Improving Our Standard of Living (Wattpad Edition)

Chapter 45: Is Futurism Religion?

Using hard data to make predictions isn't an example of faith or religion—even if those predictions are speculative. The reason is a concept called falsifiability. Something that's falsifiable can be disproven if certain conditions are met.

If I say I have a pencil that cannot be broken, that's an extreme assertion, but it's falsifiable. All someone has to do is break it.

But suppose I say there is an invisible pencil that cannot be detected by human instruments, cannot be felt, and cannot be broken. That is an unfalsifiable statement. It can neither be proven nor disproven. The supposed pencil can't even be observed.

Most religions describe gods or spirits or magics that cannot be scientifically observed or tested. Just like the invisible pencil. Or the imperceptible flying elephants that can hide their mass and air perturbations. These things are all unfalsifiable.

Now consider this prediction: "A typical computer in the year 2037 will probably be able to calculate roughly 1,000 times more data per second than the average PC today."

That's not a faith-based or religious statement because it's falsifiable. We've been measuring increases in computer performance since 1890. That's when the first computers were invented. They were mechanical. On average, computing power has increased by a factor of 1,000 every 20 years since 1890. Computers will either continue to improve until they are 1,000 times faster 20 years from now, or they won't. If they don't, they don't. End of story. The prediction is falsifiable.

Of course, improvements in computer performance may slow down. But the prediction that there's a good chance that computers will be 1,000 times more capable 20 years from now isn't unreasonable. It's not a superstitious-based prediction. Even though it may not come true, it's based on a well-established trend—not faith. Someone may have excessive confidence that computers will become that fast, but that doesn't make their belief a superstition. There's a difference between a prediction based on hard data and one based on nothing but faith.

Consider the following example:

When people cross a bridge, they have a degree of confidence that the bridge won't collapse under them. But that's not faith. It's calculated risk based on something that exists in the physical universe. There's a tiny probability that a bridge will collapse when someone is crossing it. Maybe an earthquake will happen. Maybe a ship will crash into it. Perhaps the structural integrity is compromised. The driver is taking a calculated risk and might be more or less confident than he or she should be. But that confidence is nevertheless based on something that exists in the physical universe and is affected by various contributing factors. The driver understands that. There is a small probability of the bridge collapsing when crossed. That's not faith. It's acceptable risk based on data gathered from the physical universe.

Religion is based entirely on faith and not at all on observations, experiments, and results that can be duplicated consistently.

One could argue that there is a probability of a particular religion being true. Scientology or Aztec paganism for example. But the probability itself cannot be established even remotely and is, therefore, unfalsifiable.

A Christian might say that we should become Christians just to play it safe. That way, if the Christian God is true, we can avoid the fires of Hell—kept alive by a devil that apparently has nothing better to do. But one could just as easily argue that the Christian should adopt the Mayan religion and offer the occasional human sacrifice—just to play it safe. Or perhaps the Christian should adopt Greco-Roman paganism, Hinduism, Islam, or Scientology. Each has penalties to the nonbeliever.

All religions are unfalsifiable. They can neither be proven nor disproven, at any point now or in the future. The spirits or other entities that the pious claim exist can't be observed. That's why faith is required, and why predictions based on religion—such as the Apocalypse—are invalid.

The Bible is not evidence that the superstition it's based on is true. It's merely proof that people wrote down their superstitious beliefs on paper. Countless religions have come and gone, and many of them were documented. But the documenting of a superstition is nothing more than that. It isn't proof that the religion is true. It's proof that someone wrote down their beliefs.

No one can prove or disprove the existence of a volcano god that grants an increased chance of good fortune if the believer sacrifices humans to it. The assertion of the existence of such a god, and all other gods—Greek, Roman, Egyptian, Aztec, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Mormon, Scientologist, etc.—is unfalsifiable. So too are the thetans of Scientology, the angels of Christianity, and the baptized spirits of Mormonism.

But technological predictions about the future, when backed by at least some hard data, aren't based on faith. They're based on the statistics that lend them probabilistic support, which rises when more data are found. If the required technologies aren't developed, then those predictions won't occur. That's falsifiability.

Computers have been doubling in performance every two years for over a century. To say that a typical computer will have roughly the same processing power of a human brain by the 2030s isn't a religious assertion. It's extrapolation of a well-established trend.

Computers are also shrinking at an exponential rate. To say that computerized robots will probably reach the nanoscale by the 2030s isn't a superstitious claim. It's based on observation of a well-established trend. Faith has nothing to do with it.

The same goes for renewable energy, which has been doubling in output every two years for decades. To say that renewable energy will likely produce most of humanity's electricity by the 2030s is not a claim based on faith. Even if it doesn't come true, it's based on observation of a well-established trend. The prediction is founded on hard data.

Maybe computers won't attain the computational capacity of human brains. Maybe nanorobotics won't be developed. Maybe progress and output of renewable energy will soon come to an end. But there's a good probability that these milestones will be achieved eventually. Maybe they will happen in the 2040s or 2050s instead of the 2030s. But the argument can just as easily be made that these things will probably occur sometime around the 2030s because that's what the trends suggest. These aren't superstitious conclusions founded on faith, even if they turn out to be wrong. They're predicated on probability derived from hard data and sound reasoning. And they're falsifiable because we can prove under what criteria such technologies could or couldn't be developed based on natural laws.

In all likelihood, the technological capabilities of humanity in the not-too-distant future are unfathomable to us today, just as our current capabilities would be mindboggling to Benjamin Franklin. To postulate that there's a decent probability that humanity will be orders of magnitude more capable technologically in the future isn't a religious belief. It has happened many times before over several generations. Profound technological improvement is a natural occurrence and is clearly observable.

It actually requires more faith to believe that humanity won't be orders of magnitude more advanced in the future than to believe the reverse.

In the sections ahead, I discuss several technologies that are currently considered to be in the realm of science fiction but stand a reasonable chance of being developed by the middle of the 21st century. Of course, I'm not at all certain, and highly skeptical of some. But that doesn't invalidate the importance of this inquiry, nor does it make its conclusions religious-based.

Let's begin.