Future Abundance, Pro and Con

One idea advanced by some futurologists is the idea of a post-scarcity economy. The concept is that technological progress will produce a future in which there is plenty for everybody, and goods and services are perhaps even free or almost free.

This year the idea has been advanced in the book Abundance: The Future is Better Than You Think by Peter H. Diamandis. The idea has also been advanced by the book Radical Abundance by Eric Drexler.

Is this a credible concept, or is merely wishful thinking? Let us look at arguments for future abundance, pro and con.

Energy Abundance, Pro: Our supplies of crude oil may not last for many more decades, but there's a huge amount of other types of oil such as shale oil and tar sands oil, enough to last for centuries. Soon we will be able to start building cars that run on hydrogen, and we have an unlimited supply of hydrogen available (since each water molecule is two thirds hydrogen). There are more and more solar and wind installations, which will provide clean energy indefinitely. There are centuries of coal available. In addition, before long we will develop fusion power, which will give unlimited clean energy.

Proposed Fusion Power Plant

Energy Abundance, Con: Our future energy situation is grim. We have only decades left of crude oil, and the other types of available oil (such as shale oil and tar sands) are much harder to extract than crude oil. The EROI (Energy Return on Investment) for oil sands and shale oil is only about 5, which is only about 25% or less of the EROI from crude oil. So severe future oil shortages are likely. The “we have centuries of coal” claim has been made for decades, but is not accurate. Recent studies suggest coal production will peak in a few decades, and then sharply decline. In regard to hydrogen vehicles, hydrogen is an efficient way of storing energy produced from other sources, but hydrogen does not by itself provide energy. So a hydrogen vehicle infrastructure can't really be a replacement for our present oil vehicle infrastructure. Solar and wind power are growing rapidly, but still only provide such a small fraction of the world's power that even if their present growth rate continues, we won't have enough renewable energy to make up for fossil fuel shortfalls. As for nuclear fusion, it would solve many problems if we were to figure out how to make it practical. But people have been trying for sixty years to create nuclear fusion reactors, without success, so we shouldn't assume it will be available in our lifetimes.

Metals and Materials Abundance, Pro: Ever more efficient automated technology for mining should mean that we will have enough metals and minerals to meet any needs we may have in the future. More powerful and efficient sensor technology should allow us to find more and more metal deposits. There is a huge untapped potential for undersea mining, which should become feasible once robots are sufficiently advanced. Eventually we will master asteroid mining, and once that gets rolling we will have a basically endless supply of metals and minerals.

Metals and Materials Abundance, Con: Experts estimate that based on current reserves we have only ten to twenty years left of new production of some important metals, including strontium, argon, antimony, gold, zinc, tin, indium, zirconium, lead, cadmium, and barium. The outlook is only slightly better for metals such as mercury, tungsten, copper, thallium, and manganese.  The graph below (and this article) highlight the situation.

 Source: A.M. Diederen, The Oil Drum  (see link above)

Thus from a metal and minerals we have before us a future of scarcity, not abundance. Asteroid mining is no panacea for this problem. There are huge technical difficulties and dangers in asteroid mining, one being that if you divert an asteroid to come near Earth, you run the risk of having it fall it on the planet and killing millions or billions. As for the oceans, they contain huge quantities of metals, but they are dispersed so much it is not practical to do much mining of the oceans. It has been estimated that the seawater in the oceans has enough gold to make everyone a millionaire, but it doesn't do you any good, because it isn't practical to mine that gold.

Food Abundance, Pro: The Green Revolution produced a huge increase in global food production, and this trend will likely continue. Genetic engineering and gene splicing will create new types of super crops that will allow for more abundant crop yields. Ever more efficient robots will make farms super-productive. We may even be able to produce food from its constituent elements by using 3D printers that are optimized for producing food.

Food Abundance, Con: The prospects of being able to feed all the world's growing population are grim. Global warming will lead to an increase in droughts that will hamper food production. Soil depletion is a gigantic little-discussed problem that threatens future food production. Our water resources and aquifers are being strained and stressed in many places, and we probably won't be able to supply adequate irrigation to insure adequate food production. In addition, our food production and food delivery system is largely based on oil (used in transporting and packaging food and producing fertilizers). But Peak Oil will probably cause shortages of oil that will limit food production.

