It’s almost impossible to predict the future. But it’s also unnecessary, because *most people are living in the past*.
All you have to do is see the present before everyone else does.
Less pithy, but more clear:
Most people are slow to notice and accept change. If you can just be faster than most people at seeing what’s going on, updating your model of the world, and reacting accordingly, it's almost as good as seeing the future.
We see this in the US with covid. The same people who didn’t realize that we all should be wearing masks, when they were life-saving, are now slow to realize/admit that we can stop wearing them.
For a dramatic historical example (from *The Making of the Atomic Bomb*), take Leo Szilard’s observations of 1930s Germany: “you just have to be one day earlier”
How to be earlier?
1. Independent thinking. If you only believe things that are accepted by the majority of people, then by definition you’ll always be behind the curve in a changing world.
2. Listen to other independent thinkers.
You can’t pay attention to everything at once or evaluate every area. You can only be the *first* to realize something in a narrow domain in which you are an expert.…
But if you tune your intellectual radar to other independent thinkers, you can be in the first ~1% of people to realize a new fact. Seek them out, find them, and follow them.
I was taking covid precautions in late February 2020, about three weeks ahead of official “lockdown” measures—but only because I was tuned in to the people who were *six* weeks ahead.
But:
3. Distinguish independent thinkers from crackpots. Both are “contrarian”; only one is right.
This is an art, honed over decades. Pay attention to both the source's evidence and their logic. Credentials are relevant, but they are neither necessary nor sufficient.
4. Read broadly; seek out and adopt concepts and frameworks that help you understand the world (e.g.: exponential growth, network effects, efficient frontiers).
Finally:
5. Learn how to make decisions in the face of uncertainty.
Even when you see the present earlier, you won’t see it with full clarity, nor will you be able to predict the future. You’ll just have a set of probabilities that are closer to reality than most people’s.
To return to the covid example: in January/February 2020, even the people farthest ahead of the curve weren’t certain whether there would be a pandemic or how bad it would be. They just knew that the chances were double-digit percent, before it was even on most people’s radar.
Find low-cost ways to avoid extreme downside, and low-investment opportunities for extreme upside. For example, when a pandemic *might* be starting, it makes sense to stock up on supplies, move meetings to phone calls, etc.—these are cheap insurance.
In some fantasy worlds, there are superheroes with “pre-cognition”, able to see the immediate future. They’re always one step ahead. But since most people are a few steps *behind* reality, you don’t need pre-cognition—just independent thinking.
The more I study nuclear technology the more I think that every problem of today's nuclear tech has a potential solution that has already been identified. They just haven't been brought to market, because the market is sclerotic.
Nuclear is slow and expensive? There are faster, cheaper ways to build.
It's dangerous? There are safer designs.
Nuclear plants are bespoke megaprojects? There are small, standardized, modular approaches?
Nuclear can't do load-following? Actually it can (and does in France).
It produces waste? There are designs that burn that “waste”.
Weapons proliferation? There are designs that don't produce weapons-grade material.
“Patents are not the problem. All of the vaccine manufacturers are trying to increase supply as quickly as possible. Billions of doses are being produced–more than ever before in the history of the world. Licenses are widely available.…
“There are no mRNA factories idling on the sidelines. … Why do you think China hasn’t yet produced an mRNA vaccine? Hint: it isn’t fear about violating IP.”
Here, @gilbeaq blames industry more than regulators, and points out that infrastructure projects and all megaprojects are prone to cost and schedule overruns
In the 1950s, nuclear was the energy of the future. Two generations later, it provides only about 10% of world electricity, and reactor design hasn‘t fundamentally changed in decades. Why has it been a flop? Here's my review of a recent book on that topic: rootsofprogress.org/devanney-on-th…
Nuclear power is the sword that can cut the Gordian knot of providing cheap energy to the world while reducing CO2 emissions. And we're going to need a lot more energy: 5TW to give today's world the energy standard of Europe; 25TW to support 12B people in a decarbonized economy.
But nuclear is more expensive than gas (7–8c/kWh) or coal (5c/kWh), mainly because of plant construction costs. These costs were dropping in the US until 1970—then started soaring. In contrast, Korea can still build for $2.50/W, which prices nuclear electricity < 4c/kWh.
I've started writing a book about the accomplishments of industrial civilization, the major discoveries and inventions behind them, and the meaning of it all.
The book is very much a work in progress—won't be out for a couple of years. But we'll go through the outline chapter by chapter. Each month I'll present the material I have so far and the open questions I'm still researching, and we'll discuss.