Ideas that once belonged solely to the realm of science fiction are finding traction in today’s discourse, as humans dream of immortality through the transfer of consciousness into a digital existence or envision journeys to colonize planets like Mars. These visions are particularly popular among technology magnates. However, the question arises: is this potential future a utopia, or does it carry inherent risks? Furthermore, are these aspirations grounded in scientific reality?
Astrophysicist and science journalist Adam Becker explores these themes in his latest work, More Everything Forever: AI Overlords, Space Empires, and Silicon Valley’s Crusade to Control the Fate of Humanity. In this follow-up to his critically acclaimed debut, What Is Real?, Becker shifts his focus from quantum mechanics to the ambitious and often controversial visions of the future promoted by Silicon Valley—a narrative that has gained traction beyond online forums and now influences mainstream culture and political conversations.
“I felt that these issues were becoming increasingly important, and I noticed the lack of critique regarding the future these tech leaders envision,” Becker remarked in an interview. “Criticism directed at Silicon Valley often highlights their rapid disruption of democracy and institutional norms, which is a valid point. However, it seemed there was little scrutiny of the actual visions they advocate since many assume these leaders naturally possess expertise in science and technology, which is misleading.”
In More Everything Forever, Becker delves into topics such as artificial intelligence, effective altruism, transhumanism, and the push to settle Mars, alongside critical discussions of concepts like human biodiversity and the singularity. He references influential thinkers from the tech world, including Eliezer Yudkowsky, Sam Altman, and Elon Musk, among others. Becker introduces what he terms the “ideology of technological salvation,” asserting that while the ultra-wealthy often reference science to validate their ambitious proposals, significant scientific concerns are often overlooked. He views this ideology as potentially dangerous rather than a harbinger of a utopian future.
“These futuristic visions primarily promise control by billionaires over the general population,” Becker notes in his introduction. “This control is not limited to a distant future; it is very much a current reality. These narratives shape public imagination and influence political debate, dictating how discussions about the future are framed. To prevent tech billionaires from monopolizing these conversations, we must critically examine their future ideas, including their troubling origins and scientific flaws.”
Ars Technica spoke with Becker to dive deeper into his perspectives.
Ars Technica: The title of your book is More Everything Forever. Does that concept exist in reality?
Adam Becker: Certainly not. Any instance of exponential growth inevitably comes to an end. A classic example from nature is a bacterial colony: it grows exponentially until it saturates its environment and depletes its resources, leading to its demise.
We see this in many aspects of our lives. For example, in brewing, yeast multiplies rapidly until it runs out of sugar and produces alcohol before dying off. So the idea of indefinite growth is fundamentally flawed.
Ars Technica: And then, there’s the larger issue of thermodynamics and entropy…
Adam Becker: Exactly. I have a magnet on my fridge that reads, “The heat death is coming.” Certain visionaries in Silicon Valley seem to detest the laws of thermodynamics. Some even claim their ideas will sidestep these laws, but they must confront them because thermodynamics ultimately imposes limits. Even if other constraints are absent, thermodynamics ensures entropy will continue to increase.
The term extropy refers to low-entropy forms of energy, which are becoming scarcer. As Erwin Schrödinger noted, life captures low-entropy energy and transforms it into higher-entropy forms—this is a fundamental characteristic of life. However, some in the tech community treat thermodynamics as an existential crisis, which is misguided and detrimental to their outlook. Their ambitious goals require tremendous energy, yet many of these aspirations aren’t attainable.
Ars Technica: This sounds counterintuitive, as this community is often viewed as pro-science. Yet your book argues these futuristic visions lack scientific grounding…
Adam Becker: Their attitude towards expertise is indeed troubling. They dismiss the necessity of knowledge because they believe their wealth equates to intelligence. Many think that if they didn’t accurately predict their success, they must be exceptional in understanding reality. This belief leads to an obsession with prediction markets; they perceive themselves as experts solely because of their financial status.
I think of a quote from Homer Simpson: “If he’s so smart, how come he’s dead?” These technology investors view success as a measure of intelligence. In their worldview, everything can be quantified, which skews their ability to evaluate true expertise.