Manufacturing Abundance, Pro: There are three reasons for thinking there will be a great abundance of manufactured goods in the future. The first reason is that robots will become ever more skillful at manufacturing. The second reason is that the average man will be able to manufacture a huge number of things himself, by using ever more powerful 3D printers. The third is that we will discover new nanotechnology manufacturing methods that will be able to assemble products atom by atom and molecule by molecule. Once we develop precise atomic manufacturing as envisioned by Eric Drexler, the door will be opened to a new age of radical abundance.

Manufacturing Abundance, Con: 3D printers are great at printing out little plastic trinkets that people don't really need, but they can't print out things made of metal or wood or stone. So 3D printers won't result in some abundance of goods that will make much of a difference in people's lives. As for atomic manufacturing, the rosy forecasts of visionaries such as Eric Drexler have been disputed by other experts. Nobel Prize winner Richard E. Smalley disputes Drexler's claims, saying that there are physical reasons why we will never be able to create machines that can assemble things atom by atom. Smalley cites a “fat fingers” problem, which is that no matter how small we make tools to assemble matter, our tools will be too large, and we will be like a person trying to stack grains of sand with his fingers. As for industrial robots, some are very good at manufacturing, but they are very expensive, which means they won't allow for a cheap surplus of goods.
------------
So there you have the case for and the case against a super-abundant future. My own opinion is that there is a chance of both a future of abundance and a future of scarcity. So how should the average man behave? The prudent morality is to conserve, and limit consumption.

To give an analogy, imagine you are on a ship traveling across the Pacific, and the ship sinks. You and five others jump into a life boat, on which you have a limited number of supplies. Now in such a case you can be optimistic, and assume that your life boat will be picked by a big ship with lots of food for you. But given the large possibility that you will be facing a grave scarcity of food and water, the only moral way to act is to limit consumption. If your lifeboat had enough food to feed all 5 people for ten days at 1500 calories per day, it would be immoral for you to consume 3000 calories on one of those days, even if you had a hunch that before the tenth day you would be saved by the lucky arrival of a passing ship. Our whole planet is like the lifeboat in this analogy. There is a large chance that we will be suffering great scarcity within a few decades, as well as a significant chance that we will avoid such scarcity through technological wonders (the equivalent of the passing ship that saves the people in the lifeboat). The moral way to act is to conserve and limit consumption, to minimize the pain that will occur to others if the more pessimistic outcome occurs.

------

These days biologists routinely display enormous overconfidence. They routinely claim to understand very deep things they do not understand, things that are a hundred miles over their heads. Biologists also have the very bad habit of repeating groundless triumphal legends claiming that scientists have developed explanations for wonders of biology that are actually vastly beyond the understanding of our biologists. 

Science journalists should act as a check inhibiting the extreme overconfidence of biologists, just as speed bumps are checks that limit the speeding of reckless drivers. But alas, today's science journalists act like cheerleaders. Science journalists act like they are afraid to ask scientists the tough questions such scientists should be asked. 

But we may hope that one day we see more science journalists acting like real journalists rather than North Korean journalists who reverently accept everything told them by authorities. In this post I will give 60+ questions you can ask a scientist, if you are trying to act like a good science journalist who asks tough questions. 

Below is a sketch of how a science journalist could interview an overconfident scientist.  The interview might follow a general strategy:

(1) First, the journalist asks a few "softball questions" that will typically result in the overconfident scientist making his most overconfident claims. 

(2) Instead of immediately disputing the overconfident answers, the journalist asks about very many smaller issues related to the overconfident claims. 

(3) Eventually, the journalist points out the discrepancy between the overconfident claims made by the scientist at the beginning of the interview, and the answers given in the main part of the interview, pointing out the contradiction between the two.  

The earliest of the questions below are questions you might ask in Part 1 of such an interview. 

A good interview might use many or most of these questions, with the interview selecting a subset of these questions that makes sense to ask a particular type of scientist. 

