What do you think?
Rate this book
What's Next?: Dispatches on the Future of Science
Will climate change force a massive human migration to the Northern Rim?
How does our sense of morality arise from the structure of the brain?
What does the latest research in language acquisition tells us about the role of culture in the way we think?
What does current neurological research tell us about the nature of time?
This wide-ranging collection of never-before-published essays offers the very latest insights into the daunting scientific questions of our time. Its contributors—some of the most brilliant young scientists working today—provide not only an introduction to their cutting-edge research, but discuss the social, ethical, and philosophical ramifications of their work. With essays covering fields as diverse as astrophysics, paleoanthropology, climatology, and neuroscience, What's Next? is a lucid and informed guide to the new frontiers of science.
How does our sense of morality arise from the structure of the brain?
What does the latest research in language acquisition tells us about the role of culture in the way we think?
What does current neurological research tell us about the nature of time?
This wide-ranging collection of never-before-published essays offers the very latest insights into the daunting scientific questions of our time. Its contributors—some of the most brilliant young scientists working today—provide not only an introduction to their cutting-edge research, but discuss the social, ethical, and philosophical ramifications of their work. With essays covering fields as diverse as astrophysics, paleoanthropology, climatology, and neuroscience, What's Next? is a lucid and informed guide to the new frontiers of science.
237 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2009
8 people are currently reading
258 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 38 reviews
March 2, 2023
A bit dated here and there, but the questions posed here generally still stand (as far as I know). It's quite interesting to see both how little and how much science has changed since then, as well as how little the discourse about climate change has changed really. Only comment I have is that this book reinforces the prestige problem in science. All the invited speakers really only come from the most "prestigious" universities, which doesn't necessarily mean they're also the smartest. Not to discredit the authors ofc, bit still, it's a shame.
Also reviewed on The Storygraph
Also reviewed on The Storygraph
July 5, 2009
This collection was a disappointment. On the cover blurb Daniel Gilbert ("Stumbling on happiness") invites us to "find out what the best minds of the new generation are thinking before the Nobel Committee does". Let's be clear upfront - this book is not going to help you to do that. Fair enough - this wouldn't be the first book that fails to live up to its jacket-cover hype.
To understand why it doesn't, it is useful to consider Max Brockman's credentials: "Max Brockman is a literary agent at Brockman Inc., which represents Jared Diamond, Nassem Taleb, Richard Dawkins, and Steven Pinker, among others". So Max is well-connected, but he is not a scientist. And it shows. This is an odd collection of pieces, with an unclear selection criterion, but one which yields oddly unsatisfactory results. With fully two thirds of the eighteen articles in the collection devoted to some aspect of neuroscience (one article deals with climate change, two with cosmology, three with evolutionary biology), the generality implied by the title "Dispatches on the Future of Science" is seen to be a gross over-reach.
If we adjust expectations accordingly and simply judge the book as a collection of essays on ground-breaking topics in recent neuroscientific research, results are mixed, at best. My ratings of the various chapters follows. (My background is that of someone with some knowledge of biology and enough curiosity on these matters to make me a regular reader of "New Scientist" magazine, and the NYT weekly Science Times section)
Christian Keysers: Mirror Neurons: are we Ethical by Nature?
A well-written coherent account, but recent developments suggest it is already outdated.
Nick Bostrom : How to Enhance Human Beings
An almost wilfully obtuse discussion of the important question "to what extent can therapeutic interventions be expected to overcome Mother Nature", that is, why should we expect any proposed intervention to "do better than" evolution? Bostrom's discussion is meandering, unfocused, and unhelpful.
Sarah-Jayne Blakemore: Development of the Social Brain in Adolescence
Imaging shows that the brain continues to develop through adolescence. Yawn. Surely the surprise would be only if imaging didn't show this.
Jason P. Mitchell : Watching Minds Interact
Imaging shows that there are specific areas of the brain dedicated to social interactions. Big yawn. Does this come as a surprise to anybody?
Matthew D. Lieberman : What makes big ideas sticky?
A clear, thought-provoking discussion of the thesis that "Big Ideas are influential and enduring because they fit with the structure and function of the human brain".
Joshua D. Greene : Fruit flies of the moral mind.
A discussion of the organization of the human brain along moral and cognitive dimensions that is at best, adequate, and certainly breaks no new ground.
Lera Boroditsky : How does our language shape the way we think?
This was, for me, the best essay in the book - a fascinating and lucid account of work by the author and colleagues that addresses the extent to which language shapes thought (the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis).
Sam Cooke : Memory Enhancement, Memory Erasure.
This "review" of the process of memory formation was incoherent, ignored important research on the placement of "false memory" and had a Huxleyan focus on possible pharmaceutical intervention that was downright creepy.
Deena Skolnick Weisberg : The Vital Importance of Imagination.