Ars Technica: Your take on AI suggests a more nuanced view than the binary notions of dystopian versus utopian. How do you see AI evolving?
Adam Becker: Tressie McMillan Cottom wrote an insightful piece for The New York Times, noting that AI is “mid.” It’s neither groundbreaking nor catastrophic—just average. The artistic and literary outputs of AI exemplify this mediocrity, providing a blend that lacks true depth or understanding. Although large language models can replace some jobs, they won’t outperform humans in terms of quality. The decision to replace workers with machines often stems from misconceptions about the capabilities of both.
Ars Technica: You also voice strong critiques regarding the aspiration to colonize Mars, resonating with points made by Zach and Kelly Weinersmith in A City on Mars.
Adam Becker: I reference their work extensively. As Douglas Adams famously expressed, space is vast—so vast that it’s almost unfathomable. Mars is not only inhospitable but downright unpleasant. Its low gravity, harmful radiation, and toxic soil present massive challenges. The concept of terraforming Mars to make it comparable to an inhospitable place like Antarctica is tremendously ambitious and likely unrealistic—the costs and efforts far outweigh the benefits.
Mars may be the most viable option for colonization in the solar system, apart from Earth. Still, it presents extreme difficulties. Practically, we haven’t yet succeeded in establishing a permanent presence on the Moon, let alone Mars. The obstacles are significant, and the harsh conditions of space make those efforts even more daunting.
Ars Technica: What makes these futuristic narratives so appealing?
Adam Becker: One aspect is their alignment with long-standing cultural narratives promoted through science fiction. I appreciate science fiction myself and don’t believe it’s the problem; rather, it’s the tendency to treat its speculative futures as realistic possibilities.
For instance, while I adore *Star Trek*, I don’t expect we’ll invent warp drives just because it exists within that universe. Rather, at its core, *Star Trek* examines human relationships—a reflection of society—more than a scientific blueprint. However, some, like Peter Thiel, misinterpret the themes of works like *Dune*, interpreting them through a flawed ideological lens.
These narratives resonate strongly with the belief that the future lies in space or revolves around super-intelligent machines. Yet these notions are not inevitable and deserve skepticism. In challenging times, the promise of a guaranteed utopia from powerful billionaires may feel enticing; however, upon closer examination, these promises may prove hollow.
Ars Technica: There’s also a historical dimension where science fiction has inspired real scientific progress…
Adam Becker: At the conclusion of my book, I quote Ursula Le Guin, who emphasized that science fiction should not be strictly about predicting the future. We need more realistic visions of the future, as constructing a utopia is easier than achieving something viable. My main concern lies in how society interprets science fiction; critical engagement with fiction is essential.
Many older science fiction works contain problematic elements, yet we can appreciate them while acknowledging their issues. People tend to conflate science fiction with blueprints for reality, which can be dangerous. Real-world complexity cannot be boiled down to oversimplified models. There’s a need for well-rounded critical analysis in our interpretations. We must discern, for instance, how *Star Trek* critiques societal norms while also engaging in fantastical storytelling.
Ars Technica: Ray Kurzweil’s theories on the singularity continue to be influential. Your discussion of his desire to resurrect a connection with his father through technology is deeply touching…
Adam Becker: Kurzweil believes that while no one can be immortal, technologies will allow an extended lifespan. However, he also asserts that we can surpass thermodynamic limitations, which is not feasible. Much of this drive can be traced back to a fundamental fear of mortality. While fear of death isn’t inherently negative, it shouldn’t dominate our existence. Our awareness of life’s temporality does give it meaning, and losing that constraint could alter the human experience in unsettling ways.
I’m careful not to condemn those seeking immortality; it’s a natural human inclination. However, even with advanced technology, death remains an unavoidable reality. The universe itself faces decay, and assuming the mind can separate from the body is a misconception unsupported by evidence. The intrinsic limitation of our human bodies cannot be evaded, and an overwhelming fear of death can foster unhealthy life choices.
