Michio Kaku: Can Nanotechnology Create Utopia? | Big Think

Michio Kaku: Can Nanotechnology Create Utopia?
Watch the newest video from Big Think: bigth.ink/NewVideo
Join Big Think Edge for exclusive videos: bigth.ink/Edge
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Throughout human history people have tried to create utopia, the perfect society. These dreams have not been realized because we have scarcity. However, now we have nanotechnology, and with nanotechnology, perhaps, says Dr. Michio Kaku, maybe in 100 years, we'll have something called the replicator, which will create enormous abundance.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MICHIO KAKU:
Dr. Michio Kaku is the co-founder of string field theory, and is one of the most widely recognized scientists in the world today. He has written 4 New York Times Best Sellers, is the science correspondent for CBS This Morning and has hosted numerous science specials for BBC-TV, the Discovery/Science Channel. His radio show broadcasts to 100 radio stations every week. Dr. Kaku holds the Henry Semat Chair and Professorship in theoretical physics at the City College of New York (CUNY), where he has taught for over 25 years. He has also been a visiting professor at the Institute for Advanced Study as well as New York University (NYU).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRANSCRIPT:
Michio Kaku: Throughout human history people have tried to create utopia, the perfect society. In fact, America, the American dream, in some sense was based on utopianism. Why do we have the Shaker movement? Why did we have the Quakers? Why did we have so many different kinds of religious movements that fled Europe looking to create autopia here in the Americas? Well, we know the Shakers have disappeared and many of these colonies have also disappeared only to be found in footnotes in American textbooks, and the question is why?
One reason why is scarcity because back then the industrial revolution was still young and societies had scarcity. Scarcity creates conflict and unless you have a way to resolve conflict, your colony falls apart. How do you allocate resources? Who gets access to food when there is a famine? Who gets shelter when there is a snowstorm and all of the sudden you've eaten up your seed corn? These are questions that faced the early American colonists, and that's the reason why we only see the ghost towns of these utopias.
However, now we have nanotechnology, and with nanotechnology, perhaps, who knows, maybe in 100 years, we'll have something called the replicator. Now the replicator is something you see in Star Trek. It's called the molecular assembler and it takes ordinary raw materials, breaks them up at the atomic level and joins the joints in different ways to create new substances. If you have a molecular assembler, you can turn, for example, a glass into wood or vice versa. You would have the power of a magician, in fact, the power of a god, the ability to literally transform the atoms of one substance into another and we see it on Star Trek.
It's also the most subversive device of all because if utopias fail because of scarcity then what happens when you have infinite abundance? What happens when you simply ask and it comes to you? One of my favorite episodes on Star Trek is when the Enterprise encounters a space capsule left over from the 20th century, the bad 20th century. People died of all these horrible diseases, and many people froze themselves knowing that in the 23rd century or so they'll be thawed out and their diseases will be cured. Well, sure enough, it's the 23rd century now. The Enterprise finds a space capsule and begins to revive all these people and cure them of cancer, cure them of incurable genetic diseases, and then one of these individuals, however, was a banker. He is revived and he says to himself, “My God, my gamble worked; I'm alive; I'm in the 23rd century,” and he said, “Call my stock broker; call my banker; I am rich; I am rich; my investments, they have been sitting there in the bank for centuries; I must be a quadrillionaire!” And then the crew of the Enterprise looks at this man and says, ”What is money; what is a bank; what is a stock broker? We don't have any of these in the 23rd century,” and then they say, “If you want something, you simply ask for it and you get it.”
Now that's subversive. That's revolutionary because if all utopian societies vanished because of scarcity and conflict, what happens when there is no scarcity? What happens when you simply ask and you get what you want? This has enormous philosophical implications. For example, why bother to work? Why bother to go to work when you simply ask for things and it comes to you...
Read the full transcript at bigthink.com/videos/can-nanot...

[@bigthink]

Want to get Smarter, Faster? Subscribe for DAILY videos: bigth.ink/GetSmarter

[@RampDad]

Everytime this guy presents an idea; i sit and poder it for hours; Quite a good investment. 5 minutes of his time turns into hours of my time

[@extropiantranshuman]

Now I know where my time goes.

[@GODGAMER-wt9rp]

Yeah mine is same

[@iOnRX9]

[@ilon7799]

Yeah, just like in Inception

[@jnmacneil]

I think that if you had infinite of everything, the only real thing of value would become human creativity and knowledge. We would have a society completely fueled by art learning. because if you think about it, a Monet painting is not valuable because of the paint and canvas that it's made of, it's valuable because of how, and more importantly, why it was created. The society would have no worries of money or power, so they could instead of working to keep the world alive, start working on learning more about the world around them and reflecting it in their stories and art.

[@joshbalch4640]

It's so deep!

[@IGHODALOEROMOSELE]

Very well said. I understand that the elimination of an obstacle would bring fourth new and wider facets of challenges, thus paving way for new types of creativity.

[@NikolaosSkordilis]

What cannot be priced has real value.

[@chukky53]

Nikolaos Skordilis well said

[@squamish4244]

***** Kaku and a lot of other techno-utopians dodge this fundamental point over and over. WWI and II did not break out because of scarcity. They happened because the human mind is flawed. The only way to create lasting happiness is by addressing the issues with the mind at the root level. Nanotechnology could actually help us to do that, but not in the way Kaku is talking about here.

