The more important fundamental laws and facts of physical science have all been discovered.
--A.A. Michelson, future Nobel laureate in physics, 1894

Everything that can be invented has been invented.
--the head of the U.S. Patent Office, 1899 in physics, 1894

Futurism is as old as ancient soothsayers and usually less accurate. Still, some general scientific, political, and economic trends are in evidence at the close of the twentieth century, and it is essential for a book such as this one to explore some likely future paths, and to demonstrate how science and technology are likely to influence these changes. To do so, we must begin with a proper analysis of the past and how it evolved into the present.

I choose to group the economic history of human beings into four eras: hunter-gatherer, agricultural, industrial, and information- based. (As I understand, other writers, notably Alvin and Heidi Toffler, have developed similar schema.) These stages are in order of historical attainment, but also in reverse order of material necessity. Hunting and gathering are responses to immediate physical needs. When these have been adequately satisfied, people can turn to long- term projects, such as sowing crops for harvest months later. The output of sufficient agricultural products for food, shelter, and clothing is central to the survival of individuals and communities. Only when agriculture became efficient enough that some people did not need to participate in this sector of the economy could other forms of production, and civilization, begin. Civilized societies generally developed additional ways of enhancing the efficiency of agriculture: they designed irrigation systems, better plows, and systems of trade. We can see that industrial and information-based development were already present, albeit in vestigial form: handicrafts were being produced, and knowledge was being utilized to enhance material and spiritual wealth.

This pattern persisted for some millennia, until the eighteenth century, when the Netherlands and Britain became the first states to make industrial production the center of their economies. By this time, their agriculture had become relatively efficient, and surplus labor, land, and capital could be utilized to fulfill non-essential material desires. The power of the steam engine began to replace that of human beings and animals in many applications.

For all the real and potential gains of this transformation, and the many decades over which it occurred, the process was wrenching and often devastating to those whom it affected. Centuries-old patterns of production were changed within the span of several lifetimes. The landless found themselves fenced out of their traditional roaming grounds, and were compelled to move to the congested, filth-ridden cities. A life which had followed the rhythms of the sun and the seasons became one which was subservient to the clock. Industrial pollution poured forth into the air and rivers. Workers were herded into unsafe, fire-prone factories, where they were treated nearly like slaves. Urbanization without adequate sanitation or infrastructure led to epidemics and overcrowded conditions. In every country where industrialization began before the twentieth century, the advance produced a great deal of misery for many.

To be sure, such conditions were not an inevitable result of industrialization, but were due to societal indifference to the plight of urban workers and lack of forethought regarding how to handle the transformation. The change in economic focus was challenging of necessity, but brutal due to societal choices.

Over time, the excesses of industrialization were moderated, and workers reaped the benefits of the new technology alongside the wealthy. Their individual wealth, and the range of goods available to them, multiplied manifold. A stable, comfortable industrial society seemed to be emerging. When Americans think back to their experience during the 1950s, it is often one of halcyon days in which stable industrial jobs and ever-increasing standards of living were the norm. Many Americans seem to have forgotten the unpleasantnesses of that era, such as the Korean War, McCarthyism, segregated lunch counters, strict limits to women's success, and lower living standards than today's. Then again, compared with the Depression and World War II, the 1950s must have seemed like paradise.

But the industrial age is being superseded for the very reason it emerged: increasing efficiency. Further technological advances, and insights into how to use human beings and technology to more effectively synergize with one another, have made it possible for ever more industrial goods to be produced with ever fewer workers. As with agriculture, fewer people are participating in a well-honed form of production, but those who remain are growing more specialized and expert. It has become easy and cheap to make widgets; the barriers to entering the market for widget- manufacturing have plummeted, so that such goods are often made in developing countries, where the cost of labor is low.

The most advanced economies are, in terms of the fraction of their Gross Domestic Product (GDP) that derives from manufacturing, de-industrializing, just as the earlier moved away from agriculture. Rich nations import their clothes and toys alongside bananas and coffee. David Ricardo demonstrated, and two centuries of economic history have borne him out, that even if one nation is more efficient than another in all areas of economic output, it still is in the interest of both to specialize and to trade for what they do not produce. Today, advanced economies are coming to focus on what they do best: adding value by creating, using, and disseminating information. They increasingly export scientific and engineering development, financial services, software, entertainment, marketing skills, and the like.

