john grigg wrote:
> The transformation of our society due to biotech,
> nanotech, A.I. and other key technologies in my view may
> not result in over-night world-shaking changes.
I'm not aware of any 'fast burn' biotech scenarios, I imagine we'll see some press releases that will feel like over-night world-shaking changes to those of us with good imaginations. If we can build an assembler then that will create an over-night world-shaking change. I doubt we'll transcend but it would be a major turning point in human history. I have no idea how AI scales but there's still a chance (perhaps very small) a Singularitarian scenario might occur, but I doubt it.
> I see a slower, incremental approach. Of course much of
> how things develop will be determined by how society and
> government view these technologies.
How your government/society views technology will determine how successful your country is but the technology itself will not be changed (exceptions being the colour of Sony's new home cinema products, etc).
> [...]
> I sadly think the world of 2050 may have an even worse
> problem of the haves and the have-nots. I hope this is
> not so. And in this world the rich would have advantages
> over the poor and middle-class unimaginable in our time
> which could lead to greater social strife.
The poor are getting richer and perhaps the rich are getting even richer. I'm not sure if todays rich are able to abuse their money like the rich once were. Their money comes from the 'poor' and if they do anything the poor don't like the cash flow stops. Look at how careful Bill Gates is with not having an opinion, the rich have never been so powerless.
> [...]
BM