[@Grogmok]

This dude is my hero, and hes from my home town in California, san jose.

[@rock-tk1qf]

Vry convinient hero u have

[@CP17787]

He is referring to the final episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation season 1, "The Neutral Zone".

[@wocathoden]

Even if 10-20% of people become parasitic shut ins, I truly believe it would free up people to pursue their dreams and passions in lieu of settling for a job out of necessity. People whom dream of becoming a writer will be encouraged by social conditions to pursue a career in writing. Let people travel, paint, cook, write, tinker, and philosophize. All it takes in one well placed note from a musician, or vision of a painter to inspire a scientist to create the next best thing.

[@michaelstanko5896]

Yes my dude. I like this idea.

[@Liv3lov3laug3]

Dr. Kaku, you inspire me to live just to see what the future holds!!

[@jaygill5582]

And I like ya' and I want cha'

[@samueltariku6313]

I think that by the time nano tech is produced, robots will have taken most of the work force. Everyone is scientist or computer technician or anything that needs intellect and consciousness like artist and musician. People will work because they themselves want to work, No one will be forced to do anything, that is true freedom and that is utopia. Nano tech will break the boundary of what we think is reality right now.

[@samueltariku6313]

If you can create anything you want out of nothing then why would we need money, which is going to work when they can just replicate what they have over and over again? If you think about it people won’t own anything, they can own everything they would like. A scarcity-free society that doesn't doesn’t have to do work because there is no more work left, where all your wants and needs are fulfilled. And once the robotization of the entire workforce is complete, there won’t be any more jobs left for humans to do because we can’t compete with a robot. Doctors are robots, teachers are robots, soldiers are robots, and architects are robots. What jobs are left for humans? Who’d hire a human when you can get a cheaper and more efficient robot in its place?

[@samueltariku6313]

+nintendude60 Raw materials are never a problem; there are tons of raw materials in our own universe. Look at asteroids for example, One single asteroid in our solar system has $95.8 (£60) trillion of mineral wealth inside it - nearly the same as the annual GDP of the entire WORLD. NASA even found a whole planet made out of diamond. Of course there is the problem of getting there and mining the asteroids but overall there will be so much raw materials that we will never run out. No element is rare, gold, diamond, platinum all lose their value and are common place as rock. And then thing how easy it will be to make all those stuff: boat, car, airplane, spaceship… and even land. If you seen the movie Elysium they created a huge space station that the rich and powerful. Imagine having millions of those to support the growing population. Like the movie transcendence nanobots will be everywhere creating anything want and the only thing that limits you is your imagination. And as for the robots, no one owns them. Just like no one owns the moon, Self replicating robots that are everywhere building everything even inside your body, fixing up your organs and your cells, reversing aging, upgrading your body at a genetic level. You see why no one can own these bots considering any one that owns these bots will be at a god level and can literally control everything.

[@samueltariku6313]

Yeah but if the robots mine the asteroids and bring the minerals back here

[@samueltariku6313]

any person can have access

[@samueltariku6313]

no one, they just self replicating robots that have a per-programmed task of listening to humans.

[@LukeTEvans]

as technology advances but our economies and societies don't advance at the same rate, we will either adapt to too these changes or these changes will end us.

[@Topspeedcraft]

Thomas Malthus' theory of population expansion also here, population grows geometrically, but resources only grow arithmetically

[@ryrycal]

@@Topspeedcraft thomas malthus was wrong though because technology grows geometrically so resource extraction grows geometrically, thus being able to keep up with population

[@tiffsaver]

Utopia isn't a place. It's a state of mind.

[@AnthonyBonckowski]

Well said my friend, I can see light in your philosophy. :D

[@user-zc6ul8nv1j]

Interesting theory, but it's hard to get into a utopian state of mind when I can't afford rent.

[@tiffsaver]

www9311 EXACTLY!!! I'm old enough to remember when there was no such thing as robots in the workplace... before they used them to build cars in Detroit. I watched as the high tech machines began to slowly replace the factory workers until their were hardly any. Now, there's no more Detroit. This is PRECISELY why I continue to criticize Dr. Kaku. For as much as I like the guy, he only looks at the positive side of technology, without ever discussing the other, negative aspects of it. WE NEED MORE JOBS, NOT MORE TOYS.

[@user-zc6ul8nv1j]

tiffsaver So you want everyone to produce less efficiently just so that you can keep getting paid to do a job you aren't good at? Just take welfare. That way you'd actually be less of a drain on the economy than if you got in the way of a robot building my car better than you.

[@tiffsaver]

www9311 Dear www.WhatTheFuck.com: What the hell does "welfare" have to do with robots and replacing people with automation, you ignorant moron? Do not respond to any of my posts, don't even READ them. You're certifiable.

[@xUdieToox]

Every Michio Kaku video I watch put the biggest smile on my face. I love him!

[@lorikingery]

Michio Kaku, you are the man! You explain such a wide variety of things well, clearly, and at just the right pace. When you pop up on news shows, talk shows, whatever, my mom and I are always excited to watch. And now, philosophy -- awesome!! :)

[@MrGarrett9929]

we all love Michio. One of the most brilliant minds of our time.

[@LuckyKo]

How can you label people as parasites in a society where there is no need for human labor?

[@danielbadra9447]

I agree. In a world where there is no need for labour, everyone will have their own philosophical function, even if it's just knowing people and interacting with them and being part of their story.