Robert Reich, in his seminal book The Work of Nations, argues that for the reasons outlined above, investment in "human capital" via education is the key to economic success in the coming century. Advanced economies will be competing increasingly on their ability to develop and manipulate information. This is especially true given that political barriers to trade are dropping in most parts of the world. Though many counterexamples exist, the general trend of most governments' current policies is to move towards deregulation rather than the reverse. Adam Smith has triumphed in most respects, and the result is a truly global marketplace in which nations do best to maximize their output of their most competitive exports.

The transformation to an information economy is far from painless, which is why I dwelled for so long on the far more agonizing transition to industrialization. As manufacturing companies in advanced countries reduce their workforces in favor of automation and overseas production, people wonder what kinds of work remain to be done. Older workers are particularly hard-hit, since they have nearly completed their time in the workforce and will gain little from retraining for significant periods of time. Latter- day Luddites (19th-century English workers who destroyed labor- saving devices) call for advanced technology not to be used to replace human efforts. Amidst this age of anxiety, in which young and old alike fret about their employment and financial security, economic statistics are surprisingly favorable. There is a growing gap between the reality of relative prosperity--though it fails to meet our hopes or expectations--and the perception of economic stress. The media contribute greatly to the problem; "Big, Faceless Company Lays Off 5,000 Workers" looms much larger in the newspaper than the growth of thousands of small and medium-sized companies which pick up the slack, keeping unemployment low in the United States. Manufacturing jobs are gradually disappearing in advanced economies; but other, more varied, forms of production--particularly those based on advanced science and computer technology--are rapidly increasing their share of employment, sometimes even exponentially.

Moreover, this transformation offers immense opportunities for economic redistribution, as did the Industrial Revolution. Medieval aristocrats found themselves losing ground to mercantile "upstarts," and had to label their wealth "old money" to assert their superiority over the nouveau riche. (Why being a parasitic dolt with renowned ancestors offers greater prestige than personal success is not the topic of this essay.) They also intermarried with the newly wealthy in order to preserve their class standing. Still, even these measures scarcely stemmed their decline.

Today, the "means of production" are based to a growing extent on knowledge. Any individual who has honed and applied their intellectual abilities, particularly in a field with some objectivity, will be respected regardless of national origins, race, religion, political beliefs, or other bases for prejudice. During the Civil War, Frederick Douglass argued that when black men had demonstrated their valor in arms, no force on Earth could deny them citizenship. Likewise, any individual with a command of scientific knowledge and practices is hard to disdain on the basis of areas irrelevant to achievement.

Old elites will survive only to the extent that they employ their educational advantages, but if history is any guide, they will recklessly squander them. In turn, those who focus on educational achievement (and who have had the opportunity to receive a good basic education) will acquire ever-greater economic opportunities.

Doomsdayers will no doubt disagree with this diagnosis/prognosis, arguing that the long-term trend is towards mass unemployment and rigidification of class distinctions. It is generally difficult to defend any position in economics, as all evidence for economic trends is either statistical or anecdotal; the first is (often rightly) suspect, and the second can always be countered by another anecdote. But if the reader will contemplate the jobs that their friends, family, and acquaintances are now doing, and how those jobs have shifted in recent years, they will likely find the above analysis not only heartening, but accurate.

Economics earned the sobriquet "the dismal science" when one of its earliest practitioners, Thomas Malthus, predicted that population growth would always outstrip economic growth. Rather, the reverse has generally been true, and the result has been an astounding increase in standards of living in most of the world over the last two centuries. In nearly every country, the quality and quantity of goods and services within the reach of average individuals is constantly increasing. Though there will always be differentials between socioeconomic groups (and these will be strongly exacerbated by differences in educational opportunities), there will be more resources for all to share.

Paul Ehrlich and Julian Simon, a biologist and an economist, have argued for decades over whether human welfare was bound to improve or decline over time. The former is a gloom-and-doom pessimist, the latter an unshakable optimist. The former calls attention to population growth and resource depletion, while the latter asserts that increasing numbers of clever human beings will overcome all challenges. Though Ehrlich appears to have greater logical rigor on his side, it is Simon who has been proven correct in the debates the two have had about the state of the world some years later. Is the future full of challenges? Yes, but our growing command of science and technology, and increased levels of education, will help us to overcome them, and economics--the social science of opportunity and growth--will lose its gloomy complexion for good.