DARPA’s Top 3 Predictions For The Future

AIBy Kevin Samson

When it comes to predictions, perhaps no organization on the planet is better able to make dreams a reality than the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). Their “mad science” reputation already has given the world humanoid robots, drones, and the world’s most advanced surveillance systems. But they are telling us that there is much more to come.

Interestingly, the timeline given by DARPA’s “Forward to the Future” video messages, seen below, is 2045 – the theorized date of The Singularity popularized by futurist Ray Kurzweil in his 2006 book The Singularity is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology. As the title implies, The Singularity is the threshold where computer systems surpass and/or augment both the intelligence and the biological functions of the human body. It’s a process that already has begun, and DARPA is reinforcing their commitment to make it a reality by the target date.

With yearly (known) funding in the tens of billions of dollars, DARPA also receives untold funding for “black budget” secret projects not even subjected to presidential and congressional oversight. So when they cast a vision of the future, it is worth paying attention.

1 – Human-Machine Interface

This broad category includes new ways to communicate with the machines around us, even through emotions. Everything from self-driving vehicles to fully autonomous military and spacecraft to all of the computer systems at home and out in the world – plus, of course, preparing for a world with robots at home and in the workplace. Currently, digital implants and wearable devices are beginning to give us some indication of what is in store whether it is augmented reality applications, health monitoring, or the many other gadgets we choose to make our lives more “efficient and dynamic.” But for true communication and machine autonomy, Artificial Intelligence must reach a level equal to or surpassing that of humans. The latest research shows that this is happening faster than expected.

Pam Melroy, an aerospace engineer, former astronaut and current deputy director of DARPA’s Tactical Technologies Office, foresees technologies that would enable machines to collaborate with humans as partners on tasks far more complex than those we can tackle today.

2 – Mind Control

This is not mind control as the receiver of information for the purpose to manipulate, rather this is a future where our minds control the world around us.  This already has been achieved in medical applications such as prosthetics connected to the brain. But this is set to expand much further into the Internet of Things, which itself is advancing at warp speed. The IOT agenda is turning our everyday physical items into a replica of the Internet by infusing them with computer intelligence. The next step would be to eliminate the various cumbersome remote control functions and enable gadgets to operate via mind control.

Justin Sanchez, a neuroscientist and program manager in DARPA’s Biological Technologies Office, imagines a world where neurotechnologies could enable users to interact with their environment and other people by thought alone.

How to Disappear Off the Grid Completely (Ad)

3 – Nanotech Materials

The world of nanotechnology is likely to be transformative in a way that cannot be overstated. Artificial skin, spray-on solar cells, self-repairing architecture, invisibility cloaks, and a host of DNA-level medical applications will be able to build and re-build human beings and the environment.

Stefanie Tompkins, a geologist and director of DARPA’s Defense Sciences Office, envisions building substances from the atomic or molecular level up to create “impossible” materials with previously unattainable capabilities.


Image Credit

Also See: ATLAS: Next Generation of DARPA Humanoid Robot Released

Kevin Samson writes for ActivistPost.com. This article may be freely shared with proper author attribution and source link.

  • Tom

    Here’s my prediction and I don’t need a multi-billion dollar budget to make it: There will be another spectacular solar flare as big as the Carrington Event in 1859, only this time it will have a lot more than the telegraph system to fry. Every computer chip on the planet will be scrambled, disabling all modern communication systems, vehicles, and aircraft. Any humans who opted for computer enhancement of their brains will instantly be blubbering morons. The grid will go down, and with the emergency cooling systems of every nuclear power plant on Earth unable to be refueled, they will all melt down within a few weeks, giving us hundreds of Fukushima’s simultaneously. It will take life on Earth ten million years to recover from the tragic dead-end experiment with “intelligence”.

    • Average Joe American

      Exactly right, even though the technology to shield these absurd “energy sources” (time bombs) exists, they are not being used, and will not be used. And it will not even require a Carrington Event, a few relatively inexpensive nuclear explosions in the atmosphere over a handful of nuclear plants could do the trick.

      I note that someone here has posted that oil/coal/gas interests are the biggest threat to humanity. I also note that someone else has pointed out that we can’t even solve ONE nuclear plant meltdown, not to mention our growing reliance on untested GMOs, which are cross fertilizing with our entire world food supply.