In a remarkable statement of the obvious, Dr Weisberg tells us that our ability to entertain "what if?" questions is central to what makes us human. Someone should alert the media!
David M. Eagleman : Brain Time
On a first reading, it seems as if David Eagleman has some fresh insights to offer on how the brain perceives time. A closer reading reveals the essay to be nothing more than a tease.
Vanessa Woods & Brian Hare : Out of Our Minds. How did Homo sapiens come down from the trees and why did no one follow?
The title poses an interesting question, to which the authors come nowhere near to providing an answer. Their musings about bonobos, chimps, dogs, and domesticated silver foxes nonetheless make for interesting reading.
Gavin Schmidt : Why hasn't specialization led to the balkanization of science?
Schmidt's discussion was interesting and to the point - this was one of the few chapters in the book where I wished for greater detail (the others being those by Matthew Lieberman and Lera Boroditsky).
Given that only three of the pieces on neuroscience were of top quality, I'd have to give the benefit of the doubt to the two pieces on cosmology to justify a third star for this decidedly odd collection. As I personally found them incomprehensible from start to finish, I just can't justify that third star.
If you are looking for a thought-provoking collection of essays on recent scientific progress, give this one a miss and try the infinitely superior collection by Jerome Groopman instead:
http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/....
To understand why it doesn't, it is useful to consider Max Brockman's credentials: "Max Brockman is a literary agent at Brockman Inc., which represents Jared Diamond, Nassem Taleb, Richard Dawkins, and Steven Pinker, among others". So Max is well-connected, but he is not a scientist. And it shows. This is an odd collection of pieces, with an unclear selection criterion, but one which yields oddly unsatisfactory results. With fully two thirds of the eighteen articles in the collection devoted to some aspect of neuroscience (one article deals with climate change, two with cosmology, three with evolutionary biology), the generality implied by the title "Dispatches on the Future of Science" is seen to be a gross over-reach.
If we adjust expectations accordingly and simply judge the book as a collection of essays on ground-breaking topics in recent neuroscientific research, results are mixed, at best. My ratings of the various chapters follows. (My background is that of someone with some knowledge of biology and enough curiosity on these matters to make me a regular reader of "New Scientist" magazine, and the NYT weekly Science Times section)
Christian Keysers: Mirror Neurons: are we Ethical by Nature?
A well-written coherent account, but recent developments suggest it is already outdated.
Nick Bostrom : How to Enhance Human Beings
An almost wilfully obtuse discussion of the important question "to what extent can therapeutic interventions be expected to overcome Mother Nature", that is, why should we expect any proposed intervention to "do better than" evolution? Bostrom's discussion is meandering, unfocused, and unhelpful.
Sarah-Jayne Blakemore: Development of the Social Brain in Adolescence
Imaging shows that the brain continues to develop through adolescence. Yawn. Surely the surprise would be only if imaging didn't show this.
Jason P. Mitchell : Watching Minds Interact
Imaging shows that there are specific areas of the brain dedicated to social interactions. Big yawn. Does this come as a surprise to anybody?
Matthew D. Lieberman : What makes big ideas sticky?
A clear, thought-provoking discussion of the thesis that "Big Ideas are influential and enduring because they fit with the structure and function of the human brain".
Joshua D. Greene : Fruit flies of the moral mind.
A discussion of the organization of the human brain along moral and cognitive dimensions that is at best, adequate, and certainly breaks no new ground.
Lera Boroditsky : How does our language shape the way we think?
This was, for me, the best essay in the book - a fascinating and lucid account of work by the author and colleagues that addresses the extent to which language shapes thought (the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis).
Sam Cooke : Memory Enhancement, Memory Erasure.
This "review" of the process of memory formation was incoherent, ignored important research on the placement of "false memory" and had a Huxleyan focus on possible pharmaceutical intervention that was downright creepy.
Deena Skolnick Weisberg : The Vital Importance of Imagination.
In a remarkable statement of the obvious, Dr Weisberg tells us that our ability to entertain "what if?" questions is central to what makes us human. Someone should alert the media!
David M. Eagleman : Brain Time
On a first reading, it seems as if David Eagleman has some fresh insights to offer on how the brain perceives time. A closer reading reveals the essay to be nothing more than a tease.
Vanessa Woods & Brian Hare : Out of Our Minds. How did Homo sapiens come down from the trees and why did no one follow?
The title poses an interesting question, to which the authors come nowhere near to providing an answer. Their musings about bonobos, chimps, dogs, and domesticated silver foxes nonetheless make for interesting reading.
Gavin Schmidt : Why hasn't specialization led to the balkanization of science?
Schmidt's discussion was interesting and to the point - this was one of the few chapters in the book where I wished for greater detail (the others being those by Matthew Lieberman and Lera Boroditsky).
