Physics of the Future: How Science Will Shape Human Destiny and Our Daily Lives by the Year 2100

shrewd capitalist. The first thing he asks is: What time period is this? When he finds out that he is now alive in the twenty-fourth century, he quickly realizes that his investments must today be worth a fortune. He immediately demands to contact his banker back on earth. But the crew of the
Enterprise
is bewildered. Money? Investments? These do not exist in the future. In the twenty-fourth century, you simply ask for something, and it is given to you.
    This also calls into question the search for the perfect society, or utopia, a word coined in the novel written by Sir Thomas More in 1516 titled
Utopia.
Appalled by the suffering and squalor he saw around him, he envisioned a paradise on a fictional island in the Atlantic Ocean. In the nineteenth century, there were many social movements in Europe that searchedfor various forms of utopia, and many of them eventually found sanctuary by escaping to the United States, where we see evidence of their settlements even today.
    On one hand, a replicator could give us the utopia that was once envisioned by nineteenth-century visionaries. Previous experiments in utopia failed because of scarcity, which led to inequalities, then bickering, and ultimately collapse. But if replicators solve the problem of scarcity, then perhaps utopia is within reach. Art, music, and poetry will flourish, and people will be free to explore their fondest dreams and wishes.
    On the other hand, without the motivating factor of scarcity and money, it could lead to a self-indulgent, degenerate society that sinks to the lowest level. Only a tiny handful, the most artistically motivated, will strive to write poetry. The rest of us, the critics claim, will become good-for-nothing loafers and slackers.
    Even the definitions used by the utopians are called into question. The mantra for socialism, for example, is: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his contribution.” The mantra for communism, the highest stage of socialism, is: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”
    But if replicators are possible, then the mantra simply becomes: “To each according to his desire.”
    There is, however, a third way of looking at this question. According to the Cave Man Principle, people’s basic personalities have not changed much in the past 100,000 years. Back then, there was no such thing as a job. Anthropologists say that primitive societies were largely communal, sharing goods and hardships equally. Daily rhythms were not governed by a job and pay, since neither of them existed.
    Yet people back then did not become loafers, for several reasons. First, they would starve to death. People who did not do their share of the work were simply thrown out of the tribe, and they soon perished. Second, people became proud of their work, and even found meaning in their tasks. Third, there was enormous social pressure to remain a productive member of society. Productive individuals could marry to pass their genes onto the next generation, while the genes of loafers usually died with them.
    So why will people live productive lives when replicators are invented and everyone can have anything they want? First of all, replicators wouldguarantee that no one starves. But second, most people will probably still continue to work because they are proud of their skills and find meaning in their labor. But the third reason, social pressure, is harder to maintain without infringing on personal liberties. Instead of social pressure there would probably have to be a major shift in education to change people’s attitudes toward work and reward, so that the replicator is not abused.
    Fortunately, since progress will be slow and the replicator is a century or so away, society will have plenty of time to debate the merits and implications of this technology and adjust to this new reality so that society does not disintegrate.
    More than likely, the first replicators will be expensive. As MIT robotics expert Rodney Brooks says, “ Nanotechnology will thrive, much as photolithography thrives —in very expensive, controlled situations rather than as a freestanding mass-market technology.” The problem of unlimited free goods will not be so much a problem. Given the sophistication of these machines, it may take many decades after they are first created to bring down the cost.
    I once had an interesting conversation with Jamais Cascio, a leading futurist with a long career of