1. Do you think scientists such as yourself understand the universe well? 
2. Do you think scientists such as yourself have a good understanding of the human body?
3. Do you think scientists such as yourself understand well the origin of the human race?
4. Do you think scientists have a credible story to tell of the progression of matter in the universe, one leading from the universe's origin to the present day and the day-to-day reality we experience?
5. Do you think scientists such as yourself have a good understanding of how the human mind arises?
6. Are there any big unsolved problems of science that you find to be particularly interesting or troubling?
7. On a scale of 1 to 10 in which 1 is very poor scientific practice and 10 is the best possible scientific practice, how would you rate the practices and methods used in the scientific research you are doing?  The question is best asked of scientists such as psychologists, neuroscientists, and sociology scientists, although it can also be asked of evolutionary biologists and theoretical physicists. 
8. I have studied what are called Questionable Research Practices such as the use of way-too-small study group sizes, the lack of a blinding protocol, the failure to pre-register a hypothesis and a research plan, and something calling HARKing or Hypothesizing After Results are Known. Do you sometimes engage in such practices? If the answer is "yes," a follow-up question should be asked such as, "So why should we be confident in the research you have done?"
9. What is the universe mostly made of? Note whether the scientist professes belief in dark matter or dark energy. 
10. What happened at the earliest time in the history of the universe? Note whether the scientist tells an account of the universe undergoing "inflation" or an account of exponential expansion. 
11. How is that amino acid sequences in the human body are able to form into the three-dimensional shapes needed for protein molecules to function, and why does this occur at such a very fast speed? This question is known as the protein folding problem. It is still one of the biggest unanswered questions in biology. Don't be fooled by untrue claims that some software called AlphaFold2 has answered this question or solved this problem. That software made progress in a different problem, one called the protein folding prediction problem, which is the problem of predicting a protein's three-dimensional shape from its amino acid sequence. The year 2026 paper states, "The explanatory scientific understanding of the protein folding problem is thus not directly advanced by AF2 [AlphaFold2]." Later the same paper says, "The protein folding problem remains unsolved." The answer to the protein folding problem is not that the shape of a protein is specified by DNA or genes. DNA has only the linear, one-dimensional information of which amino acids make up a protein, not the three-dimensional information of what shape a protein molecule takes. 
12. Why is it that different types of proteins form into functional teams of proteins called protein complexes, with this occurring so very quickly and very frequently? Scientists lack any credible explanation for protein complex formation, the phenomenon of individual protein molecules joining together to form functional teams of protein molecules that serve a particular biological purpose. Random combinations fail to explain the phenomenon, which very often involves the formation of functional components so fine-tuned, well-organized and useful that they are often called "molecular machines." The formation of protein complexes is as stunning a wonder as what would occur if floods passing through hardware stores were to be very frequently assembling machines as well-arranged as bicycles, with very many types of such machines arising from a mysterious assembly of much smaller parts. In a scientific paper two scientists confess that "very little is known about how protein complexes form in vivo [in living organisms]." In another scientific paper, two scientists confess that "a general theoretical framework to understand protein complex formation and usage is still lacking." 
13. What are cells? If the scientist gives an answer such as "the basic building blocks of human bodies," follow-up with the next question.
14. Are human cells simple things like building blocks, or something more more complex?  If you get any answers failing to candidly describe the enormous organization of cells, follow-up with a question such as "But is it not true that many types of cells are vastly complex and enormously organized, components so complex that they have been compared to factories or cities?"
15. Can you list some of the levels of organization in a human body? What are cells made of, what are those constituent components made up, what are the constituent components of those constituent components made of, and what are the constituent components of those constituent components made of?  This a good question to ask to help determine how well a scientist understands the organization of human bodies.  You should not at all assume that most scientists know the answers to these questions. The correct answers are that cells are built from organelles, that organelles are built from protein complexes and proteins, that protein complexes are built from proteins, and that proteins are built from amino acids. If the scientist failed to answer the question correctly, refer back to any upbeat answer the scientist may have given to Question 2 -- for example, asking, "So why did you claim earlier to have a good understanding of the human body?"
