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

into the unemployment lines. Intellectual capitalism does not mean jobs only for software programmers and scientists but in a broad spectrum of activities that involve creativity, artistic ability, innovation, leadership, and analysis—i.e., common sense. The workforce has to be educated to meet the challenges of the twenty-first century, not to duck them. In particular, science curricula have to be overhauled and teachers have to be retrained to become relevant for the technological society of the future. (It’s sad that in America there is the old expression, “Those who can, do. Those who can’t, teach.”)
    As MIT economist Lester Thurow has said, “ Success or failure depends upon whether a country is making a successful transition to the man-made brainpower industries of the future—not on the size of any particular sector.”
    This means creating a new wave of innovative entrepreneurs who will create new industries and new wealth from these technological innovations. The energy and vitality of these people must be unleashed. They must be allowed to inject new leadership into the marketplace.
    WINNERS AND LOSERS: NATIONS
    Unfortunately, many countries are not taking this path, instead relying exclusively on commodity capitalism. But since commodity prices, on average, have been dropping for the past 150 years, their economies will eventually shrink with time, as the world bypasses them.
    This process is not inevitable. Look at the examples of Germany and Japan in 1945, when their entire populations were near starvation, their cities were in ruins, and their governments had collapsed. In one generation, they were able to march to the front of the world economy. Look at China today, with its 8 to 10 percent galloping growth rate, reversing 500 years of economic decline. Once widely derided as the “sick man of Asia,” in another generation it will join the ranks of the developed nations.
    What distinguishes these three societies is that each was cohesive as a nation, had hardworking citizens, and made products that the world rushed to buy. These nations placed emphasis on education, on unifying their country and people, and on economic development.
    As UK economist and journalist McRae writes, “ The old motors of growth —land, capital, natural resources—no longer matter. Land matters little because the rise in agricultural yields has made it possible to produce far more food in the industrial world than it needs. Capital no longer matters because it is, at a price, almost infinitely available from the international markets for revenue-generating projects. … These quantitative assets, which have traditionally made countries rich, are being replaced by a series of qualitative features, which boil down to the quality, organization, motivation, and self-discipline of the people who live there. This is borne out by looking at the way the level of human skills is becoming more important in manufacturing, in private sector services, and in the public sector.”
    However, not every nation is following this path. Some nations are run by incompetent leaders, are culturally and ethnically fragmented to thepoint of dysfunction, and do not produce goods that the rest of the world wants. Instead of investing in education, they invest in huge armies and weapons to terrorize their people and maintain their privileges. Instead of investing in an infrastructure to speed up the industrialization of their country, they engage in corruption and keeping themselves in power, creating a kleptocracy, not a meritocracy.
    Sadly, these corrupt governments have squandered much of the aid provided by the West, as small as it is. Futurists Alvin and Heidi Toffler note that between 1950 and 2000, more than $1 trillion in aid was given to poor nations by rich ones. But, they note, “ we are told by the World Bank that nearly 2.8 billion people —almost half the population of the planet—still live on the equivalent of two dollars a day or less. Of these, some 1.1 billion survive in extreme or absolute poverty on less than one dollar.”
    The developed nations, of course, can do much more to alleviate the plight of developing nations rather than paying lip service to the problem. But after all is said and done, ultimately the main responsibility for development must come from wise leadership among the developing nations themselves. It goes back to that old saying, “Give me a fish, and I will eat for a day. Teach me how to