Cover Image: May 2012 Scientific American Magazine See Inside

Intel Futurist on Why We Should Not Fear the Future [Preview]

The world's largest computer chipmaker employs a corporate futurist, Brian David Johnson, to guess what gadgetry and computing will look like in 2020 and beyond















Share on Tumblr



Image: Photograph by Chris Mueller

In Brief

  • Who: Brian David johnson
  • Vocation|Avocation: Futurist and technology planner
  • Where: Intel Corporation
  • Research Focus: Future casting—an endeavor that combines computer and social sciences.
  • Big Picture: In 2020 using a computer won’t feel like using a computer at all.

Much of intel’s success as a microprocessor manufacturer over the past four decades has come from the company’s ability to understand and anticipate the future of technology. Intel co-founder Gordon Moore famously asserted in 1965 that the number of transistors that can be placed on an integrated circuit would double every two years. This assessment, which came to be known as Moore’s Law, proved to be a highly accurate prediction of what his business could accomplish with generous research and development investments and a meticulous product road map.

As Intel’s microprocessors grew smaller, faster and cheaper, they helped to give birth to personal computing and mobile devices that once existed in the realm of science fiction. So it comes as no surprise that science fiction serves as a key inspiration for Brian David Johnson—Intel’s official futurist and the man who is paid to craft visions of both Intel’s prospective technologies and what coming years hold for the entire computing industry.


Subscribe     Buy This Issue

Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.
Rights & Permissions

4 Comments

Add Comment
View
  1. 1. jtdwyer 09:24 AM 5/8/12

    Yes, the very successful self-fulfilling prophecy of Moore's Law (which is used to govern investments in microprocessor IC production technology as well as predicting its technical progress) imparts a high degree of confidence to the electronics industry, especially microprocessor production businesses.

    However, lets not be over-optimistic about solving the enormous problems resulting from the 7 fold population increase since the industrial revolution, including the continuing depletion of required but limited natural resources and the accumulating consequences of long term environmental pollution (to which the electronics industry is a recent major contributor). I can only hope that we can somehow manage to improve the quality of life for everyone - without destroying the planet!

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  2. 2. openeyes999 04:15 AM 5/9/12

    Ah yes, jtdwyer, using every opportunity to preach debunked Malthusianism, no matter how little it has to do with the article in question.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  3. 3. VernW 05:27 PM 5/14/12

    Brian's research focus is dead on in combining computing with social sciences. There may be some unanticipated, but serious ethical choices needed by our corporate boards as the encounter best options unfavorable to corporate profits. As the only creature on this planet with an over evolved intellect, I see our mandate as continuing to explore and learn but, to do so while being of good council and while being a good steward.
    Knowledge is power and we are augmenting our cognition abilities at a logarithmic rate. The future of mankind has surpassed genetic natural selection and is now self directed. I hope, that as Brian, and others like him, look at the positive impact of rapid advances in technology they also consider potential dangers.
    Full speed ahead Intel, but with wise choices and the knowledge, that unlike most of us, there are some that do not want to live in a technologically advanced society.
    Need an example; read "Darwin's Paw"


    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  4. 4. VernW 05:31 PM 5/14/12

    Brian's research focus is dead on in combining computing with social sciences. There may be some unanticipated, but serious ethical choices needed by our corporate boards as they encounter best options unfavorable to corporate profits. As the only creature on this planet with an over evolved intellect, I see our mandate as continuing to explore and learn but, to do so while being of good council and while being a good steward.
    Knowledge is power and we are augmenting our cognition abilities at a logarithmic rate. The future of mankind has surpassed genetic natural selection and is now self directed. I hope, that as Brian, and others like him, look at the positive impact of rapid advances in technology they also consider potential dangers.
    Full speed ahead Intel, but with wise choices and the knowledge, that unlike most of us, there are some that do not want to live in a technologically advanced society.
    Need an example; read "Darwin's Paw"


    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Leave this field empty

Add a Comment

You must sign in or register as a ScientificAmerican.com member to submit a comment.
Click one of the buttons below to register using an existing Social Account.

More from Scientific American

See what we're tweeting about

Scientific American Editors

More »

Free Newsletters


Get the best from Scientific American in your inbox

Solve Innovation Challenges

Powered By: Innocentive

  SA Digital
  SA Digital

Science Jobs of the Week

Email this Article

Intel Futurist on Why We Should Not Fear the Future: Scientific American Magazine

X
Scientific American Magazine

Subscribe Today

Save 66% off the cover price and get a free gift!

Learn More >>

X

Please Log In

Forgot: Password

X

Account Linking

Welcome, . Do you have an existing ScientificAmerican.com account?

Yes, please link my existing account with for quick, secure access.



Forgot Password?

No, I would like to create a new account with my profile information.

Create Account
X

Report Abuse

Are you sure?

X

Institutional Access

It has been identified that the institution you are trying to access this article from has institutional site license access to Scientific American on nature.com. To access this article in its entirety through site license access, click below.

Site license access
X

Error

X

Share this Article

X