      DARPA is working on making people invisible? Hey, cool! Maybe when they’ve solved that age-old conundrum they can start saving us from the existing and ongoing threats which other scientists like themselves have presented us with.

      Nuclear power and genetically modified seeds are two “advances” which cannot be put back in the bottle.

      • Tom

        You can defend against major solar flares and EMP weapons by putting your electronics in a well-grounded metal cabinet. But how many people have one of those, or a place in the house to ground it? In the case of a flare, you might have as much warning as two or three days before the charged particles arrive, but in the case of an EMP blast you may have zero warning. Also, if you want your car to run after the event, you need to know where the engine control computer chip is and get it into the metal cabinet. How many people will know ahead of time how to find that little bugger? I don’t even know where mine are, and I’m aware of the danger. It would take years to replace the millions of fried chips, and that can only begin after the grid is back up. I’ve read that a crash program to replace the burned-out transformers in the grid would take four years, but how do they get that program going when the grid is down and vehicles are dead? Stone age, anyone? The one thing that will work after an event like this is your good old fashioned firearm… unless you have an optical sight with electronics in it. Sigh.

        • ej

          I have heard that vehicles will only be damaged if the car is running.

          • Tom

            I hadn’t heard this but it could be true at least in some vehicles. The physics principle at work is when a magnetic field crosses a wire, it generates a current but it might need to be a closed circuit to allow enough flow to fry electronics. The big problem with chips is how extraordinarily sensitive they are to any incorrect voltage or direction of flow before damage is done. I learned my lesson the hard way on this when an employee left his lights on all day, tried to start his car by coasting down a hill when he left work but came to a stop without starting but his front end out in a traffic lane. In my haste to give him a jump, I crossed the jumper cables and it cost me almost a grand to do the right thing and fix everything it had fried 🙁

        • Average Joe American

          I’m not worried about the electronics in my car, TV, or cell phone, I was referring to several hundred nuke plants that generally take months to properly shut down, all going Three Mile Island/ Chernobyl/ Fukashima on us. Our good old fashioned firearms won’t do us much good, then (anyway, I use iron sights).

          If one plant failure can nearly wipe out the Pacific Ocean (and is still doing so), what will the failure of several hundred do? I think it would put us somewhat beyond Jeremiah Johnson and a basement full of canned Spaghetti-O’s. Double sigh.

    • djklek

      Won’t the side of the Earth on the dark side of the flare sustain less or no damage ?

      • Tom

        I think (but not certain) that there is some sheltering on the night side of the earth when a CME hits. But because the incoming charged particles get bent by the Earth’s own magnetic field (that’s what you’re seeing in an Aurora as the particles come in at the poles) some of the effect wraps around. further research online would probably show this to be either correct or full of it, but I’m too lazy to look right now. But anyway, it won’t matter if it only takes out the nukes on one side of the planet. As the lightly stabbed character in Romeo & Juliet says, ” ’twill do”.

    • Thuman

      what about those electric circuits that are inside Faraday cage? are they gonna go down as well?

    • Jason Page


      Or not. You watch too many disaster movies.

    • liars

      It won’t recover, due to genetic entropy, and that accelerated by the fallout in the food, water, air, background.

  • dale ruff

    Here is my prediction: people with absolutely no evidence will make predictions which will come true because they are concern cyclical events (like recessions or droughts) or will fail to come true.

    Those who predict predictable events will feel very smart. Those whose predictions will not come true will simply refuse to learn from experience and STFU and make new predictions, usually extending the timeline.

    I suggest that rather than making predicitons, we learn from experience and focus on the fact that in almost all cases, doing the same thing (such as allowing invesestment and commerical banks to merge) will result in the same outcomes.

    I predict that there will be new technologies. I predict there will be new wars. I predict there will be catastrophic weather events. I predict there will be new predictions. I predict that the making of predicitions. will become a lucrative industry. I predict I will die some day.

    • Steadcore

      I predict chemtrails will eat your brain

      • dale ruff

        Since chemtrails are a propaganda fiction of the fossil fuel industry, I predict you will be killed by ordinary fossil fuel pollution, which chemtrails mythologyiis designed to protect from regulation, despite the fact that burning fossil fuels kills millions worldwide each year and sickens hundreds of millions.

