Science without imagination can't move on. The author uses both. Most mockery comes from fear. Fear is reduced by facing what appears to be fearful.

Thank you to the author for a cracking good read.

“Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope for tomorrow. The important thing is not to stop questioning.” and “The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination.” Albert Einstein.

Bill,

I looked at the article on quantum computing and did a check to see what else I could find out about Dwaves “computer”. All I found were Dwaves press releases printed in full on dozens of sites.

Remember ‘cold fusion’? It was going to revolutionize energy production. Heard anything about it lately? I don’t think so.

The author isn’t a scientist, which is his weakness. His role as a “Science Communicator” ( isn’t that just a glorified journalist) is to communicate the science to the public.

It would be sensible to wait until the science has matured beyond mere demonstration of concept.

Paul L,

Your remark that Julian Cribb is not a scientist throws the baby out with the bathwater.

I can think of few people better qualified to comment on the impact of technology on society. Professor Cribb has an incisive and comrehensive grasp of the advancing front of modern technology, and his expertise is thoroughly respected and actively sought by a wide spectrum of Australian opinion leaders.

Just because I have a warped sense of humour, expressed in wry paragraphs about offbeat subjects, doesn't mean I discount his opinions.

I guess I had better make clear that I am having fun with the topic, not intending to poke fun at the author.

I've met many scientists in my time, and worked with and for dedicated and erudite people, whose understanding of their field is widely appreciated. But they did not necessarily have as broad a perspective on science progress and policy as the author.

The boigraphical blurb at OLO notes that:

"Professor Julian Cribb is a science communicator and Adjunct Professor of Science Communication at the University of Technology Sydney. He is a member of On Line Opinion's Editorial Advisory Board."

I think if you do a bit of Googling, you'll discover that Professor Cribbs is more than just a "glorified journalist".

I only heard of Professor Cribbs very recently. I was sent a link yesterday to a publication from a few years ago regarding AIDS. I understand that his paper could not be published in the US - which ironically in itself demonstrated that very stifling of debate and threat to academic freedom he discussed in that paper.

The quantum computer by DWaves - at the moment of course it is obviously debatable, but rather 'wait until the science has matured', I would welcome what may be the first step on an exciting road that has been dreamed of for some time. A short summary of the most recent demonstration of the 'infant' quantum computer demonstrates the weaknesses of that DWave computer at the moment, but also the importance of that first step. http://blogs.zdnet.com/Burnette/?p=456

Paul, I think its wise and prudent to have SOME reservations, but its also good to see the positives about new developments. No doubt in my grandfather's time there would have been skeptics,scientists included, that heaped doubt on anyone who believed it possible to bring images into people's homes, but those with the vision enough to be excited about the possibilities stuck with it and TV was born.

Its not necessary to be a "scientist" to have that vision. We are all born with it, which includes the urgency to investigate the world around us and the exhileration of discovery (or disappointments where an idea fails), but it often seems to be stifled before reaching adulthood - sometimes due to uncreative methods of education or, more recently, by the medicalisation of childhood wherein natural traits of creativity have been redefined as symptoms of psychological disorders. In any event I agree with Sir Vivor that Professor Cribbs is far more than a "glorified journalist", particularly having read the publication I mentioned at the beginning of this comment. I also now appreciate Sir Vivor's comments given his explanation :)

I'll end by reiterating what Albert Einstein said: “The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination.” Professor Cribbs, in my view, has both.

Bill Williams, regarding your comment:

"Paul, I think its wise and prudent to have SOME reservations, but its also good to see the positives about new developments. No doubt in my grandfather's time there would have been skeptics,scientists included, that heaped doubt on anyone who believed it possible to bring images into people's homes, but those with the vision enough to be excited about the possibilities stuck with it and TV was born."

Bill, the thing that overshadows my fascination with current technological progress is that it serves corporate needs before it serves human needs.

Unlike human communities, which (in my amateur opinion) have evolved over millenia to assure community survival, corporate "communities" have evolved rapidly since the industrial revolution to assure profit to their stockholders.

The research efforts which are developing quantum computing and nanotechnology are not the musings of whimsical gentlemen (Charles Darwin, say) pottering about their domestic Victorian studies, publishing the odd, earth-shattering thesis and, say, examining endless lots of seashells for the sake of advancing their arguments.

No, these efforts are "corporate science". They are bought and paid for by corporations, on the guess that they will turn a profit for them. Human needs come second, and by more than a nose.

I don't +need+ television, in any fundamental sense of the word. I need oxygen, water, food, safety, recognition within my human community, and so on.
(Maslow's hierarchy suggests an arguable order of precedence - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs).

Television, computer screens, might arguably serve some "higher need", but I (in my own fits of whimsy) tend to lump Maslow's higher needs together as aspirations, rather than needs.

The computer screen in front of me addresses my aspirations. I am not dependent on it for anything beyond entertainment. It is not essential to maintaining my income, and thus assuring my food and shelter. Nothing, in short, to do with the survival needs that have driven biological evolution for billions of years.

Gregory Bateson, in his out-of-print book "Mind and Nature: A Necessary Unity”, argues that "Time is out of joint":

(continued)

(continued)

Gregory Bateson, in his out-of-print book "Mind and Nature: A Necessary Unity”, argues that "Time is out of joint":

"In certain fields, what I have said above is already familiar. Notoriously, the law lags behind technology, and notoriously the obsolescence which goes with senescence is an obsolescence of ways of thought which makes it difficult for the old to keep up with the mores of the young."

Bateson is concerned about the problem of social obsolescence. He asks::

“How shall change in form be +safely+ speeded up to avoid obsolescence?”

He offers no solutions, but draws a significant distinction:

“The rule in biological evolution is plain: The immediate individual effects of bodily functioning shall never be allowed to impinge on the individual genetic coding. … ”

“But in cultures and social systems and great universities, there is no equivalent barrier. Innovations become irreversibly adopted into the ongoing system without being tested for long-time viability; and necessary changes are resisted by the core of conservative individuals without any assurance that these particular changes are the ones to resist.”

Let’s divide Maslow’s hierarchy into two categories: needs and aspirations.

Corporate entities are very adept at fueling our individual aspirations. But the bottom line is, they are not conscious of your survival needs.

They are unconscious of your being, even if you are on their stock register, even if they pay you your wages, because they are not humanly conscious.

Even so, many people seem to confuse corporations with their human employees and publicists. Is something tribal going on, here?

My own Geewhizz-ism about “new developments” has been tempered by the above realisations. Bateson has elucidated a problem which still remains unsolved, a problem first widely publicised by Einstein:

“The unleashed power of the atom has changed everything save our modes of thinking and we thus drift toward unparalleled catastrophe.”

And of course, this is a problem for corporations as well as for we humans.