Given that only three of the pieces on neuroscience were of top quality, I'd have to give the benefit of the doubt to the two pieces on cosmology to justify a third star for this decidedly odd collection. As I personally found them incomprehensible from start to finish, I just can't justify that third star.
If you are looking for a thought-provoking collection of essays on recent scientific progress, give this one a miss and try the infinitely superior collection by Jerome Groopman instead:
http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/....
October 24, 2011
The title of this book is quite deceiving; the essays do not cover the gamut of science research, as two-thirds deal with neuroscience. Most areas of science are not even mentioned. Also, most of the essays are not about the future of science, but instead are about recent (and not-so-recent) findings in science.
Nevertheless, this is a fun, fascinating book. I particularly enjoyed the essay on the influence of language on human thinking. People with different native languages really do think differently about the world. I also appreciate the essay on how the brain re-interprets the timing of sensory inputs. The brain messes around with our concept of simultaneity, to agree with our intuition about causality.
Nevertheless, this is a fun, fascinating book. I particularly enjoyed the essay on the influence of language on human thinking. People with different native languages really do think differently about the world. I also appreciate the essay on how the brain re-interprets the timing of sensory inputs. The brain messes around with our concept of simultaneity, to agree with our intuition about causality.
August 12, 2019
Hem İngilizce orjinaline, hem de Türkçe çevirisine çok kötü bir isim seçimi. Bu kitapta, ağırlıklı olarak psikoloji ve nöroloji üzerine olmak üzere 14 bilim konulu makale var. Kitap ne gelecekle ilgili, ne de geleceği okumakla.
Makalelerin bir kısmı oldukça ilgi çekici. Ancak bu ilgi çekici yazılar da pazarlama kokan kitap ismi seçimine kurban gitmiş.
Türkçe çeviriler kötü ve özensiz.
Makalelerin bir kısmı oldukça ilgi çekici. Ancak bu ilgi çekici yazılar da pazarlama kokan kitap ismi seçimine kurban gitmiş.
Türkçe çeviriler kötü ve özensiz.
July 14, 2019
Some younger scientists report on what they're doing.
The main difference between this and other science anthologies that I have read is 1) the essays are original, written especially for this volume; and 2) the scientists are relatively young not yet at the pinnacle of their careers.
Max Brockman believes that "it's important to engage with the thinking of the next generation, to better understand not just what is going on in our own time but what issues society will face in the future. This exercise is especially valuable in science, where so many of the important discoveries are made by those in emerging generations." (p. xiii) Consequently he "approached some of today's leading scientists and asked them to name some of the rising stars in their respective disciplines: those who, in their research, are tackling some of science's toughest questions and raising new ones." (pp. xii-xiv) The result is this book with essays from 18 scientists in fields ranging from cosmology to microbiology.
In the first essay UCLA climatologist Laurence C. Smith asks "Will We Decamp for the Northern Rim?" His answer is that he does "not advise buying acreage in Labrador," but "maybe in Michigan." What is clear is that the north is warming up and making "land that is hardly livable [in]to land that is somewhat livable." He sees the US and Canada as the two countries "best positioned for expansion" into what has been known as the lands of the "minus-forty" degrees. Central to his piece is the prediction that north of the 45th parallel "temperatures will rise at nearly double the global average…and precipitation will increase sharply as well."
In the second essay neuroscientist Christian Keysers argues that "mirror neurons" in our brain that enable us mimic and feel what other are doing and feeling merely by watching--something we do automatically--strongly suggests that humans are ethical by nature. He believes that our brain circuits "lay the foundation for an intuitive altruism."
Philosopher Nick Bostrom looks at enhancing human beings so that we might be better acclimated to the modern world instead of the savannahs of Africa on which we evolved.
Physicist Sean Carroll explores entropy and the arrow of time in the cosmos while physicist Stephon H.S. Alexander grapples with dark energy.
There are essays on the social development of the brain in adolescence by Sarah-Jayne Blakemore; on using brain imaging to explore social thought (Jason P. Mitchell); how language shapes the way we think (Lera Broditsky); on memory enhancement (Sam Cooke); and so on to whether specialization in science is making it impossible for scientists in different field to communicate (Gavin Schmidt, who says that the last person able to keep up with all the sciences lived in the eighteenth century).
Of particular interest to me are the essays by David M .Eagleman on "Brain Time," and by Vanessa Woods and Brian Hare on how humans came "down from the trees" and why no one followed. In the former, Eagleman addresses the familiar phenomenon that "time 'slows down' during brief, dangerous events such as car accidents and robberies." (p. 159) I've had that experience myself and have tried to account for it. What Eagleman discovered is that because of the emergency situation we take in much more information about what is happening than we usually do and this "higher density of data" makes the event appear to last longer." (p. 161) This is similar to the sense that for a child the day is long and for the old person the day is short. The day seems longer for the child because so much of what the child is experiencing is new and requires close attention, whereas for a person of senior years much of what happens has been seen before and requires only the most cursory attention.
