That's funny but not always true. Predictions have proven to help the situation in many fields. Healthcare makes no exception. It's better to trust predictions from people who know their business, it's a lesson learned for the human kind. Cancer is the disease that needs our most positive predictions. There are teams that put a lot of effort at the The START Center for Cancer Care, this gives people so much confidence that someday we will talk about this disease at the past tense.
Something similar might be said of Feynman, whose three volume work on physics is fine indeed. His self-aggrandizing postures after the Challenger fiasco tended, however, to diminish him in my eyes as a man, and being a "good" man is more important in my opinion than being a "good" physicist. Ditto for Kaku. So perhaps I'll buy his book used. ;-)
Bert, if you are looking for someone to bet that adding 20 to 40 years to the average life-span will result in ugly results, you may not find many takers. More likely, you will have bloodshed in the streets as strained systems go over the edge. A micro-regulated distopia sounds like the most likely result, with only the most "important" individuals (such as the best political parasites) receiving any real benefit. Luckily, I will not have to live under such a system.
Interesting article (the unabridged one). Much of what he predicts is not far-fetched, actually.
On halting or reversing the aging process, my bet is that when they achieve this, the law of unintended consequences will rear its ugly head. Any bets on this? We'll discover that it comes with a very steep price. Not money, but quality of life, health, or something.
My belief on the future of heath care, and I mean near future, is simply that the heath care industry will have to join the rest of the world. To keep its costs in check, it will have to exploit automation like most other industries have done. In short, use a lot more remote sensing, so that people can avoid labor intensive visits to the doctor. Even for complete medical exams.
My car already does this. We get a monthly report, where the multiple sensors are being checked, and data analyzed, even while the car is sitting in the garage. No reason this can't be done with people.
C'mon guys; the tone of these claims is hilarious. I have the two-volume GPS, Theory and Practice, on my shelf... about 500 people "invented" GPS, which, by the way, didn't spring from the forehead of any particular individual, having a long pedigree behind it. Apparently however, everything of value was discovered or invented by physicists. Where would we be without them? I dunno. I'm just an engineer. But more to the point, why is this man's opinion on healthcare of any particular value? Certainly not because he's a physicist: if he has any insight, it was not obtained by carefully considering Maxwell's equations. His opinion in his area of expertise may be of real value. His opinion on healthcare is hot air. In short, here is one more example of what is perhaps the most common characteristic of the species "physicist": giving a physicist a platform and lever, and he moves the world into a supernova of self-aggrandizing claims of responsibility. Perhaps it's just an occupational hazard. I dunno. I know a dozen or so physicists, not all are so afflicted, so it may be a food allergy or something.
I suppose he can be a nice guy when you get to know him, but based on this we are not off to a good start. This level of hubris reminds me of the physicist who declared that after the Schroedinger equation, all of chemistry was merely stamp collecting.
Replay available now: A handful of emerging network technologies are competing to be the preferred wide-area connection for the Internet of Things. All claim lower costs and power use than cellular but none have wide deployment yet. Listen in as proponents of leading contenders make their case to be the metro or national IoT network of the future. Rick Merritt, EE Times Silicon Valley Bureau Chief, moderators this discussion. Join in and ask his guests questions.