16. Why did you previously claim that you understand the origin of mankind, when you apparently do not well understand the degree of organization in the human body, given your answer to the previous question? Shouldn't a good understanding of the complexity and organization in the human body be a prerequisite for anyone claiming to understand human origins?  Ask this question only if the scientist has failed to answer well the previous question. 
17. How are cells so enormously complex and vastly organized ever able to reproduce? Keep in mind that you will not be getting a substantive answer to this question if you merely get from someone a listing of different stages of cell reproduction,  such as prophase and interphase. The question is: what is it that causes a cell to perform the incredibly complex series of transitions that results in cell reproduction? No one understands this well. 
18. If you had to richly describe the universe in a single sentence, some sentence that would provide insight and shed some light, what sentence would you use?
19. Are human memories stored in the brain? 
20. So in what part of the brain are memories stored -- in neurons, in synapses, or somewhere else? Ask this question only if you got an answer of "yes" to the previous question. 
21. Do you actually understand any brain mechanism by which a person could store learned information? Scientists do not actually understand any such brain mechanism, but you may get some bluffing hand-waving in response to this question. 
22. Do you actually understand any brain mechanism by which a person could instantly retrieve the answer to a specific question such as who was Napoleon? Scientists do not actually understand any such brain mechanism, but you may get some bluffing hand-waving in response to this question. 
23. What's the shortest time it takes a human to learn something? If the scientist claims that learning takes several minutes, ask something like, "But is it not true that when people learn of the death of their child or parent, they learn something instantly, and never forget it?" If the scientist admits that learning can be instantaneous, ask a question such as, "So how could a person ever learn anything instantly using a brain, as that would require protein synthesis taking at least a few minutes?"
24. Do synapses have the kind of stability and permanence you would need for human memories to persist for 50 years? You may skip this question and the next one if the scientist did not refer to synapses when asked the earlier question about memory storage. 
25. But isn't it true that synapses are made of protein molecules that have an average lifetime of only a few weeks? And isn't it true that synapses are attached to dendritic spines that typically don't last for years?  Ask these questions only if you got a "yes" answer to the previous question. If you get an answer of "yes," and the answer to the previous question was "yes," then ask a question such as "So why did you previously answer that synapses have the kind of stability and permanence you would need for human memories to persist for 50 years?"
26. Is a brain kind of like soft clay to which sensory impressions are written, rather like someone using a stylus to write characters into clay? If the scientist answers "yes," ask what brain component corresponds to such a stylus (there is none), and ask whether any types of specific impressions resembling marks in clay have ever been found (they have not). 
27. How is it that a brain could possibly be storing memories, given that no trace of anything anyone has learned has ever been found by the microscopic examination of brain tissue? Scientists have long maintained that memories are stored in brains. But very much brain tissue has been examined by very powerful microscopes, including the full brains of very many who arranged for their brains to be quickly preserved after their deaths, and also much brain tissue surgically removed from living persons, as a treatment for diseases such as epilepsy. Such examination has never produced any trace of learned information. No one has ever found a single sentence by microscopically examining brain tissue, nor has anyone ever found a single word by such examination, nor has anyone ever found a single image by such examination. An answer to this question might involve some speculation about a secret storage code not yet figured out. Another answer might be that the brain does not actually store memories. 
28. How is it that a brain could possibly be storing memories, given that no one understands any system of encoding that would allow the storage of the very many types of things that humans can learn?  You may get some hand-waving answer in which something like "patterns of synaptic connectivity" are wrongly described as a system of encoding. If so, ask a follow-up question such as, "But isn't that just empty hand-waving?"
29. People can quickly look up exactly the right answer to a question by using a book such as a one-volume encyclopedia, in which all of the thousands of topics are sorted alphabetically, or by using a book with an index, which allows you to quickly find the page with the right answer. But the brain has neither sorting, nor indexes, nor any of the addresses that indexes depend on. So how does a human being instantly remember just the right answer upon hearing a single name or short question? How are we able to recall the right answer so quickly when we are asked a question? 
30. Humans can remember many things reliably for more than 50 years. For example, a 70-year may remember very well very many experiences of his childhood that happened 55 or 60 years ago. But the claimed storage place of memory (synapses) are unstable things that do not last for years. For example, a 2025 paper states that  "the synaptic turnover rate is as high as 1% per day in the visual cortex." Another paper  states that in  hippocampal CA1 cells the synapses have an  estimated lifetime of only 1–2 weeks. How could people ever remember things for five decades using synapses that do not last for years?