In the latter essay, Woods and Hare explore the canine-human relationship and show how dogs are better able to read humans than are our closer relatives, chimpanzees. Dogs were able to find hidden objects in an experiment when humans would gaze at or point to the hiding place or even tap on the hiding place. But chimps have not the habit of paying that much attention to humans and would just miss the clues. Woods and Hare ask why this should be and answer: "One idea is that dogs live with us, so over thousands of hours of interacting with us, they learn to read our body language. Another idea is that the pack lifestyle and cooperative hunting of wolves, the canids from which all dogs evolved, made all canids, dogs included, more in tune with social cues." (p. 177)
Woods and Hare also report on an experiment by the Russian scientist Dmitri Belyaev who raised some forty generations of foxes, selecting those most friendly to humans in each generation. The foxes "became incredibly friendly toward humans. Whenever they saw people, they barked, wagged their tails, sniffed the people, and licked their faces. But even stranger were the physical changes...." Their ears "became floppy" and their "tails turned curly." "In short, they looked and behaved remarkably like their close relative the domestic dog." (pp. 178-179)
Incidentally Max Brockman is the son of John Brockman who has edited a number of first class science anthologies. "What's Next" continues that excellent tradition.
--Dennis Littrell, author of “The World Is Not as We Think It Is”
The main difference between this and other science anthologies that I have read is 1) the essays are original, written especially for this volume; and 2) the scientists are relatively young not yet at the pinnacle of their careers.
Max Brockman believes that "it's important to engage with the thinking of the next generation, to better understand not just what is going on in our own time but what issues society will face in the future. This exercise is especially valuable in science, where so many of the important discoveries are made by those in emerging generations." (p. xiii) Consequently he "approached some of today's leading scientists and asked them to name some of the rising stars in their respective disciplines: those who, in their research, are tackling some of science's toughest questions and raising new ones." (pp. xii-xiv) The result is this book with essays from 18 scientists in fields ranging from cosmology to microbiology.
In the first essay UCLA climatologist Laurence C. Smith asks "Will We Decamp for the Northern Rim?" His answer is that he does "not advise buying acreage in Labrador," but "maybe in Michigan." What is clear is that the north is warming up and making "land that is hardly livable [in]to land that is somewhat livable." He sees the US and Canada as the two countries "best positioned for expansion" into what has been known as the lands of the "minus-forty" degrees. Central to his piece is the prediction that north of the 45th parallel "temperatures will rise at nearly double the global average…and precipitation will increase sharply as well."
In the second essay neuroscientist Christian Keysers argues that "mirror neurons" in our brain that enable us mimic and feel what other are doing and feeling merely by watching--something we do automatically--strongly suggests that humans are ethical by nature. He believes that our brain circuits "lay the foundation for an intuitive altruism."
Philosopher Nick Bostrom looks at enhancing human beings so that we might be better acclimated to the modern world instead of the savannahs of Africa on which we evolved.
Physicist Sean Carroll explores entropy and the arrow of time in the cosmos while physicist Stephon H.S. Alexander grapples with dark energy.
There are essays on the social development of the brain in adolescence by Sarah-Jayne Blakemore; on using brain imaging to explore social thought (Jason P. Mitchell); how language shapes the way we think (Lera Broditsky); on memory enhancement (Sam Cooke); and so on to whether specialization in science is making it impossible for scientists in different field to communicate (Gavin Schmidt, who says that the last person able to keep up with all the sciences lived in the eighteenth century).
Of particular interest to me are the essays by David M .Eagleman on "Brain Time," and by Vanessa Woods and Brian Hare on how humans came "down from the trees" and why no one followed. In the former, Eagleman addresses the familiar phenomenon that "time 'slows down' during brief, dangerous events such as car accidents and robberies." (p. 159) I've had that experience myself and have tried to account for it. What Eagleman discovered is that because of the emergency situation we take in much more information about what is happening than we usually do and this "higher density of data" makes the event appear to last longer." (p. 161) This is similar to the sense that for a child the day is long and for the old person the day is short. The day seems longer for the child because so much of what the child is experiencing is new and requires close attention, whereas for a person of senior years much of what happens has been seen before and requires only the most cursory attention.
In the latter essay, Woods and Hare explore the canine-human relationship and show how dogs are better able to read humans than are our closer relatives, chimpanzees. Dogs were able to find hidden objects in an experiment when humans would gaze at or point to the hiding place or even tap on the hiding place. But chimps have not the habit of paying that much attention to humans and would just miss the clues. Woods and Hare ask why this should be and answer: "One idea is that dogs live with us, so over thousands of hours of interacting with us, they learn to read our body language. Another idea is that the pack lifestyle and cooperative hunting of wolves, the canids from which all dogs evolved, made all canids, dogs included, more in tune with social cues." (p. 177)
Woods and Hare also report on an experiment by the Russian scientist Dmitri Belyaev who raised some forty generations of foxes, selecting those most friendly to humans in each generation. The foxes "became incredibly friendly toward humans. Whenever they saw people, they barked, wagged their tails, sniffed the people, and licked their faces. But even stranger were the physical changes...." Their ears "became floppy" and their "tails turned curly." "In short, they looked and behaved remarkably like their close relative the domestic dog." (pp. 178-179)
Incidentally Max Brockman is the son of John Brockman who has edited a number of first class science anthologies. "What's Next" continues that excellent tradition.
