my children or grandchildren will be alive to see it and live in a world that is a much better place.
Lack of motivation in a world so abundant doesn't make sense to me. The more "free" time I have the happier I am. The happier I am, the more productive and socially coherent I am. Never created anything for survival tickets.
I believe that when a utopia is finally created (if we get that far), that is when humanity will truly begin to start working maybe not instantly but eventually we will start working together on really meaningful and deep issues in the world and that in general the human experience and consciousness will be of a higher quality and more enjoyable. No more working 9-5 to on assembly line or whatever for someones egotistical needs. But rather begin to appreciate and understand life on a daily basis
we can't go anywhere further without TECHNOLOGY
Yes, because only people who belong to a certain group would hate when someone says that group doesn't exist. Especially when the person who said 500,000 people didn't exist was trying to TEACH people. I mean, who could possibly hate that?
Oh right, INTELLIGENT PEOPLE.
This dude explained alchemy.. that's dope
Mr Kaku you are underestimating humanity. HOw could the same being that created nanotechnology refused do work? People refused to work on this actual caos society because they have no opportunity to do what they want to do.
The answer to what happens when we don't need to work, in my opinion, is the biggest revolution in arts the world will ever see.
There will always be scarcity, there will be things you cant change, love, emotion, human, living things
I love this guy. Dr. Kaku IS sickeningly smart and is also so accurate.
I do read books actually. I've actually read a brief history of time, though it was quite complex (and most of it was quite over whelming!), I found a lot of the concepts quite interesting. The reason I and many others like Professor Kaku is because his ideas are fantastical and futuristic, and based on solid science. I think his show "Sci-Fi Science" is him in a nutshell. So basically, the reason you don't like him is because he is famous? And because people like his theories? C'mon.
This concept is a fun one to think of. I was caught off guard when I looked up from what I was doing to realize he is a bit drunk. Red eyed, red cheeks. He must have sat down with a few friends and a couple of cold ones before recording this. I am no where near as bright as this man. But I got to say, subversive? I do not think that word means what you think it means. For a man like this, I guess this is just fun to do any way. Cheers to utopia.
increasing human knowledge would be the challenge for some part of the population
He was being quick to the point. Would you rather he explains the processes of Transcription and Translation instead? You're right, but for layman's sake it makes for an easier understanding.....But don't get me wrong, as a med student I appreciate a good Okazaki Fragment or Phosphodiester Linkage as much as the next guy
Glass and wood have some similar atoms like silicone, oxygen, carbon, and hydrogen. To be fair to you though, you probably would need additional materials to get all of the atoms that are needed to create wood since wood is pretty complex, but that might not even be a necessity if the technology can do nuclear fusion/fission.
my point is... the question is not what will happend, but what we will do with it... creativity will grow greatly when freedom of every resourse to get is avalable when creating something, even today, the only limmitations you have are what you can think of. it wont change much in future, but it will grow.
Some physicists believe that first lab testing of replicating technology will occur in 15-20 years. And when replicator become available there will still be some jobs left: scientists, entertainment industry (actors, singers, clothes designers, ect) and luxury services (something like geisha for the wealthy).
I believe even with a replicator the law of economics will still exist (particularly micro-economics). A fundamental rule of economics lies on the value of goods being based on scarcity. 2 points to this:
1) the reason why we use gold as a monetary base is because of its scarcity as a commodity. (Yes, some people may say that we moved a floating dollar in the 70's but the reality is central banks still rely on gold reserves as a proxy in global monetary exchanges).
2) the basis of bitcoin relies to an element of productivity/scarcity. Bitcoins are numbers found after solving a complex equation. The reason why this is used is because it requires computing power (energy and capital) and time which makes the product scarce.
Now going back on the replicator, by its nature the replicator will use energy, raw material and time to replicate. Hence the products that are most difficult (costly/challenging) to replicate will be the ones that are the most scare, hence likely of most value.
So going back on the example. Probably as pointed out glass may become a commodity because it would be easy to replicate but making a lightsaber may be more difficult because it requires a rare crystal. So companies that can make lightsabers would be considered more valuable than those that make making glass. Hence I believe the laws of economics will still exist even with the replicator and so will the stock market and brokers.
Yea I agree. The motives will change. But humans will always be curious and curiosity frequently leads to new knowledge and new applications.
I think it's about how the world system is changed.
Science may improve the world, but cannot make it perfect.
It would be the golden age where the main per suit of society would be based not on the ability to preserve or concentrate but judged by the level of wisdom one has
Maslove’s hierarchy of ideas suggest we would be motivated to work in more existential ways when freed from immediate wants.
Hunter and gatherer populations have had infinite abundance for thousands of years without conflicts. You can even see it today in certain indigenous populations in the Amazon and Congo basin. Having a system based on scarcity with monetization leveling the playing field is a new concept.
That doesn't mean that progress would stop. Priorities and goals might shift upward. Think of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. People's desires might actually elevate rather than stagnate.
If we could replicate everything including us then that would be a true utopia. No deaths, everyone lives forever. No fights, peace forever!
When you have replicators, there's no point for work anymore anyways...the only point is to pursue your passions and your dreams....we become the 'brains' of our civilization while the replicators and robots become the 'brawn'...sounds like paradise.
If you mean Trek, they did have a moneyless society:
Gillian: "Don't tell me, they don't use money in the 23rd century?"
Kirk: "Well, we don't."
And in revolutionary Spain:
"Money has been abolished. Neither the standard currency of Spain (the peseta) nor local money is used in transactions within or between any of the collectives of the county or district." The Anarchist Collectives by Sam Dolgoff.
When's our turn?