My Comments on Future Hype by Bob Seidensticker
I just finished reading “Future Hype” by Bob Seidensticker. This book really is all over the place. I was hoping for someone to challenge some of my views and give Kurzweil a run for his money but this book does not.
Source: Flickr
Most of the stuff in it is pretty straight-forward for anyone who has read Johan Norberg, Kurzweil or Hans Rosling. Some of the points in the book are not backed up by facts which was what really drove me nuts so lets start there. If this book was put on Wikipedia it would be full of those [citation needed] quotes.
Facts and Figures
A good example is this: Bob makes the argument that as the amount of information that we can communicate increases there is a fixed limit to the amount of relevant information being transmitted. By now all the extra communication space is just being used for less important information. He illustrates that by a graph that I am too lazy to scan and put here.
The graph is totally arbitrary. It serves as an illustration but there is no reference to how the graph was constructed. Is there any research backing it or is it just a belief by Bob? Personally I am always skeptic to graphs that don’t show any scales on the axes, but maybe that is just me.
As a similar exercise I created a graph showing how much new information the book contains given which page you are on.
Source: None. I just made this graph up. But that is obviously okay.
In an unexpected interesting twist the graph showing the amount of important information being transmitted actually contradicts an earlier statement in the book. Just a couple of pages earlier Bob talks about how vital the telegraph was to spreading information (giving an example on how the telegraph could have stopped entire battles in wars). Obviously the telegraph added relevant information and was just not “Tier 2″ or “Tier 3″ type of information.
I would argue that Bob is correct in one way: the amount of information is increasing but we humans can only process a limited amount of information. But as technology progresses it is easier to filter that information and ensure that we receive the right information at the right time. Nowadays I might receive an SMS alert saying that my flight is delayed, this is a new type of information I would not be able to receive just 10 years ago.
The Law of Accelerating Returns
Kurzweil famously stated the law of accelerating returns:
…we won’t experience 100 years of progress in the 21st century—it will be more like 20,000 years of progress (at today’s rate).
Source: Flickr
Bruce is doing his best to debunk the law. He gives an example of how railroads were being rolled out faster than the internet. He states that the only reason why TV could be rolled out so fast was that we already had radio and had learnt from that. And the only reason radio could spread so fast was that we already had electricity. But wait a minute here… isn’t this exactly what Kurzweil is arguing? To quote Kurzweil again: “technological change feeds on itself, and therefore accelerates”. So in a weird twist Bruce is actually arguing for the law of accelerating returns instead of debunking it.
The problem with choosing your horizon
The lack of references is a constant problem. One of those things is the talk around railways. According to Bruce the development of railways started in 1830 and just 20 years later the entire US was filled with railways. According to Wikipedia the first railway was built in 1350.
I am not saying that Bruce is inherently wrong. Maybe Bruce has a good argument for not starting to look at the development of railways since the dark ages, but that argument is missing and if someone is to convince me of something they will have to do alot better than this.
The problem with choosing your sources
As any good writer will tell you, you should save the best for last. And I have.
The book is littered with quotes of people that made false predictions around everything from energy (“everyone will have their own nuclear powerplant!”) to travel (“in just two years everyone will have their own jetplane!”) to internet (“the internet changes everything!“).
People have been wrong about the future in the past. Big deal. Nassim Nicholas Tasseb spent a whole book discussing how difficult it is to predict the future! There are even websites devoted to showing how people are doing when it comes to predicting the future.
I’m not even sure what “Future Hype” is trying to tell me. Grabbing quotes from different sources and saying “Hey these people were wrong about the future, so watch out, others will be wrong too!” isn’t really helpful.
And especially when it is not based on solid research.