--Dennis Littrell, author of “The World Is Not as We Think It Is”
September 13, 2017
A collection of 18 essays from different scientists. The subject matter mainly focuses on neuroscience. Three essays are on evolutionary biology , two on cosmology and one on climate change. This is a mixed bag of quality with some well-written pieces and a handful of mind-numbing topics. Max Brockman is a well-connected writer without a science background. This book concept is interesting but the implementation falls flat.
The spoiler goes into detail on each essay:
The spoiler goes into detail on each essay:
April 26, 2021
Het is een beetje vreemd om twaalf jaar na dato artikelen te lezen die worden gebracht als “cutting edge science”. Dit is uiteraard geen boek met een lange houdbaarheid. Toch was veel ervan nog altijd prima leesbaar.
De artikelen liepen wat mij betreft uiteen van onbegrijpelijk (Donkere Energie), via oninteressant (Wetenschapsspecialisatie) en overbekend (Spiegelneuronen) tot boeiend (Breintijd), bruikbaar (Verbeeldingskracht) en uiteindelijk briljant (Taal en denken). Het ene artikel leest wat lekkerder (Sociale Brein) dan het andere (Virussen). Nu eens lees je een hoop doem en ellende (Noordelijker wonen), dan weer prettige positiviteit (Interactie). De meeste wetenschapsgebieden zijn links- of rechtsom wel vertegenwoordigd, soms met een pleidooi, dan weer met een overzicht over het gebied of juist met een heel specialistisch stukje theorie.
De vertaling uit het Engels is matig, waardoor de zinnen soms houterig lopen en de taal nu eens hoogdravend is en vol jargon zit en dan weer klinkt als een soort gekunstelde spreektaal.
Kortom: de positieve aspecten overheersen, genoeg verrassingen en nieuwe (twaalf jaar oude) inzichten, overzichtelijk en toegankelijk genoeg opgeschreven: drie sterren.
De artikelen liepen wat mij betreft uiteen van onbegrijpelijk (Donkere Energie), via oninteressant (Wetenschapsspecialisatie) en overbekend (Spiegelneuronen) tot boeiend (Breintijd), bruikbaar (Verbeeldingskracht) en uiteindelijk briljant (Taal en denken). Het ene artikel leest wat lekkerder (Sociale Brein) dan het andere (Virussen). Nu eens lees je een hoop doem en ellende (Noordelijker wonen), dan weer prettige positiviteit (Interactie). De meeste wetenschapsgebieden zijn links- of rechtsom wel vertegenwoordigd, soms met een pleidooi, dan weer met een overzicht over het gebied of juist met een heel specialistisch stukje theorie.
De vertaling uit het Engels is matig, waardoor de zinnen soms houterig lopen en de taal nu eens hoogdravend is en vol jargon zit en dan weer klinkt als een soort gekunstelde spreektaal.
Kortom: de positieve aspecten overheersen, genoeg verrassingen en nieuwe (twaalf jaar oude) inzichten, overzichtelijk en toegankelijk genoeg opgeschreven: drie sterren.
August 15, 2018
I thoroughly enjoyed this collection of essays on future trends in science. If you want to dig your teeth into how your brain is tricking you for your own good, how the climate is likely FUBARed, and why we are so social and empathetic then this is the book for you.
Do not, under any circumstances, miss the Brain Time essay. You're welcome.
Do not, under any circumstances, miss the Brain Time essay. You're welcome.
October 31, 2020
Getting a bit out of date 10 years on of course but the main thing that struck me was how little seemed to be about were we are going. Not to say there is not a good bit of interesting info in there just that is was not what I expected from the title and description.
June 11, 2025
This book is an excellent collection of essays by individuals who are at the tops of their fields. They discuss what science has come to understand and how their personal discoveries will help the world in the immediate and distant future.
July 10, 2010
What will the big scientific revelations of the coming decade? Although no one can say for certain, "What's Next" provide a small glimpse of what's to come. Filled with essays by some of the world's top young scientists, the book explores topics as diverse as neuroscience, dark matter, climate change, human evolution, and biological enhancement. The writers presented a variety of neat ideas. Among the most interesting ideas I read were:
1. The brain is well-equipped for human beings to understand
and follow other people. Special neurons called mirror
neurons actually are actually designed to allow us to feel
what other people feel, and do what they do (this is why you
wince in pain when you see someone else get hurt).
