The Singularity and Global Warming

Sat, Aug 12, 2006

While I take global warming very seriously, and am committed to taking specific actions to help prevent it, it’s interesting to consider the perspective of techno-enthusiast Ray Kurzweil, as his opinions and models for predicting the future tend to re-frame everything. From a question and answer piece published in the Washington Post this summer, in response to questions of global warming:

Columbia, Md.: I have been following your career with great interest since my office acquired one of your first reading machines. And I have been fascinated by the SINGULARITY IS NEAR. I am also impressed with Al Gore’s arguments that the global warming problem should be near the top of everyone’s agenda. He claims that climate scientists say we have only about ten years, absent a concerted effort and political will to solve the problem, before the planet has reached a point where it’s too late to prevent catastrophic consequences. Do you believe, given your arguments about progress acceleration, that these scientists are unduly pessimistic? Do you think that accelerated technology alone—even without political will to solve the problem—will save the planet?

Ray Kurzweil: None of the global warming discussions mention the word “nanotechnology.” Yet nanotechnology will eliminate the need for fossil fuels within 20 years. If we captured 1% of 1% of the sunlight (1 part in 10,000) we could meet 100% of our energy needs without ANY fossil fuels. We can’t do that today because the solar panels are too heavy, expensive, and inefficient. But there are new nanoengineered designs that are much more effective. Within five to six years, this technology will make a significant contribution. Within 20 years, it can provide all of our energy needs. The discussions talk about current trends continuing for the next century as if nothing is going to change. I think global warming is real but it has been modest thus far – 1 degree f. in 100 years. It would be concern if that continued or accelerated for a long period of time, but that’s not going to happen. And it’s not just environmental concern that will drive this, the $2 trillion we spend on energy is providing plenty of economic incentive. I don’t see any disasters occurring in the next 10 years from this. However, I AM concerned about other environment issues. There are other reasons to want to move quickly away from fossil fuels including environmental pollution at every step and the geopolitical instability it causes.

So this argument would seem to support C4’s seeing global warming *as if* it will be a problem. It must also be noted that while I appreciate Kurzweil’s perspective, I never lay my hat on any of his predictions.

This post was written by:

Vince Horn - who has written 832 posts on Numinous Nonsense.

Vince Horn lives as a modern monk. He spends part of his year in silence, meditating, introspecting, and developing spiritually. The rest of the time he spends engaged in the world, where he produces and hosts the popular show, Buddhist Geeks, works in the production department of the spiritual publishing company Sounds True, and writes for various publications—including on his personal blog Numinous Nonsense—and enjoys living in Boulder, Colorado with his wife Emily. Read his full bio here.

Contact the author

7 Responses to “The Singularity and Global Warming”

Siona Says:
August 12th, 2006 at 9:50 am

You may have already seen it, but there’s a related discussion here. I’d encourage looking at the rest of the blog; what I find most fascinating about this potential “way out” is that, while it presents a possible physical / scientific solution, it contributes to significant moral and ethical dilemmas. Our response to the current planetary crisis seems proof positive that we’re not exactly poised to respond elegantly to these challenges. It’s for this reason that I keep urging the essential nature of a perceptual shift . . . But I’ll try to keep from grinding my axe here.

duff Says:
August 12th, 2006 at 10:46 am

Interesting. Thanks for posting this!

Vince Says:
August 12th, 2006 at 12:29 pm

Thanks for the link Siona! I checked out the post itself, but not the following discussion.

To address your point specifically, which seems to be the following: Even though nanotechnology (or any radical shift in technology) can solve problems created by previous technological eras (in this case the industrial technologies that have contaminated the atmosphere with GHG’s) it doesn’t mean that new problems don’t emerge with these new technologies. Problems that are likely much more serious.

Yes, yes, yes. I completely agree with you on this point. In many ways what we are dealing with (and will continue to deal with) are problems of interior development. We will always have to strive to keep these vast technologies in check.

It’s true, as the people at I-I point out, that industrial technologies don’t represent a threat to the entire biosphere, so in a sense it isn’t a full “planetary crisis” but really much more of a “human crisis.” Even if the atmospheric conditions change dramatically it is super unlikely that we will be able to take out all creatures on the planet, or hurt the planet itself. But nanotechnology does represent a threat to the entire biosphere (if molecular manufacturing is achieved of course). That scale of destruction is enormous!!! We could in theory wipe out the entire 4 billion years of evolution this planet has seen, perhaps in the next 20 years.

So, yeah… I’m totally with you that what is need is a “perceptual shift.” Nothing else will do the job, not even nanotechnology if it’s being used by the same minds that created this human crisis.