[@alfredhitchcock45]

It's hard for a Japanese or American to imagine a welfare state where everything is just handed out to you. Go to the Philippines, and believe me, Filipinos will have no existential angst in answering that "infinite plenty" dilemma

[@lightofchicagoproductionz9012]

no he;s is just being realistic , he knows humans dont care enough and are not all educated enough to realize the true value of life , humans will become parasites if left unchecked - Wall E is a perfect example , star trek is a nice fantasy but the powers which control governments wont allow for money to end , they need it to control human beings on EARTH

[@unholy1771]

mel saint Because the capitalist fucked the Japanese and the American real good

[@unholy1771]

Light oF Chicago Because WALL-E is such a perfect example

[@Ulvenok]

"What is money"

[@86Doza]

So glad I subscribed to this channel. This is awesome.

[@CoronIslandFreediver]

I learn alot of from you mr. Kaku. Your logic and theory are above the levels. I wish you long life and more birthdays to come.

[@AnimeFan66]

We can finally self actualize.

[@CampingforCool41]

I don't see how people would think everyone would sit on their bum all day. Maybe every once in a while, and especially if there was a transition from this system to that. But think about it. You do get bored eventually with doing nothing. Doing something valuable for society doesn't need to mean something as obvious as being a surgeon. Many people enjoy gardening, drawing, acting and in a society with the technology that eliminates scarcity for the necessities of life.... wouldn't people focus much more on aesthetics? And things that interest them? Think how far we could go if people were able to do exactly what they felt passion for. I wouldn't be sitting on my bum (well maybe I would, but it depends on what you are doing while sitting on your bum :) all day, I know that.

[@krytonic0]

I would sit on my bum all day playing computer games.

[@Liv3lov3laug3]

I would immerse myself in the study of making music, dance and performing, regardless of how old I am. Why am I not doing it now? Because it doesn't pay for those scarce resources I need to live.

[@bigknockersOO]

Some people argue that facing adversity builds character and that wouldn't exist without the incentive to work hard and earn it. In a utopia, i would imagine people would definitely be able to follow their dreams without slaving away at a corporation or do manual labor for dirt shit money, though.

[@CampingforCool41]

bigknockersOO I doubt that a "utopia" could ever exist in the true sense of the word. Adversity, depending on how you define that word, may always be a part of existence, even with an ideal world. There will always be new challenges, but it can be positive "adversity" rather than the negative adversity that is what we see so much of today.

[@Liv3lov3laug3]

krytonic0 I would LIVE the computer/video game >:D Why do we love them so much? Because we want to do what THEY do, no?

[@00akshar]

just having michio kaku is utopia-beyond the speed of mind...-as allways perfect in this world in every.js

[@prestonbrazzle9165]

I remember thinking of a replicator in 3rd grade. Its really cool to see an actual physicist talk about what i dreamed of.

[@ethanfoy6236]

I could listen to this guy talk all day, such a brilliant mind 😜

[@str8todamoney]

In the meantime, we can also look forward to virtual reality. Once graphics get good enough (indistiguishable from the real world) and we finally achieve full 5 sense feedback (touch, smell, etc.), we will be able to experience, anything and everything we want.

[@str8todamoney]

***** Like drugs? It's weird that every time I think about Utopia I never add drugs into the mix. It's definitely interesting though. Who needs a Utopia if you can eternally pleasure yourself no matter what condition you in. You also just made me think about a virtual utopia in which we aren't even connected through the internet, instead we live in our own isolated "perfect" virtual universes. Fuck. This opens a whole new can of worms.

[@ExtantFrodo2]

Or you could just directly stimulate the pleasure center of your brain and make you think you like everything a lot.

[@str8todamoney]

***** I wonder what humans would do in such a world. From my point, which is probably very naive, that really devalues existence. Damn. This blows my mind. If there were to be a god like the one in the bible, which I doubt, I would understand why introduce evil and pain in to the world. Then again, I probably only say that right now because I'm doing okay in life currently. I probably wouldn't be saying that if I were starving or being abused.

[@ExtantFrodo2]

str8todamoney *"I would understand why introduce evil and pain in to the world."* The elimination of pain and suffering are not the only working motives. They are just a first step as they are major inhibitors to action and creativity. *"I probably wouldn't be saying that if I were starving or being abused."* Bless you for having insight enough to realize this. Surprisingly few take it that far. There are people who try to view the world through the eyes of others and people who don't. There is a gulf wider than the Grand Canyon between them.

[@ExtantFrodo2]

***** Heh, that's so right. Living things attribute value to things that help maintain life. To say something is of intrinsic value is to ignore this fundamental issue. The dead value nothing. Right, wrong, good and bad are intrinsically bound to our values which per force are intrinsically bound to our physio/psycho/social make up. If you change our physiology to one which is impervious to harm and our present notions of good and bad go out the window. What happens to "theft" if everything and anything you could want or have was freely available and readily accessible? What would fidelity matter in a world where babies were all made in labs and there was no venereal disease? These few examples hopefully illustrate how our notions arise from our inherited physiology and culture.

[@mkivy]

This is truly mind-blowing! And a What-if scenario! I love ur lectures...

[@Cerics]

I just thought that, went to type it and you already said it. Thumbs up.