2. The parts of our brain that allow us to understand other
people's minds are actually processing all the time, which
may explain why humans anthropomorphize everything.
3. Ideas may be popular because the structure of our brains
allow us to better accept these ideas.
4. Ethical dilemmas may actually be the result of differences
in activation of two different neural circuits in our brain.
5. The aboriginal Kuuk Thaayorre have a language based on
the cardinal directions of a map. The Aboriginese also have
16 genders in their language, including a gender especially
for "woman, fire, and dangerous things."
6. The brain actually delays information processing in order to
make events appear simultaneous. The reason we also feel
time speeds up as we age is because our brain condenses more
information as precepts- precepts we didn't have as
children, when our brains stored memories in "uncompressed"
formats.
7. Friendliness may have been the reason our complex brains
evolved.
8. There might be such thing as good viruses.
9. We may have driven our closest ancestors, the Neanderthals,
into extinction.
The essays contained an assortment of writing styles, but all were fairly accessible and interesting. Some of the essays could be of particular use to technical scientists, particularly Nick Bostrom's essay on criteria for determining whether various biological enhancement's could be useful to people, as well as Gavin Schmidt's essay on the factors that prevent science from being destroyed by continuous specialization.
The book did have some minor problems. The book could have been improved with a little more topic diversity as the book had a relatively large proportion of neuroscience essays. Essays on molecular biology, chemistry, disease, or even mathematics would have been most welcome. Stephon Alexander's essay on dark energy was a also a bit murky to grasp without a second reading. However, the book ultimately did a great job of presenting cutting-edge science and inspiring universal wonder.
1. The brain is well-equipped for human beings to understand
and follow other people. Special neurons called mirror
neurons actually are actually designed to allow us to feel
what other people feel, and do what they do (this is why you
wince in pain when you see someone else get hurt).
2. The parts of our brain that allow us to understand other
people's minds are actually processing all the time, which
may explain why humans anthropomorphize everything.
3. Ideas may be popular because the structure of our brains
allow us to better accept these ideas.
4. Ethical dilemmas may actually be the result of differences
in activation of two different neural circuits in our brain.
5. The aboriginal Kuuk Thaayorre have a language based on
the cardinal directions of a map. The Aboriginese also have
16 genders in their language, including a gender especially
for "woman, fire, and dangerous things."
6. The brain actually delays information processing in order to
make events appear simultaneous. The reason we also feel
time speeds up as we age is because our brain condenses more
information as precepts- precepts we didn't have as
children, when our brains stored memories in "uncompressed"
formats.
7. Friendliness may have been the reason our complex brains
evolved.
8. There might be such thing as good viruses.
9. We may have driven our closest ancestors, the Neanderthals,
into extinction.
The essays contained an assortment of writing styles, but all were fairly accessible and interesting. Some of the essays could be of particular use to technical scientists, particularly Nick Bostrom's essay on criteria for determining whether various biological enhancement's could be useful to people, as well as Gavin Schmidt's essay on the factors that prevent science from being destroyed by continuous specialization.
The book did have some minor problems. The book could have been improved with a little more topic diversity as the book had a relatively large proportion of neuroscience essays. Essays on molecular biology, chemistry, disease, or even mathematics would have been most welcome. Stephon Alexander's essay on dark energy was a also a bit murky to grasp without a second reading. However, the book ultimately did a great job of presenting cutting-edge science and inspiring universal wonder.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
February 22, 2023
a smattering of filth meets a trough of puke. Distasteful. Embarrassing. Should be ashamed. I surely am for reading it. 3 star read for sure!
November 18, 2009
For anyone who wonders what the near future holds and what exactly are all those scientists doing with the grants and tax dollar funding they receive, What’s Next? is a book with some answers. Featuring eighteen original essays that have never been published from some of today’s best scientists, What’s Next? will insight a curiosity in the reader on advances and research that is being made in the many fields of science.
While a little patience and perhaps some scientific background is recommended, as these scientists are not authors of multiple books and tend to get very detailed and complex in their essays, readers will find news and answers in the fields if neurological research, behavior, how humans think, the nature of time, and where our idea of morality possibly arises from. Global warming is addressed in a most interesting essay that analyzes a warming world where the Northern Rim becomes further habitable, but leaves readers with the question of how many people will want to move into the undeveloped heartland of Russia?
What’s Next? is a collection of some very interesting and insightful essays that give readers news and information on some areas of research and science that may not be readily available to them through magazines or newspapers, or perhaps are only available through expensive science journals. Perhaps a book to truly show “your tax dollars at work.”
For more reviews, check out the BookBanter site.
