The Five Pillars of the 21st Century

Hi, this is Charles Hoskinson broadcasting live from warm, sunny Colorado. Always warm, always sunny, sometimes Colorado. Today is March 29th, 2023, and I wanted to make a video that’s a bit more philosophical and talk about the next hundred years of humanity. So hold on to your hats; this one’s going to be interesting, and I hope you guys enjoy it. I haven’t made a philosophical video about such a broad-ranging topic in quite some time.

Let me share my screen. Wow, there we go. In my view, there are five areas that will define humanity in the 21st century. Every century has its defining characteristics. For example, in the 19th century, we started having things the telegraph, the train, and electrification.

Suddenly, we lived in a world where we could move very quickly and transfer human labor for mechanical labor. We could communicate with each other over long distances without a high degree of latency. In the 20th century, we got the aerospace industry, the internet, and computers. These are the kinds of things that define humanity. It’s really interesting to ask, in the year 2100—kind of like Conan O’Brien in the year 2000—what will we look back on from the century between 2000 and 2100 as the stuff that really defined us and either made or broke humanity?

I’d argue there are five things. First, I’d say that AI, which is no surprise to anybody, is probably the biggest of the lot. This is the first time we’ve been able to extend our cognition to the point where we have synthetic cognition at a global scale that’s growing and evolving at a very fast pace. In fact, this is so significant that I feel it’s probably going to be the thing that either makes or breaks humanity. There’s no way to beat AI; they won, congratulations.

But then there’s more to it. Second, I think quantum computing. Third, synthetic biology. Fourth, you have nanotech. And fifth, this is the one that...

Policy makers are having trouble grasping blockchain technology, and they are all interconnected. Let's talk about it a little bit. First off, if you want some reading resources, here are some books that I’d highly recommend. You have "Quantum Computing for Everyone," which covers quantum concepts. There's also a book by Eric Schmidt, former CEO of Google, and Henry Kissinger, along with Daniel Huttenlocher, titled "The Age of AI.

" Another fascinating book is "Radical Abundance" by Eric Drexler, which discusses how a revolution in nanotechnology will change civilization. I co-founded a company with one of the authors, George Church; we created Regenesis, which explores how synthetic biology will reinvent nature and ourselves. These are foundational readings I highly recommend if you want to understand more about these different topics. In general, these technologies are interconnected in that they either extend us or regulate us. They are all extension or regulation technologies.

When you look at things like AI, you are effectively extending cognition; you're creating a second brain that lives outside of your own. ChatGPT is a great example of this. You can ask a question, it replies, and you gain knowledge or insight from those interactions. The superpower of this second brain is its access to the internet, and it's also recursive, meaning it's self-training. For instance, GPT-4 trains GPT-5, and GPT-5 shares knowledge with GPT-6.

Each time this happens, it gains exponential capabilities. Whenever you have an exponential growth technology that can create new knowledge and insights, whoever has first access to that is going to win. That's the history of humanity. However, that second brain is still constrained by classical computing. No matter how brilliant your AI becomes or how much exponential knowledge it acquires, you can't query an AI and say, "Break Satoshi's keys.

" The AI can tell you how it would be done in an abstract sense, but it does not have the capacity to do that because the computing model it is constrained by is classical computing—Turing machines, Von Neumann architecture, and so on. On the other hand, quantum computing represents a new computing model that provides new capabilities. For example, we wrote a paper with some authors from Princeton called "One-Shot Signatures." This technology allows you to sign something only once and guarantees it can never be signed again—something that can't be done in classical computing. It opens up completely new ways to communicate and connect with each other.

You'll notice that these technologies are interconnected. Once you have quantum computing, you also have quantum AI. The AI now has access to that, and you could query something like "Break Satoshi's keys," and the AI could figure that out because it has access to the best available algorithms. It would be able to write the code, program a quantum computer, run the code, and then provide you with the output. These two technologies together have an amplifying effect, and I would argue that AI would be better equipped to use quantum computers than humans.

As this grows exponentially, this will become the new playground for a lot of the extended capabilities. Interestingly enough, Roger Penrose, a very famous physicist, believes that the human brain has quantum properties. He even wrote a paper about it, which is quite complex. Synthetic biology involves using technology to manipulate and change organisms. You can do things like de-extinction or add new capabilities.

For example, what if you wanted to regenerate human tissue or have cells that can change color a chameleon? There was an experiment where they hybridized human tissue with octopus cells, giving the human tissue the ability to change color. This is an extension of our capabilities. Each of these technologies can be used in one direction or the other; you can use them for extension or regulation. The existence of these capabilities allows you to use synthetic biology to take features away or add new features.

Now, regarding interfaces, there's a specific topic called brain-computer interface or human-computer interface. There's a phenomenal center at Carnegie Mellon University that studies human-computer interfaces. Normally, when you think of a human-computer interface, you think of things a mouse or keyboard. However, we're now trying to integrate computers more deeply, where computers can understand our brain waves, allowing us to think to text. Companies like Synchron and Neuralink are examples of this.

With synthetic biology capabilities, you could potentially use biological systems to replicate computing systems. You could create new interfaces or store information in DNA, even inside human cells. There are many exciting possibilities in synthetic biology, which is why I recommend George Church's book "Regenesis." He goes through various ways to change how human biology works. A closely related topic is nanotechnology and material science.

This is something the press doesn't discuss as much, but it has a huge connection to all of these topics. Nanotechnology allows you to change any physical thing into a computer. Imagine being at a restaurant with a table that acts as a computer. You could place an ID or loyalty card on the table, and the surface would change to show a contextual menu. If you have AI, that means AI now has a larger universe of things it can interact with.