[@NikolaosSkordilis]

The real question is, if we ever design and successfully construct a replicator (it's possible that nanotechnology will not be enough and picotechnology will be required), a machine that can be made at any scale with reasonable cost and free abundant materials as a source, from micro for houses to mega for constructing entire buildings, do we go ahead with it or do we censor it for reasons of "financial freedom" and not having 90% of all people being overweight to really fat? If money was no object, needed no work and I could do almost anything would I stay at home all the time and fat myself to oblivion watching lame TV shows and commenting on KZbin? Hell no. I would barely stay home, travel as much as possible, visit the countries I have wanted to visit all over the years but I couldn't, write books for my pleasure and give them away for free, exercise, bungy jump, have more hobbies, parachute jump etc etc. I think this would be a perfect opportunity to not only fulfill my bucket list but also create a series of new bucket lists. Why would anyone want to rot away himself if he could do almost anything - with the only limit being how all this abundance would be shared and arranged? I do not think the societal rotting argument is valid at all.

[@matthewhill8102]

yeah I know what you're saying. My question is, would the realizing of money as no object necessarily preclude the realizing of no societal rotting, or will we have to have some kind of social breakthrough before we are even able to conceive money in a completely symbolic light? Maybe at some crucial point in every person's educational development, every person is buying into a specific lie or maybe a series of strange ideas that rules out the possibility of moving into a stage like this.

[@Cbaker6191996]

If we had devices that could manufacture anything out of raw materials what would stop it from solving the obesity problem. What's to stop these nanobots from converting a human fat cells into something else. Instant weight loss. Also, the consequences for eating the food such as heart disease, high cholestorol, and so on and so forth would become a thing of the past as we could eat the food and have the full taste of the unhealthy food while nanobots in our body converted the food into nutritional substances. If the nanobots are breaking down items at the molecular level the possibilites are literally endless. The day society no longer has to be preoccupied with the acquisition of wealth and creating things for survival will begin the greatest human renaissance in history. Sure some people will sit in the house and rot as you say, but the nature of humans is to question and explore things that are not yet understood. When everyone had time and resources to fuel their curiosity the sheer magnitude of things that would blossum is truly mind boggling.

[@alexbourlis]

you forgot that life wasn't made for that purpose, changing natural balances will change everything and when i say everything i mean it. The world you know will never be the same again,giving the power of god to everyone will lead us in the most chaotic era of human history. The words i said dind't "pop" out of my head, this is real scenarios that already happened trough our history

[@BruceRyanCannaCorp]

I would indeed continue to write, paint, photograph, photoshop and live my life. Walk up to replicator and say, "Vodka Martini ~ stirred, not shaken."

[@gameu360]

Everybody would become equal! That makes for an happy future!! :D YAY!!

[@blue_cameron]

Udumfucc not necessarily

[@whiteb011]

You are spot on... We HAVE to have an imperfect society because if it was perfect, then no one would stand out as much as they do now. However, we should aim for perfection because even though it's impossible to have it perfect, trying to reach it is the best option.

[@jansarmiento9219]

This is why I love Michio Kaku so much! My hero!

[@danielefilipson9295]

There is somebody know that star trek episode is talk about? But i love this man...

[@scifirealism5943]

Daniele filipson tng the neutral zone. S1ep26

[@dnmack1]

The corporate world would never allow replicators to common place.

[@dnmack1]

Ivan Panchev Stopping human progress and suppressing technologies are two different things. Free electricity (Nikola Tesla), hydrogen fuel, cures for diseases, Just to name a few possibilities.

[@mike016256]

+Dave No, the corporate world will invent the replicator to sell to manufacturers. It will attempt to strictly control the technology via licensing, patents, and other legal methods. But they will ultimately fail because it only takes a single rogue agent to replicate a replicator and use the replicated replicator to replicate more replicators.

[@AppleOfThineEye]

+Michael Hadida REPLICATE-CEPTION

[@barr65]

+Dave im sure it will get to the common place, it's just that the rich ones will always be better

[@barr65]

Ivan Panchev they wont live worse than the poor

[@Srindal4657]

In star trek the replicator is essentially a molecular synthesiser or molecular factory. Today, there is barely any research into this tech. It's a desperately needed technology that need to be put into the public good.

[@VegasVIPs]

That is a very profound and beautiful statement, "What is money?"

[@RRRooooDDDD]

The problem of the uselessness of people will come way before the molecular replicator... We just need to wait until robots substitutes most of humans jobs and we will face that uselessness problem

[@AbelLawliet]

I can't even fathom how a government would function with near infinite resources. Why even have a government? Why even work if you could simply ask for food, fuel, and everything in between? I imagine a world like this might have a strange culture as well (why make music or art if there's no need for money?), but the scientific potential and advancement is incomprehensible to me. And I like that.

[@ichigo199]

HerrWagnerfreund i think your wrong. people do lots of things simply because they find them interesting. you seem to think that people need to be coerced into action. perhaps they are by boredom or desire for novelty, fun and innovation? think back to when you were a child. you didn't do things for economic reward, you did them cos the were fun or interesting.

[@chaosdirge4906]

ichigo199 I did things for reward, but thats mostly because I was sick, I did need incentive to do something I didn't want to, like go out and mow the yard. Since I had grass allergies I would suffer doing this in 15 minutes I would be running inside sneezing and runny nosed, took me a whole day to get the yard mowed. Sometimes you do need to be coerced. Without work all we have left is working to better ourselves, but in the end people decide what that means to them, that could very well mean jsut sitting around, it could mean acting, or drawling. but I know that a life without reward, a life without conflict, really isn't much of a life at all.