While a little patience and perhaps some scientific background is recommended, as these scientists are not authors of multiple books and tend to get very detailed and complex in their essays, readers will find news and answers in the fields if neurological research, behavior, how humans think, the nature of time, and where our idea of morality possibly arises from. Global warming is addressed in a most interesting essay that analyzes a warming world where the Northern Rim becomes further habitable, but leaves readers with the question of how many people will want to move into the undeveloped heartland of Russia?
What’s Next? is a collection of some very interesting and insightful essays that give readers news and information on some areas of research and science that may not be readily available to them through magazines or newspapers, or perhaps are only available through expensive science journals. Perhaps a book to truly show “your tax dollars at work.”
For more reviews, check out the BookBanter site.
May 24, 2011
The latest developments in science are the source of enduring fascination, by both the insiders and outsiders of the scientific community. Even more fascinating are the speculations about what may lay just around the corner, within next few years or decades of scientific research. The future always tends to be more exciting than even the most amazing advances of today. In that respect, this book is a very good overview of the status of some of the most advanced current research and the directions in which it is headed. It is written by many young but well established experts in the field, and they are the best guide to all the upcoming developments. Their presentation of their own work is well geared towards a general reader, and overall they tell some very interesting and compelling stories. If you are at all interested in science, this will be an engaging read. However, it is not always clear if some of the predictions that are offered here are based on solid scientific understanding of where that particular field is headed, or are they more of a wishful thinking at the author's part. Another thing that I don't like about this book is the lack of diversity among the chosen scientific topics. Most of the chapters are dedicated to one of the three main themes: fundamental Physics, human mind and behavior, or climate change. The reader will thus get a rather skewed and unbalanced view of the kinds of research that are done these days.
November 6, 2011
If this collection of essays is representative of where science is headed in the next decade or two, we can look forward to better understanding of human cognition, social/behavorial psychology, evolutionary biology, and climate change, not to mention more overlap between these fields. But IS it a representative collection? -- I was a little disappointed that the book didn't address obvious hot topics in more technological areas, such as particle physics, green energy, nanotechnology, or artificial intelligence.
Regardless of their focus, though, I found the issues that these piece examine generally interesting. Does the language we speak affect how we think? How are viruses necessary? Why is that wolves and chimpanzees can't follow a pointing finger, but dogs can? (Because that sort of human social awareness has been bred into dogs.) Why is it that you can see another person's eyes flick, but not your own? How does the brain organize sense data arriving at different times?
Some of the authors are better writers than others, so the level of clarity and compellingness varies, but, together, they provide a good snapshot of some of science's advancing fronts. Even fields the book doesn't cover will probably be influenced by progress in the ones it does.
Regardless of their focus, though, I found the issues that these piece examine generally interesting. Does the language we speak affect how we think? How are viruses necessary? Why is that wolves and chimpanzees can't follow a pointing finger, but dogs can? (Because that sort of human social awareness has been bred into dogs.) Why is it that you can see another person's eyes flick, but not your own? How does the brain organize sense data arriving at different times?
Some of the authors are better writers than others, so the level of clarity and compellingness varies, but, together, they provide a good snapshot of some of science's advancing fronts. Even fields the book doesn't cover will probably be influenced by progress in the ones it does.
January 1, 2017
I tend to agree with the comments made by David Giltinan (click on the book cover to check out his extensive review). Despite the fact that I like this type of book to keep up to date with various developments, this turned out to be a disappointment.
Indeed, the subjects are interesting, as is the apparent emphasis on neurological research (the essay on memory enhancement/erasure was particularly chilly...) but the fact that each researcher's literary style differed substantially (in my opinion) gives the book an overall uneven approach. However, the most difficult aspect of just about all of the entries is that the authors naturally rely on the jargon of their particular discipline to talk about their specific line of research — this makes it hard to know exactly what is being talked about if you are not familiar with that jargon...
One can't help feeling that this book is merely the first level of input: what is now needed is a good editor to digest the information, then write about each area in a way accessible to us mere mortals outside the disciplines involved...
Indeed, the subjects are interesting, as is the apparent emphasis on neurological research (the essay on memory enhancement/erasure was particularly chilly...) but the fact that each researcher's literary style differed substantially (in my opinion) gives the book an overall uneven approach. However, the most difficult aspect of just about all of the entries is that the authors naturally rely on the jargon of their particular discipline to talk about their specific line of research — this makes it hard to know exactly what is being talked about if you are not familiar with that jargon...
One can't help feeling that this book is merely the first level of input: what is now needed is a good editor to digest the information, then write about each area in a way accessible to us mere mortals outside the disciplines involved...
Want to read
October 3, 2009Off this review:
What’s Next: Dispatches on the Future of Science
Edited by Max Brockman (Vintage)
This tightly curated batch of original essays, edited by Edge Foundation, Inc.’s Max Brockman, introduces readers to 18 young scientists whose work is actively shaping our future. Each entry introduces a piece of leading-edge research, delving into everything from experimental manipulations of time perception and the role of mirror neurons in ethics to the ways that climate change may affect our migration patterns. Though some subjects feel too familiar, essays like the one by theoretical physicist Sean Carroll on asymmetry in the cosmos take on some of the most mind-scrambling and exciting questions in science.