        • ej

          Chemtrails are very real I agree though that climate change is a hoax.

          • dale ruff

            Assertions made without evidence can be dismissed out of hand. You have no evidence and are repeating the propaganda you have ingested. Climate change is accepted by over 97% of all climate scientists with the other 3% not sure of the empirical fact of global warming. All atmospheric scientists dismiss chemtrails as a myth. I challenge you to find one atmospheric scientist who accepts the reality of chemtrails.

          • ej

            Majority rules so that is science. Real bright.

          • dale ruff

            Wrong! Science is ruled by evidence. The method by which a study is assessed to be reliable is peer–review which is not the same as majority rule.

            When evidence is found that contradicts an established finding it is the finding which is replaced.

            Science is based on evidence, falsification, and logic. There is no majority vote, no central committee, no external control. If you submit a study for publication, it will be judged by experts in that field (peer review). After publication, it will continue to be subject to peer review by any scientist who can find flaws in it. YOung scientists know they can make their name by finding flaws in established research and so there is the constant motivation to find errors. This is why science has progressed so successfully.

            A consensus occurs when pre and post peer-review have found no flaws in a finding.

            If 97% of mechanics agreed that your motor had an oil leak, would you dismiss that as “majority rule” and mock it?

            Science works because it is self-correcting through the continuous process of peer review. Consensus is not majority rule but acceptance of research which has survived peer review, both before and after publication. When flaws ARE revealed, the consensus will change. It is is not perfect, but nothing is, and there is no better way or more successful system of self-correction.

            The 97% consensus is based on a study of 12,000 research papers, so it is not majority rule but majority acceptance of evidence based on research.

          • ej

            Actually science has been corrupted by outside forces because scientists need grant money. The scientific method has been discarded in favor of the almighty dollar.

          • dale ruff

            You have no evidence for yet another false claiim. The average tenured climate scientist, whether at a public or private university, is about $120,000. People in that income range have no overwhelming need to sell out.

            In addition when applications are made for grants, the grantor has no way of knowing what the results of the research will be. There is no evidence that the agencies granting research money are biased, nor that those getting the grants have faked their studies.

            There is no evidence that scientific method has been discarded. If there were you would present it but in the absence of such evidence, your claims can be dismissed as the brainwashed parroting of anti-science propaganda, promoted by those seeking to “kill the messenger” in order to protect their profits which are based on lack of regulations blocked by bribed politicians (this is where you need to look for sell outs) and propaganda to brainwash useful idiots like yourself.

            Clearly, the Koch brothers, Exxon, and other major funders of the anti-climate science propaganda have more money to buy scientists than the government.

            The government spends 1-2 billion a year on climate research (with much of it going to NASA) whereas the Koch brothers have 100 billion, Exxon makes 400 billion a year, with a profit of $45 billion in 2012.

            If scientists want to sell out, they can work for the billionaires whose profits are based on shifting costs to the public and seek ammunition to block legislation (like carbon taxes) which would shift true costs back to the polluters.

            Since you have zero evidence to back your claims, I think we can dismiss you as the victim of industry propaganda and ask you to respond only when you have reliable evidence to prove that the world’s 10,000 climate scientists are all sell outs to the governments of the world.

            You can believe the scientists or the propagandists, your choice.

      • MichaelB204

        Chemtrails are pollution are they not?

      • PJ London

        He has a brain?

  • yEshUA ImmAnUEl * ben-‘Adam

    Luke 6:31
    “Do to others as you would have them do to you.”

    Matthew 22:39
    “Love your neighbor as yourself.”

  • abinico

    All of this is bull sheet. How will Fukushima be resolved – how about that prediction; or GMO contamination of the planet’s food system – how about that prediction, eh? Or when will we have forced vaccinations, for the good of all humanity, huh?

  • Clem

    Oh, we are so advanced and powerful! What a load of shi it. Obviously we are part of a broken solar system that keeps resetting us to zero every 10k years or so.

  • Bad Santa

    Tell them that there is nothing to understand.
    – U.G. Krishnamurti

Thank you for sharing.
Follow us to receive the latest updates.

Like Us On Facebook
Follow Us On Twitter

Send this to friend