[@ichigo199]

im sure there will be plenty of rewards to be had in a post scarcity society. you don't need to artificially enforce hardship on people to make them better themselves

[@stanislavbandur7355]

Is here somebody, who can explain existence of 12 millions of volunteers?

[@NikolaosSkordilis]

It all depends on whether these infinite resources were controlled by the few or were available to everyone, maybe with everyone having a rather small scale replicator at home for everything a home needs. What about the materials required to feed them, would they be available to everyone -and for what, for free?- or could any material be used to make anything? How would these materials be made (unless anything could be used), by whom and why? The few would surely want to control the replicators, or at least their source materials. If anyone has a replicator and free access to the required materials that would by default make working obsolete. Along with work and business money of any form would also become obsolete. Art, science, philosophy etc would turn into unpaid hobbies. Only volunteers would "work", exactly the same way the current volunteers work. Along the way there would have to be great advances in robotics and AI, for the completion of automation of all infrastructure, constructions, transportation, even all services. I predict not a few bored people would be found to volunteer for all that, maybe with an added incentive of higher level benefits that are not available to everyone having a replicator (just because you can create anything up to 1 meter size at home this does not help you travelling around the world every single day, some resources and services will have to be limited). So while money would go away no-one would stop anyone bartering for instance a trip to Japan for something big he needs which he cannot create at home or that he cannot be given more of.

[@georgiana1754]

He has a very good point of material needs being covered. However, as we all know, we have many crucial needs that cannot be fulfilled by physical things (i.e. knowledge of oneself, knowledge of nature, affection, connection etc.). I think it will be great time to finally focus on the really important issues and questions that we have to overlook today because they don't have immediate practical value and we still need to make a living. Such a scenario should be particularly exciting for a physicist since we still know so little about where the universe came from, what's the drill with dark matter and other important research that can't be done today because of material limitations.

[@commandersprocket]

Look at Neil Gershenfeld's talks at the MIT site, the replicator isn't 100 years away, it's 20 years away (or so their roadmap suggests). Remember the Star Trek communicator, StarTrek started in 1966, cell phones were available (but expensive in 1983 (the Dynatek brick phone) and the first clamshell phone (reminecent of the StarTrek communicator was released in 1996 Motorolla's StarTAC).

[@campbecc]

they wouldn't be a parasite if they aren't living off anyone else. there'd be no reason for most people to work, people work to produce things. if there is nothing to produce then labor would be obsolete. Scientists and artists who create new things would still have reason to work but that's about it.

[@LadsRedefined]

+campbecc Exactly. I believe in a Utopian society which consists of 'parasites' people will tend towards doing more with their life, be it education or leisure. Not to mention the fact that the replicator can not provide things such as Social experiences but can easily act as a medium for it.

[@JohanStarDragon]

My take on the replicator that Dr. Kaku brought up I think is pretty optimistic, but given what I've seen tech companies do in America, and if such an invention were created, I imagine this happening: Some company buys up the patent for a replicator and puts limits upon limits in its programming, such as you can't make paper money, gold, diamonds, weapons, etc. And then they jack the price up SO high that it is only affordable to the very rich of the world. And for things to be replicated you still have to pay for it. Imagine it being connected to the internet much like a Kindle or an iPhone. And to get something, like say a set of clothes, you'd have to access a clothing site through the replicator and pay for it to be replicated. My reasoning behind this thinking is this: the iPhone, some of you might remember this but others it may take a while, but when the iPhone was released you had no choice of carrier, you had limited battery time and so on, so basically it was a very expensive brick. Thankfully, Apple did improve upon it but there are still problems. And that's what I see happening with the replicator if such an invention is made and we still have the same kind of economic models that we do today. It makes me think of the film "Elysium" where people had a machine that could cure any kind of illness but it was only accessible to the very rich, while the very poor were just stuck with their disease or had to use other methods of medicine. And that's what I see as far as a future for a replicator.

[@jacobmitchell1344]

+JohanStarDragon unrealistic view of companies, their power and the kind of companies assuming power. Those companies will no longer exist. read Bold by peter diamandis it's an amazing book that shows the future of products and entrepreneurs smalll companies replacing and disrupting industries by relying on the power of society for interdependence as well as individual self empowerment.

[@JohanStarDragon]

Jake Mitchell I think that's a little too optimistic. A real world example as far as the power and the kind of companies assuming power is this: Turing Pharmaceuticals bought up a drug called "Deraprim" which was once 7.50 a tablet. After Turing bought it, they jacked up the price to 700 dollars per tablet. Given this example, somehow I can't imagine a company that has a Replicator product and wouldn't jack up the price of it because that's the way of business: profit. Even when it's matters of life and death.

[@jacobmitchell1344]

I think you are more or less biased because of an evolutionary trait for information to filter first through the amygdala then the rest of the brain and positive information actually gets thrown to the wayside. Everything eventually becomes democratized. If you described the world today to a person 50-100 years ago they would say that it's too optimistic. free education, internet allowing everyone to have access to more books and knowledge than the library of congress and instant communication. The world will not stay the same and neither do companies. First off all many companies are trying to keep up. On average 15 years is the time a company will be disrupted, i.e. an industry will be deemed moot. We'll have the ability to have internet free because google and facebook are both rushing to establish worldwide free internet using satellites, balloons, and drones. Companies are loosing power, government will probably not be the same 100 years from now either, so who's to say anything.

