I’ve read most of Michio Kaku’s books. I always enjoy them. His newest, The Future of Humanity, is his best. Still, there are parts that I disagree with.
He covers the topics that every futuristic geek loves to devour. The book is divided into 3 parts:
1) Leaving Earth
2) Voyage to the Stars
3) Life in the Universe
Each part has several chapters, covering topics like:
• Mining the heavens
• The challenges of terraforming Mars
• How the moons of gas giants and even comets can become gas stations of the future
• How robots can colonize the universe
• The pros and cons of various starships
• Transhumanism
• Advanced civilizations
• Time travel
Although I’ve read many books that cover these topics (including some of Kaku’s), I still managed to learn many things.
For instance, did you know that one lunar day is equal to one Earth month?
As a result, solar panels on the moon will have 2 weeks of nonstop sun and then 2 weeks on nonstop darkness. They’re going to need some big batteries to get them through the dark periods.
The only exception is the mountain peaks on the lunar poles. They would get nonstop sun. In addition, there are big ice deposits in the shady lunar depressions in the poles.
After reading Artemis, I thought the best place to start a lunar colony was at the Apollo 11 landing site—mainly for touristic reasons.
However, The Future of Humanity makes it clear that the lunar poles are the moon’s most valuable real estate.
In Artemis, I learned what Kaku also states: lunar soil has lots of oxygen that can be easily extracted.
So expect to see a lunar colony, extracting oxygen from the soil, and using solar panels to melt the ice into water by the poles.
Kaku theorizes “that humans are different from animals because we understand time.”
Kaku believes that “alongside the light sail, the fusion rocket holds the most promise.”
Did you know that the Greenland shark has an average lifespan of 272 years? It’s the longest-lived vertebrate. Scientists found one that was 392 years old and another that might be 512 years old!
Where I disagree with Kaku
Kaku said only a couple of things that were unconvincing. Kaku writes, “I believe we will make contact with an extraterrestrial civilization, perhaps sometime in this century.”
If you think that’s optimistic, consider Dr. Seth Shostak of the SETI Institute who “believes that we will make contact with an alien civilization before 2025.”
When I finished my yo-yo of the CDT, I explained why I’m unconvinced that there are any technologically advanced alien civilizations in our galaxy. It’s unlikely that they’re even in our galactic cluster. And I wouldn’t be surprised if we’re the only such civilization in our universe.
I know. Crazy.
Kaku unintentionally explains why I may be right. As a civilization progresses to a Type II civilization, it harnesses all the power in its solar system. A Type III civilization harnesses all the power in its galaxy.
If such civilizations existed, we ought to see evidence of them when we look into the heavens just like we can see evidence of intelligent life on Earth from space. When you look down on Earth from space, you can see straight features (farmlands and roads), for example. On Mars, we see no such features.
If Star Trek civilizations existed, you’d expect to see odd things in space that could only be explained by a powerful species messing around with nature.
For example, imagine if we saw a black hole or star suddenly changing direction against the natural tug of gravity. Or a cluster of stars moving in an unnatural way (because the aliens are harvesting them). We ought to see Dyson spheres everywhere.
But we don’t. The universe appears 100% natural.
Yes, it’s possible that exotic pulsars, neutron stars, and even black holes are artificial creations but we have perfectly good natural explanations for their existence.
Kaku explains one reason why Dyson spheres may be rare. Our sun is 109 times bigger than the Earth in diameter. Therefore, “there might not be enough building material on the rocky plants to construct [a Dyson sphere].”
Similarly, Kaku writes, that “to communicate across the galaxy . . . advanced civilizations may use gravity waves.”
Why?
“Unlike laser beams, which might be absorbed, scattered, and diffused as they travel, gravity waves would be able to spread across the stars and galaxy and therefore may be more reliable over great distances.”
Brilliant. Therefore, if you believe that there are little green men everywhere, you should expect that we would be intercepting all sorts of gravity wave transmissions.
But we haven’t. After much effort, we finally detected gravity waves in 2016, when two black holes collided.
Once again, if techy aliens were around, their signatures would parade across the skies. But there’s no evidence.
Another reason I’m unconvinced that ET is out there is that with nanobots an advanced civilization can explore our galaxy in just a few million years. Obviously, such probes would be hard to spot.
However, with exponential growth and self-replicating bots, aliens should have been here millions (or billions) of years ago. But they haven’t left any obvious traces.