Siona Says:
August 12th, 2006 at 12:52 pm

You’re such a treat, Vince. Thanks for that elaboration. To reference the first Spiderman film, it behooves all of us to remember that with great power comes great responsibility. (I suppose credit ought go to FDR, but the nanotechonology angle makes the former seem a little more relevant.) I do still hold to a dumb faith that compassion and love will continue to prevail, and I have faith that maintaining that awareness and growing that trust and recognizing, too, the interconnectivity of everything on this wee planet, will allow us to continue . . . but still, things can get exciting. We do seem to excel at living on the brink.

~C4Chaos Says:
August 13th, 2006 at 8:27 am

this is a cool find Dawg. been trying to look for a Kurzweil statement on Climate Change. i’ve always suspected that Kurzweil’s position would be something like this. and i personally believe that this is the more “positive” approach. but since i also believe that we have to do something about the environment, with or without climate change, i do more walking than driving

i also went ahead and re-posted this on zPod:Singularity and zPod:CLIMATE CHANGE so we can share the knowledge

thanks!

~C (for Climate Change is within samasara)

Vince Says:
August 17th, 2006 at 12:57 pm

I just wanted to point out that Chris has a great post on his blog that discusses this same issue, called Kurz-borg.

Tacnet Says:
November 4th, 2009 at 10:27 pm

- We should be more concerned about Global Warming and Climate Change because Typhoons are getting much stronger and there are greater incidence of Flooding. take for example the recent Typhoon Ketsana which devastated some countries in South East Asia.

Siona Says:
August 12th, 2006 at 9:50 am
You may have already seen it, but there’s a related discussion here. I’d encourage looking at the rest of the blog; what I find most fascinating about this potential “way out” is that, while it presents a possible physical / scientific solution, it contributes to significant moral and ethical dilemmas. Our response to the current planetary crisis seems proof positive that we’re not exactly poised to respond elegantly to these challenges. It’s for this reason that I keep urging the essential nature of a perceptual shift . . . But I’ll try to keep from grinding my axe here.
duff Says:
August 12th, 2006 at 10:46 am
Interesting. Thanks for posting this!
Vince Says:
August 12th, 2006 at 12:29 pm
Thanks for the link Siona! I checked out the post itself, but not the following discussion.

To address your point specifically, which seems to be the following: Even though nanotechnology (or any radical shift in technology) can solve problems created by previous technological eras (in this case the industrial technologies that have contaminated the atmosphere with GHG’s) it doesn’t mean that new problems don’t emerge with these new technologies. Problems that are likely much more serious.

Yes, yes, yes. I completely agree with you on this point. In many ways what we are dealing with (and will continue to deal with) are problems of interior development. We will always have to strive to keep these vast technologies in check.

It’s true, as the people at I-I point out, that industrial technologies don’t represent a threat to the entire biosphere, so in a sense it isn’t a full “planetary crisis” but really much more of a “human crisis.” Even if the atmospheric conditions change dramatically it is super unlikely that we will be able to take out all creatures on the planet, or hurt the planet itself. But nanotechnology does represent a threat to the entire biosphere (if molecular manufacturing is achieved of course). That scale of destruction is enormous!!! We could in theory wipe out the entire 4 billion years of evolution this planet has seen, perhaps in the next 20 years.

So, yeah… I’m totally with you that what is need is a “perceptual shift.” Nothing else will do the job, not even nanotechnology if it’s being used by the same minds that created this human crisis.
Siona Says:
August 12th, 2006 at 12:52 pm
You’re such a treat, Vince. Thanks for that elaboration. To reference the first Spiderman film, it behooves all of us to remember that with great power comes great responsibility. (I suppose credit ought go to FDR, but the nanotechonology angle makes the former seem a little more relevant.) I do still hold to a dumb faith that compassion and love will continue to prevail, and I have faith that maintaining that awareness and growing that trust and recognizing, too, the interconnectivity of everything on this wee planet, will allow us to continue . . . but still, things can get exciting. We do seem to excel at living on the brink.
~C4Chaos Says:
August 13th, 2006 at 8:27 am
this is a cool find Dawg. been trying to look for a Kurzweil statement on Climate Change. i’ve always suspected that Kurzweil’s position would be something like this. and i personally believe that this is the more “positive” approach. but since i also believe that we have to do something about the environment, with or without climate change, i do more walking than driving

i also went ahead and re-posted this on zPod:Singularity and zPod:CLIMATE CHANGE so we can share the knowledge

thanks!

~C (for Climate Change is within samasara)
Vince Says:
August 17th, 2006 at 12:57 pm
I just wanted to point out that Chris has a great post on his blog that discusses this same issue, called Kurz-borg.
Tacnet Says:
November 4th, 2009 at 10:27 pm
- We should be more concerned about Global Warming and Climate Change because Typhoons are getting much stronger and there are greater incidence of Flooding. take for example the recent Typhoon Ketsana which devastated some countries in South East Asia.

Click here to cancel reply.

Numinous Nonsense