[@JohanStarDragon]

Let's not attack the arguer, alright? As far as telling people 100 years ago about our time would we just explain the good parts and leave out the bad parts? As far as companies losing power, I'll believe it when it happens completely and I'll gladly admit to being wrong. After all, we've been wrong about predicting the future before. So perhaps something in the middle might happen.

[@jacobmitchell1344]

+JohanStarDragon Not attacking you specifically it's a bias in all of us. I was just pointing that we all have ways of looking at things. I used to look at the world exactly like you and now I don't. I've seen it from both perspectives. it's not about predicting the future it's happening now. kodak is gone replaced overnight. similarly innovation replaces with democratized information. for example people don't pay for cds or even individual songs now they can pay monthly and have access to all the songs they want. 3d printing has made it so that divergent industries, a new car manufacturer can set up new companies complete with design for a couple million--previously(4 years ago it costed close to a billion to start a competitive car company). Things are getting cheaper, and even free in some cases, more widespread, and democratized. in the early 2000s college researchers put the entire dna of smallpox one of the deadliest diseases online. and the way information and the future is heading companies and the government can't catch up, it's a fucking powerhouse and things are super hard to regulate. With one replicator, which by the way would probably be cheap because of the raw materials needed, it could replicate the materials for another one. Or one of the hundreds of crowdfunded research facilities, or even independent or private groups would create another in a matter of years if that. from then if it's illegally given to someone they can scan it and democratize the information so anyone can create it. essentially making everyone rich and not dependent which wouldn't be a bad thing for companies. all companies want is money. they need money to buy materials and feed themselves. Essentially replicators make having a company a moot point as creating materials is free and food is free and abundant. . .

[@furchidc77]

Now: 12AM... thinking... damn I start watching Michio Kaku's videos at 9PM damn I love listening to this man!

[@1300l]

JC Denton, at your service. My vision of the planet is augmented.

[@georgecataloni4720]

Even if (or when) the replicator is made by humans, I don't think people will have nothing to trade. Technology has advanced much over the years but jobs don't decrease, we just find new ways to help each other and trade for that help. Creating a replicator when you don't have one, diagnosing problems with your replicator, fixing those problems, designing art, counciling, prostitution, and even rare metals (I mention this because human bodies cannot change atoms and the sun's functions are quite dangerous for household use) are some things I can think of which could still be important things to do in the future. People of the past could not fathom the jobs we have today, and I think people of today similarly cannot fathom many of the jobs of the future.

[@1994CPK]

I just know I would sit on my ass all day and watch 300 year old tv shows.

[@1994CPK]

***** no, maybe, I would hope they have sex robots that look 99.9% real

[@scamsituation3982]

This is my favorite video on the internet.

[@AJPocan]

2:15 star trek reference is awesome and funny!

[@BahamutEx]

Just take my money! :D

[@Rskyline34]

what is money???! XD

[@ermanakar]

Well I think man is predictable. We are curious, we'll work as hard as we can to understand the molecular replicator and not stop there. We are impatient, we'll build it the second we are able to without enough consideration, one group of people will own it. We want to feel good, we'll somehow work to help everyone get a hold of the replicator as quasi we are sincere, but abuse every kind of power that comes with it for a long time. After all, now adaptation to technology is part of human evolution, and Utopian societies cannot be flawless.I think we should chill about all this exciting new stuff and reconsider our way of advancing to another type of civilization as a planet.

[@methodsofmayhem666i8]

For anyone who's curious, the episode Michio is taking about is actually an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation, "The Neutral Zone". However, the episode was set, I believe, in the year 2364, which would actually be the middle 24th Century. The episode had no commentary on nanotechnology, and Star Trek has never made claim that the replicator was based on nanotechnology. Also, the crew of the Enterprise certainly knew what money and a stockbroker were.

[@vbauserdeluxe]

This is just...Magnificent! :D

[@AzoreanProud]

Kaku, you first stated that humans have the need to make a contribution, doing something, then you say if we aren't obeyed to have jobs that changes it. I lack to see the correlation. If there would be no jobs, these motivations would not change, actually with more access people would invent more etc. Resources scarcity doesn’t exist now, it’s only establish by our actual economic system (Savage-Capitalism). Scarcity gives more value to a resource for example. Just look at your TV, there are billions of them, small, big, giants, and are made to last few years. Imagine if we made the best tv with top technology (extendable in size, durable, etc) to everyone in the world. We would use less resources than now. We can feed everyone in the world yesterday, it’s just that the markets have no profit at selling food to poor people. See its this things that scream, lets put a science based economy (Resource Based Economy) in the place of these philosophical idea (Capitalism) that will never resolve problems like war, starvation and wealth to everyone, unsustainability...

[@jesusdominguez401]

This dude explained alchemy.. that's dope

[@brendansullivan4872]

By reconstructing the nucleus of the atom as well as the electron configuration, altering elements is a viable possibility to out pace scarcity. It takes a substantial amount of energy at the moment but with the right combination of chemistry and physics it can be done efficiently.

[@Triannosaurus]

As long as Humans have free will, there will never be a Utopia. If the Human race had the power of a god, we will be instinct in the matter of years.