What’s Next: Dispatches on the Future of Science
Edited by Max Brockman (Vintage)
This tightly curated batch of original essays, edited by Edge Foundation, Inc.’s Max Brockman, introduces readers to 18 young scientists whose work is actively shaping our future. Each entry introduces a piece of leading-edge research, delving into everything from experimental manipulations of time perception and the role of mirror neurons in ethics to the ways that climate change may affect our migration patterns. Though some subjects feel too familiar, essays like the one by theoretical physicist Sean Carroll on asymmetry in the cosmos take on some of the most mind-scrambling and exciting questions in science.
September 6, 2009
Max Brockman has assembled a very interesting collection of essays from up-and-coming thought leaders in a variety of scientific areas. One essay that caught my eye is the one by Matthew Lieberman called “What Makes Ideas Sticky?†It is not only an interesting discussion on how the human brain gets affected (or infected) by memes but also theories about this very subject that are sticky and difficult to dislodge from the scientific community. He suggests that the language of some big ideas tend to structurally and functionally match the human brains symbolic processing capability, thus they are difficult not to believe. Cartesian dualism anyone?
Currently reading
April 11, 2009I added this anthology to my "to read list" after hearing a fascinating article on NPR about Lera Boroditsky's essay, "How Does Our Language Shape the Way We Think?"
Boroditsky, who teaches psychology at Stanford University, discusses how the latest research in language acquisition tells us about the role of culture in the way we think. (To be released 05/09.)
Listen or read the NPR article here: http://bit.ly/3YE7c3
Boroditsky, who teaches psychology at Stanford University, discusses how the latest research in language acquisition tells us about the role of culture in the way we think. (To be released 05/09.)
Listen or read the NPR article here: http://bit.ly/3YE7c3
August 7, 2010
I love reading articles on the edge.org especially the answers to the annual question. Max Brockman is the son of edge.org founder, John Brockman, and is following in his fathers footsteps by publishing cutting edge science by up-coming scientists. Most of the essays are about neuroscience and evolutionary biology. It would have been nice to have the topics spread out across other disciplines - thus, 4 stars instead of 5. If you like Steven Pinker, you'll love this.
June 2, 2014
This is a great book for filling small patches of time with thought-provoking content – quick, readable essays by some of the most cutting-edge scientists in the world. It’s as if you were at a big egg-headed cocktail party. Why are social insects social? Do humans really have an innate moral sense? What is dark energy anyway? (no, it’s not espresso) – it’s all in there! Note – much of this content is also available on edge.org, one of Honeybee’s favorite websites.
August 18, 2016
Il problema di libri come questo è che confondono chi vi si avvicina timoroso con premesse rassicuranti sulla comprensione delle argomentazioni trattate. Salvo poi smentire tutto con trattazioni solo apparentemente divulgative, ma nelle quali prevale l'erudizione scientifica e che possono essere apprezzate quasi esclusivamente da addetti ai lavori. Meglio, allora, abbonarsi al National Geographic.
July 24, 2009
A great book that covers a wide variety of subjects focusing on the current trends in science. Short essay length chapters, each written by a 'younger' scientist on topics ranging from physics, biology, cognitive science and collaboration across scientific fields. A few of the essays are really terrific and the book as a whole is worth a read.
September 5, 2014
Lots of interesting essays on a wide variety of topics. I need to read more science stuff, and in broader fields. Particular favorites: Matthew D. Lieberman on stick ideas which conform to the structure and function of the brain, Lera Boroditsky on how language shapes thinking patterns, and Vanessa Woods and Brian hare on human evolution and domestication (yes, human domestication...of humans).
January 14, 2010
last chapter is the one to read-- talks about knowledge and cross-disciplinary and silo-breaking ways to broaden realms of knowable/workable information rather than become isolated by narrowness/specialization.
May 15, 2010
Contains a number of fascinating topics that modern scientists are studying. It gives a good range of theories, providing just enough information for an overview. I have been encouraged to look further into some of the ideas based on what I read here.
August 19, 2013
This was a really quick read, and I enjoyed it almost as much as a series of radiolab "shorts." Pulling from a wide variety of scientific topics, the compilation was a fun glimpse into the complicated stuff of contemporary science.
March 21, 2010
The book explores different areas of science through the eyes of young scientists. Some entries are much better than others, ergo the three-star rating.
August 25, 2009
Great essays from scientists discussing questions they believe will be of interest in the future. I loved this book, extremely smart and intelligent, something to re-read and talk about!
August 10, 2009
Some very thought-provoking essays about cosmology and neurobiology. The more philosophical essays left me cold.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 38 reviews