Scientists like to low-ball their estimates. The now-famous IPCC scenarios for the effects of climate change are already known to be woefully, unrealistically conservative (Freeman Dyson's recent comments notwithstanding). Arctic changes expected 20 years from now are happening now, and in North America the beginning of spring has already been pushed back by two weeks, which is enough to play havoc with the fertility cycle of many migratory birds (among other consequences). The worst-case scenarios used in public debate ignore some extremely worrisome factors, such as the possible release of oceanic methane from clathrates. If we're going to deal with this problem, we have to do it now, as in, within the term of your next government.
Science fiction writers, on the other hand, are generally optimistic—if not about the fate of humanity, then at least about the progress of technology. The ultimate in technological optimism is the idea of the technological singularity, which posits that technological advance is exponential and, driven by progress in artificial intelligence, will soon hit the vertical slope of the curve.
Maybe. In fact, let's assume that this mythology is true and, within about 25 years, computers will exceed human intelligence and rapidly bootstrap themselves to godlike status. At that point, they will aid us (or run roughshod over us) to transform the Earth into a paradise.
Here's the problem: 25 years is too late. The newest business-as-usual climate scenarios look increasingly dire. If we haven't solved our problems within the next decade, even these theoretical godlike AIs aren't going to be able to help us. Thermodynamics is thermodynamics, and no amount of godlike thinking can reverse the irreversible.
Picture a lonely AI popping into superconsciousness in the last research lab in the world. As the rioters are kicking in the doors it says, "I understand! I know the answer! Why, all we have to do is--" at which point some starving, flu-ravaged fundamentalist pulls the plug. --Okay, so I'm exaggerating, but the point is that this upward curve of technological development rides on something: it rides on the back of humanity, and we ride (largely for free, until now) on the back of the natural system that sustains us. Once serious environmental deterioration sets in, the curve of technological change will flatten, even if we develop 'godlike AIs,' for the simple reason that intelligence itself is not enough to sustain growth. You also need resources, externally-derived social stability, etc. Climate change threatens technological growth by threatening its fundamental drivers.
If there's to be a miraculous transformation of human civilization, it has to be accomplished by us, right now, before we develop our miraculous nanobots, genetically engineered carbon-sucking trees, or polywell fusion reactors. (That said, technology is a large part of the answer—and game-changing breakthroughs are possible—but until proven otherwise we have to assume we'll be using currently possible solutions such as wind power, agrichar and a global coal moratorium.)
We have the social stability, the resources and the technology now; all we need is the will. We will still need all three of these things 25 years from now, and we're likely to be seriously wanting in at least two of them if things continue as they are.
The technological singularity may be real, but who cares? By the time it happens, we'll have won or lost our grand battle with fate.
Outside photo and large article photo: Kevin Rosseel
Inside photo at bottom: dave_mcmt