[@CarloMartinini]

What a needlessly pessimistic way of seeing things. If a society is built upon freedom and self determination, and each individual has his basic needs fulfilled, and the motivation behind excessive greed is eliminated in a post scarcity economy, there would be no need for conflict or spite between two human beings. People would no longer be obsessed with the accumulation of things. Hunger and suffering would be eliminated, and we would have grown out of our infancy. That's the endgame. Sure, it could still exist, but it would have no reason to. And despite what you may think, no human wants to hate. Hate is not naturally acquired, it is taught.

[@Triannosaurus]

Harbinger Reaper So if we all had the power of a god, you don't think some crazy person would use those powers to his advantage?

[@CarloMartinini]

Triannosaurus I think you're misunderstanding that analogy. It means that as a species humanity collectively would have achieved a godly level of power. Everyone is equally at an advantage, on equal footing, and collectively they uphold humanity's power. There isn't anything to gain in terms of personal ambition, except in terms of power. And to get to the top of the scale of power, hard work has to be done to increase rank. Gone would be the motivation for people to scheme and take material things away from others in order to gain rank in the social hierarchy, and if they did nothing would be lost or gained on either side. We have to think outside of modern capitalist ideology, where in order for one person to prosper, he has to stand on the backs of the less fortunate. This socialist society is COMPLETELY egalitarian, excluding politics. I feel you should watch Star Trek, namely the Next Generation. It holds a unique way of seeing the future, and as Kaku describes in this video, it's a viable one.

[@Triannosaurus]

Harbinger Reaper I see where your coming from, but it still doesn't change my views on it. There will always be evil in the world, even if we are free from scarcity.

[@DanzMcAbra]

Triannosaurus That seems rather dogmatic of you. Where's your argument?

[@mufuggainc8473]

Nanotechnology will aid in the fight for supremacy, not utopia

[@ten-dimension9390]

I have actually build stuff with a replicator. Of course in a video game. But that is so cool.

[@ojagetabelifestyle4010]

Waoh never thought of this

[@kuwarizmialjabra753]

Japanese genes

[@gi.m8894]

asian..

[@AlzFrodo]

this is why humans need GOD! because we take things over board when we have nothing to believe in besides our own imagination

[@AlzFrodo]

Yeh lets give humans less boundaries and rules to ruin the world even more. Good idea

[@operator9858]

religion keeps people in line by the threat of some after death judgment of their actions. Morality through fear leaves some very large gaps and is subject to severe misinterpretations. If it were up to me id add ethics and different kinds of psychology/sociology classes to the curriculum starting with the 5th grade. Understanding and education will take you farther then blind faith and fear of the after life dictating ones actions. One should do the right thing because they understand the impact of their decisions, not because it was written in some book thousands of years ago.

[@dannymars7623]

Well that seems to be what is happening. We keep creating new tools, and we continue to become capable of more things everyday. I hope you know that when the government creates something new they test it out for fifty years before releasing it to the public. It's not like everyone owns tank. Sometimes power falls into the hands of a genocidal maniac. People tend to do the right thing. God allows it. Christians are naturally paranoid.

[@dannymars7623]

AlzFrodo I've heard the voice of God, he would rather I become independent for the system. They are corrupt, and yes he allows it. I was a chid being abused, and he told me who to tell.

[@drugstorerecords]

why can't we have both? a spiritually-enlightened utopia? I believe the bible calls this "heaven", and even says this heaven will come to earth one day. how do you suppose that's gonna happen?

[@jurgenkoks9142]

People keep saying that nobody would go to work but what they dont realize is that there would be no more work to go to.... Everyone would just do what ever they do when they got free time and for the most part that would be hobbies and if you look around there are hobbies for everything. Those who would do nothing, dont do anything today either. So in that sense nothing would change but nobody would work but do their hobbies

[@JaeshaunDT]

There will always be work that needs to be done. as far as i know. but if we were able to ask and simply receive it would no doubt open up allot of resources and time for other fields to improve

[@SeekLuminousThings]

Damn interesting. This is a paraphrasing of various ideas which are treated at length in The Singularity Is Near by the futurologist Ray Kurtzweil. I highly recommend the book if this stuff interests you.

[@UserDude]

my point is... the question is not what will happend, but what we will do with it... creativity will grow greatly when freedom of every resourse to get is avalable when creating something, even today, the only limmitations you have are what you can think of. it wont change much in future, but it will grow.

[@vasilicaqqq]

but still Kaku is my favorite guy when comes to talck about science :))

[@MrStanaland]

Worst case, we'll end up like in the movie Idiocracy. But I think you hit the nail on the head, and not just developing our creativity but also experiencing other people's creativity. We'll still need currency to essentially buy other people's time, such as watching a musical, dance, or athletic performance. And we'll still want to watch new movies or read new books. And it's not just artistic creativity, but we'll still need emergency workers, ethicists, scientists, teachers, athletes, etc.

[@kallistiX1]

I was just about to say all of that, thank goodness I saw this well written reply first. Thumbs up from me.

[@brooklyna007]

Yea I agree. The motives will change. But humans will always be curious and curiosity frequently leads to new knowledge and new applications.

[@rajputadarsh1150]

There should be a constant loop between the radicalism and holism and there should be change in this constant but this change should also be constant.This is what can create a utopia .