Information consumption vs. energy consumption
Another argument Kaku puts forth in The Future of Humanity that is unconvincing is when he tries to explain why we don’t see evidence of Type II or III civilizations. He admits that there are no infrared signatures in the sky showing evidence that such powerful civilizations exist. So how does he explain it?
Kaku suggests that maybe we shouldn’t measure a civilization based on energy consumption but rather on information consumption. He uses humans as an example. Our smartphones process far more information than the 1950s supercomputers ever could and yet they do it using just a tiny fraction of the energy used in the 1950s.
Therefore, Kaku says, maybe aliens have figured out a way to consume vast amounts of information but hardly use any energy.
The problem is: look at us. Sure, we have relatively low consuming smartphones and smartwatches but we have so many more of them. Our energy consumption has only increased throughout history.
Yes, we are several orders of magnitude more efficient at processing information now than 50 years ago, but we’ve also upped our desire to consume that information to an even greater degree. That results in a net energy consumption increase. Kaku doesn’t explain how or when that pattern will ever change.
Life and intelligent life is probably out there but that’s not enough
Although I don’t believe that advanced civilizations are out there, I’m 72% sure that life is abundant in the universe and there's a 68% chance that we'll find life somewhere in our solar system (e.g., Europa, Mars, Enceladus, and Titan).
Moreover, I bet that intelligent life is pretty common too, especially on planets similar to ours (in the Goldilocks range and far from the galaxy’s harmful core). Dinosaurs were intelligent. Dogs, dolphins, and octopuses are intelligent. You could even argue that ants and insects are intelligent. Chimps are certainly very intelligent. Donald Trump . . . not so much.
When people talk about intelligent life, they usually mean a technological society. To clear that hurdle is much harder.
Moreover, once you clear it, there’s an excellent chance that exponential growth will take over. Within a few million years, you’ll conquer the galaxy and probably beyond.
Given that we don’t see any evidence of anyone having transformed the cosmos, there’s a good chance that we’re the only ones with that potential.
The book Rare Earth: Why Complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe takes a far more radical position than what I propose. It argues that we’re probably the only place in the galaxy that has evolved vertebrate life or any complex life!
Before you laugh such an argument off, read the book. It’s a compelling read.
Still, I disagree with that book’s conclusion. I believe life is common, vertebrate life is uncommon but not hyper-rare, and that even intelligent life (broadly defined) appears occasionally.
However, we’re probably the only technologically advanced species in our galaxy (and perhaps in the universe).
As Arthur C. Clarke said, “Two possibilities exist: Either we are alone in the universe or we are not. Both are equally terrifying.”
"Houston, it looks like we're alone."
The unbelievable idea
The most unbelievable argument in The Future of Humanity that is when Kaku considers how we will evolve. For the sake of argument, he asks us to assume that “we remain a Type II civilization with only sub-light-speed rockets for 100,000 years.”
After substantial discussion, he writes, “In conclusion, even if we spread out throughout the galaxy, our core personality and basic shape will diverge not much farther than what has already occurred since the Great Diaspora [out of Africa].”
For a smart guy who understands Darwinism, I can’t believe Kaku argues this. Darwin 101 states that species evolve when they have environmental pressures.
What greater environmental pressure can there be than humans evolving separately on the moon or Mars?
The differing gravity, cosmic rays, and weather alone ought to make measurable impacts in just a generation. The expression of Scott Kelly’s DNA was altered after just spending one year in space! Imagine if he had spent a lifetime on Mars? And his kids? And so on?
More importantly, earlier in the book, Kaku explains how we will use genetics and cybernetics to alter ourselves in this century. And we’re not even a Type I civilization!
Can you imagine what a Type II civilization can do to their bodies and minds? As Kaku suggests, a Type I civilization might be immortal.
Therefore, with so much power to alter our own genes and with such vastly different environments outside of our planet, how the hell can Kaku conclude that “our core personality and basic shape” won’t change in the next 100,000 years any more than they’ve changed in the last 100,000 years?!
I suppose an extremely broad reading of that prediction doesn’t make it so laughable.
However, to me, it shows a supreme underestimation of how humanity will evolve in the next 100,000 years and contradicts much of what Kaku argues in the rest of the excellent book.
Of course, Kaku is 100,000 times smarter than I am so it’s unwise that I question his arguments. He’s probably right and I’m probably wrong. Or maybe I misunderstood him.
Regardless, I highly recommend this book because it neatly summarizes all the futuristic topics without being too superficial. I learned a lot and I consider myself a geek who knows a lot about this future stuff.
So buy a copy!
VERDICT: 9/10
Disclosure: the publisher gave me a free copy to do an honest review on my website.