If you combine synthetic biology with nanotechnology, you can embed computing capabilities into biological systems and vice versa. For example, these technologies could potentially cure cancer by using machines small enough to take over biological processes and utilize your immune system to attack cancer cells. In terms of regulation, you can imagine these nanotechnologies and synthetic biology being used to regulate human behavior or biological processes, such as curing epilepsy. However, this raises ethical concerns. The existence of these technologies can be neither good nor bad; it depends on your philosophy and viewpoint.

In my view, blockchain technology belongs in this category because it can create the rules in this new world order. Traditionally, we create rules by writing them down on paper, which become laws. These laws have social consensus, and if you violate them, there is some form of punishment. However, the current system has its flaws; one percent of the American population is in prison for violating these laws, and we often question the validity of the laws themselves. In a digital system, you have the idea of replicating natural law.

Natural laws, like gravity, cannot be changed. Digital systems allow you to treat something that would usually require social consensus as immutable. Blockchain technology's superpower is that it exists in the space of synthetic natural law, allowing us to encode rules in a way that makes them immutable. If you have nanotech and synthetic biology capabilities, you can digitize the physical world. You can embed computing layers into biological systems and physical systems, treating them as if they were laws of physics.

This could lead to scenarios where, for example, a restraining order could physically prevent someone from entering a certain area. As we consider where the thought and social consensus come from to inspire the laws we are governed by, if AI continues to grow exponentially, we could have AI lawmakers with cognition at a scale no human has ever seen. This AI would need technology to enforce the law, which is effectively what blockchain is doing. We are currently witnessing a significant social experiment as we transition from 20th-century capitalism to the ESG movement. This is not a small deal; every industry in the world is being transformed.

The price tag for this transformation is estimated at $150 trillion. However, there is no governance or regulation layer for ESG, leading some people to believe it is a step towards a one-world government. The concern is that if you are going to regulate all aspects of society, you need a powerful entity to enforce compliance. The only entity powerful enough to do this on a global scale would be a one-world government. Under ESG, we see the emergence of central bank digital currencies (CBDCs), where a central bank issues currency and controls its distribution, combined with social credit systems.

This means if you don't comply with the ESG order, your money could be shut off, similar to how social media platforms restrict access based on user behavior. This trajectory of the 21st century without blockchain technology is concerning. We need a regulation layer, a governance layer, if this is the goal. With AI, especially quantum-enabled AI, we could have a panopticon where compliance can be monitored and enforced. The world could change rapidly, as we saw during COVID-19, where freedoms were restricted almost overnight.

Blockchain technology, however, offers a way to maintain goals while eliminating the need for a controlling entity. Instead of human beings deciding, protocols can decide. No one is in charge; it acts as a regulating layer with teeth. If the protocols are designed fairly, we can achieve equality by design and guarantee rights, such as privacy, because these protocols cannot be influenced by governments or corporations. This is the conflict of our time.

Capitalism is driving the development of AI, quantum computing, and synthetic biology. These technologies are inevitable, and without a proper regulating layer, we face two options: create a one-world government to control them or embrace protocols that ensure equality and fairness. Protocols create a horizontal system where everyone is equal. It doesn't matter where you are on the circle; you have the same rights and access to the system. In contrast, those who believe only a small group of philosopher-kings should have access to technology are creating a pyramid structure where they dictate what you can do.

Blockchain technology aims to liberate us. It is a decentralized system that gives you control over your money, identity, data, voice, and privacy. Shouldn't everyone want that? Yet, many people dismiss blockchain, indicating they do not value their sovereignty or control over their lives. What blockchain does is assert that no one has control over your rights.

It aims to encode immutable characteristics of humanity in a way that cannot be violated by religions, governments, or individuals. If done correctly, with the right protocols and AI, we can create a fair and transparent world where human rights are protected. I believe there is no way out of this. If you read the recommended books, you'll see how these pieces connect. The people behind these ideas may not know each other personally, but their work reveals an inevitability that will transform the world by 2100.

These technologies have the power to impact free will and control individuals at levels humanity has never seen before. Even the most oppressive regimes of the 20th century couldn't truly know your thoughts. However, with these emerging technologies, the potential for control is unprecedented. As we move forward, we will see arguments for using technology to regulate behavior, such as preventing individuals with harmful tendencies from accessing certain environments. This is not a distant possibility; it could happen within the next 5 to 20 years.

The world is rapidly evolving, and we can see the emergence of CBDCs, social credit systems, and environmental justice initiatives. ESG is transforming capitalism, and while some individuals may have malicious intentions, the reality is that the world is running out of resources, and governments feel the need to protect and save us. This is why I am involved in blockchain. It's not just about tokens; they are essential for adoption, governance, and transparency. The value of these systems in terms of currency is secondary to the larger question of humanity's future.

We must decide whether we want to live in a pyramid or a circle. The future of humanity will depend on this choice, and it could determine the dominant governance system for thousands of years. The Roman Empire lasted a thousand years; we must consider the implications of our decisions today. This video is philosophical, but it reflects my deep concerns about the future. At IO, we have made our decision; we are circle people.

Our technology is open source, and we invest heavily in research and development. Cardano embodies these principles, and with initiatives like SIP 1694, we are moving towards a decentralized governance system. I can envision a future where Cardano could support national identity systems or payment systems that protect individual rights. If left undisturbed, the resources within the Cardano ecosystem could facilitate this growth. We have a decentralized brain, a rapidly growing community, and the potential to create a fair and equitable world.

However, if we do not invest in this vision, we risk defaulting to a system that prioritizes control and compliance over freedom and equality. The fight for our future is now, and we must choose which side we are on.