[@pRopaaNS]

I wish that time would come, not because it would make life easy, but because that would allow for everyone to focus on things they truly want to do instead of sacrificing their dreams for work.

[@1234kalmar]

Sounds interesting, I'll read about them. I wrote the 'artist-world' idea because without having to create for survival, I can not really imagine any other motivation than satisfying curiousity, like exploring the secrets of the universe, and to create and preserve beauty in the world, ie. Art and preservation of nature. What other ideas do you have for things to do in a utopia? :)

[@LookAtThatBigNameYo]

i don't get it.it says you give glass and get x.it's possible and maybe true.but since you have to give something in order to create something how can everything be at abundance?

[@GkMrBane]

I think in the case of total abundance the definition of parasite would be changed. From: one who always takes without giving. To: one who never gives/help/ or provides. (probably referring to contributing to society/humanity as a whole)

[@ScottWaring]

Hey, what Star Trek show was he talking about? Was it Voyager, Enterprise TOS, or what and what season and episode? Please help.

[@flatisland]

TNG, The Neutral Zone

[@Kilolane]

siehundstaune Imo the best Star Trek ;)

[@KakashiOwnage]

This was a really good episode! I remember it!

[@JurassicDalek]

Next gen

[@TheMajorpickle01]

You are likely confusing it with the voyager episode which had dudes abducted by aliens, and found in cryopods by the crew

[@bcmasur]

Banks are feasible in use as storage vaults for physical materials.

[@KuntushoNiyamoto]

i guess we will have the technology to create perfect illusions to our brains of all the stuff long before the technology to actually produce the things materially. just like in that one recent music video which i forgot what song it was

[@Mailmanqq]

That episode of Star Trek was in TNG, there forth in the 24th century, not the 23rd as you said.

[@Joel.fry.w]

In the fifth century B.C., the Chinese philosopher Mo Ti noted that a pinhole can form an inverted and focused image, when light passes through the hole and into a dark area. Writing in the fourth century B.C., Aristotle also mentioned this principle. By the fifteenth century, artists and scientists were using this phenomenon to make observations. So the original camera was not invented for the military. The military just took the already thought of idea and enhanced it for their own purposes.

[@ImBUNT]

actually that mars colonization is being led by some kind of company in the netherlands and are only hoping to start shipping supplies there by 2020-2025, and hope to have finished colonization by 2035 ish, and im actually semi kinda considering volenteering.

[@Elround4]

This happens in the role playing game Eclipse Phase. ^^

[@mkivy]

Thank u sir!

[@TheTraveler2222]

Utopia is in the awakening of the mind, the ultimate technology

[@gonzotown9438]

While you could break apart and form molecules, you would still be stuck with the base elements you started with. There would still be scarcities of elements, like Gold.

[@spleefthedude7747]

Mind Blown!!!

[@ComradeGraty]

I believe that capt. picard said that without the need for material things, humans have instead embraced the concept of improving themselves.

[@guruflorida]

I've been asking myself these same questions for 20 years since I learned of nanotech. One more thing...someday soon we will download our medication. Once downloaded we'll place our finger on a small box which has taken the downloaded "recipe", made the chemistry, and hyposprays it into our finger.

[@j.r.j-ia802]

That sounds good and dream. Man I pay any price to go in 23rd century.

[@earlaweese]

*Seriously... I feel like the human race is so behind.*

[@ArmisVideo]

Do you have a contest suggestion?

[@GamezforNoobz]

Please tell me whats it's called.

[@LiamRH]

if anything there will be more conflict as there will be the power to get weapons at will

[@ronaldchen2275]

It would be the golden age where the main per suit of society would be based not on the ability to preserve or concentrate but judged by the level of wisdom one has

[@bmayaa]

You can have only one top foor in the building. People will compete for that or something else to be above others. It is in our nature. It keeps us going.

[@LorencCala]

The answer is yes, but not for this world. This seems an afterlife philosophy. You can not have a utopia when time dimension is in place. This would work when time is not more our living dimension. Than you just ask because whatever you do there will be no ending for you...

[@ckarea55]

There will always be scarcity, there will be things you cant change, love, emotion, human, living things

[@CelestialTrieye]

It'z trippy mane!

[@jayhorita573]

Glass and wood have some similar atoms like silicone, oxygen, carbon, and hydrogen. To be fair to you though, you probably would need additional materials to get all of the atoms that are needed to create wood since wood is pretty complex, but that might not even be a necessity if the technology can do nuclear fusion/fission.

[@Synthetics7]

he could tell these stories before sleep, hes a medieval story teller by the fireplace, only modern version hes like samurai who lives still and is like 1000 years old.

[@HiiPPi3]

by the way, is that mugen on your profile pic?

[@Thyrion07]

That was beautiful.

[@elgato9o]

wow this was deep, very interesting.

[@dante224real1]

atomic transmutation huh? sounds a bit like we're heading towards alchemical research again ;)

[@TheGoodNews01]

That's what they call "self-actualization." Consider this: "Many of the normal motives of civilized life-snobbishness, money-grubbing, fear of the boss, etc.-had ceased to exist." George Orwell - Homage to Catalonia page 104. It seems when the situation improves, ie. more freedom and equality, people's behavior also improves. I would think the same w the end of economic and social alienation. You're comment about an artistic world reminds me of the Situationist and their New Babylon project.