Skip to main content

Physics of the Future – Michio Kaku ***

‘Prediction is very difficult,’ said the great physicist Neils Bohr, ‘especially about the future.’ So physics professor and science populariser extraordinaire Michio Kaku is taking on a very risky task in trying to predict the way science will develop between now and 2100.
The approach he has taken is to talk to a vast swathe of scientists – the acknowledgements list is truly breathtaking – and as Kaku points out, unlike the work of many futurologists, this is an attempt to predict the future of science based on the knowledge of working scientists, not historians or science fiction writers or sociologists. Surely this is bound to succeed and make a great book? In practice, the result is mixed. Things don’t go well where you use potential developments in science to predict consumer products. What consumers buy is not based on how good the science is – and the sections of the book covering consumer products are the weakest. The trouble is scientists in universities are the last people to know what normal consumers want. One of Kaku’s sources is MIT’s Media Lab. But if you look back over Media Lab’s work over the last 20 to 30 years, practically none of it ever became commercial.
Things are much better in sections where the science drives the reality. So the parts of the book dealing with the generation of energy and space travel, for example, were by far the best and most enjoyable to read. They stopped sounding like a sales catalogue of the future and started really to excite. Of course even here there have to be provisos. These large scale efforts are mostly controlled by politics, not science. The reason we went to the Moon and the reason we haven’t returned (or tried for Mars) are all about politics, something that Kaku can’t really explore properly.
Unfortunately, what this book attempts to do is a very difficult task. Firstly, most future predictions books are virtually unreadable because they end up as a string of facts and rapidly become very dull. In his other books Kaku is a lively, approachable writer, but here he did suffer rather from factititis and sometimes it was difficult to keep interested. This book doesn’t compare with some of his other work in terms of readability.
But perhaps the biggest problem, as I’ve already suggested, is the assumption that because scientists understand science, they understand everything else too. The future isn’t just dependent on science. It is dependent on politics and economics and such like minor matters that scientists are traditionally very bad at. Time and again when scientists stray outside their field they get it wrong – think how physicists have been duped by fake mediums, for example. Kaku demonstrates this at full blast when he comments that we can expect to achieve a ‘what physicists call a Type I civilization’ within 100 years. Now leaving aside that quote (I don’t think many physicists talk about civilizations at all, and certainly don’t give them labels like this), this seems hugely naive.
Kaku’s Type I civilization is basically a planetary civilization – there are still nations, but they are much weaker and most things are done on a worldwide basis. Really? Does he really think the American people would be happy to speak Chinese? Can you imagine what an amalgamation of just China and the USA -both very inward looking countries – would be like, let alone the rest of the world? Do you think the French will happily abandon their individuality? That the Islamic nations would say ‘We’ll just forget all that religious stuff’ and fit in with everyone else? He holds up the European Union as evidence, but as this is currently in turmoil, it seems an unlikely exemplar. It really seems that to imagine a planetary civilization could happen in less than 100 years is pretty optimistic. And if he can get something as fundamental as this wrong, it’s hard to believe that the fine detail has any great weight either.
Overall, then, a great idea with some excellent thoughts about specific science and technology, but gets a little dull in places and like all futurology lacks credibility. However, compare it with a ‘classic’ of the genre, Alvin Toffler’s Future Shock and it’s much more readable, and much more plausible. In this field, there is no doubt this is a great book – it’s just not a topic than can ever be done awfully well.

Paperback 

Kindle 
Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you
Review by Peter Spitz

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A (Very) Short History of Life on Earth - Henry Gee *****

In writing this book, Henry Gee had a lot to live up to. His earlier title  The Accidental Species was a superbly readable and fascinating description of the evolutionary process leading to Homo sapiens . It seemed hard to beat - but he has succeeded with what is inevitably going to be described as a tour-de-force. As is promised on the cover, we are taken through nearly 4.6 billion years of life on Earth (actually rather more, as I'll cover below). It's a mark of Gee's skill that what could have ended up feeling like an interminable list of different organisms comes across instead as something of a pager turner. This is helped by the structuring - within those promised twelve chapters everything is divided up into handy bite-sized chunks. And although there certainly are very many species mentioned as we pass through the years, rather than feeling overwhelming, Gee's friendly prose and careful timing made the approach come across as natural and organic.  There was a w

On the Fringe - Michael Gordin *****

This little book is a pleasant surprise. That word 'little', by the way, is not intended as an insult, but a compliment. Kudos to OUP for realising that a book doesn't have to be three inches thick to be interesting. It's just 101 pages before you get to the notes - and that's plenty. The topic is fringe science or pseudoscience: it could be heavy going in a condensed form, but in fact Michael Gordin keeps the tone light and readable. In some ways, the most interesting bit is when Gordin plunges into just what pseudoscience actually is. As he points out, there are elements of subjectivity to this. For example, some would say that string theory is pseudoscience, even though many real scientists have dedicated their careers to it. Gordin also points out that, outside of denial (more on this a moment), many supporters of what most of us label pseudoscience do use the scientific method and see themselves as doing actual science. Gordin breaks pseudoscience down into a n

Michael D. Gordin - Four Way Interview

Michael D. Gordin is a historian of modern science and a professor at Princeton University, with particular interests in the physical sciences and in science in Russia and the Soviet Union. He is the author of six books, ranging from the periodic table to early nuclear weapons to the history of scientific languages. His most recent book is On the Fringe: Where Science Meets Pseudoscience (Oxford University Press). Why history of science? The history of science grabbed me long before I knew that there were actual historians of science out there. I entered college committed to becoming a physicist, drawn in by the deep intellectual puzzles of entropy, quantum theory, and relativity. When I started taking courses, I came to understand that what really interested me about those puzzles were not so much their solutions — still replete with paradoxes — but rather the rich debates and even the dead-ends that scientists had taken to trying to resolve them. At first, I thought this fell under