31. Mentally, what is a human being? You may get a diminutive answer such as "consciousness." If so, follow-up with a question such as, "But isn't a human mentally something vastly more than just consciousness? Isn't a human a thinking, knowing, believing, loving, caring, planning, questioning, seeing, hearing, creating, imagining, willing, speaking, reading, aspiring, instantly learning, curious, striving, enjoying, suffering and comprehending unified self, a person capable of insight, compassion, morality, self-introspection, instant recall, philosophical inquiry, appreciation and spirituality?"
32. If your brain is what is producing your mind, why is it that many people report observing their bodies from a position outside of their bodies, in the type of event called out-of-body experiences? If you get an answer claiming hallucinations, ask the next question as a follow-up.
33. Out-of-body experiences are often reported during cardiac arrest, when the brain very quickly shuts down electrically, flatlining within 15 to 20 seconds after the heart stops. How could the brain ever hallucinate when the brain was flatlining, in a state in which conscious experience should be impossible, given assumptions that the brain makes the mind? 
34. How much have you studied near-death experiences and out-of-body experiences? Have you read very many of the accounts of those who had such experiences, or watched very many of their reports in videos in which they are interviewed? Or do you get your information on such things second-hand, mainly from reading skeptical magazines or skeptical websites?
35. How much reading have you done about the evidence for paranormal phenomena? Did that reading include lots of reading of original source materials and first-hand accounts? If you get a claim to have well-studied this topic, ask the scientist to discuss what was reported on this topic by the leading physicist William Crookes. If the scientist cannot answer, ask about the discrepancy between his previous answer and his lack of knowledge on this topic. 
36. There is very high similarity in near-death experiences, with so many reporting out-of-body experiences, seeing dead relatives, and getting a glimpse of some other realm of existence. If near-death experiences are hallucinations, why would so very many people hallucinate the same thing?
37.  Should people assert the existence of things they have not directly seen or directly measured? If the scientist answers in a negative manner, check whether the scientist previously asserted the existence of macroevolution, brain-stored memories, dark matter, dark energy or "cosmic inflation" occurring at the beginning of time. None of these has been directly observed.  In such a case, ask the next question.
38. Why did you say that people should not assert the existence of things they have not directly seen or measured, despite your previous claims of the existence of something that was never directly seen or measured?  Ask this question if the scientist previously asserted the existence of dark matter, dark energy, brain-stored memories, macroevolution or "cosmic inflation" occurring at the beginning of time. 
39. Which well-known scientist (living or dead) is the most overrated? 
40. Which little-known scientist is the most worthy of being well-known?
41. How could humans have ever started to speak using a language? Do you have a theory of the origin of language? If you get a "no" answer, and the scientist previously claimed to understand the origin of humans, ask a question such as, "But you earlier claimed to understand the origin of humans, and does it make sense for anyone to claim that, if they don't understand the origin of language?" If you get a hand-waving attempt to explain the origin of language, ask a follow-up question such as, "But using a language requires a kind of mass adoption of a set of rules for how to speak, and how could such rules ever have been spread before there was any language?"
42. Will scientists ever be able to look all the way back to the beginning of time, to see exactly what was happening at the very beginning? If the scientist suggests this can be done by building sufficiently large telescopes, ask something like, "Is such a thing not impossible, given the assumptions of the Big Bang theory, which tells us that for its first 300,000 years the universe was so dense that it should have hopelessly scattered all light and radiation from such a period?"
43. Have you ever said to yourself something like: "Looking back on my career, I wish I had done more studying of X, and less studying of Y"? If so, what was the X and the Y?
44. Of the methods that are used by scientists in your field, which method do you think is the shakiest, the most prone to create false alarms or lead scientists on "wild goose chases" or point scientists in the wrong direction?
45. Darwin and Wallace were the co-founders of the theory of evolution by natural selection. Did they both claim that such a theory explains all human characteristics, or almost all?  If the scientist answers "yes," ask, "But is not true that Alfred Russel Wallace wrote an essay claiming that natural selection is not sufficient to explain the higher characteristics of the human mind?" 
46. When did we first get very complex and very organized life on Earth? If the scientist claims that this did not occur until there arose the first eukaryotic cells, follow up with a question such as, "But is it not true that even the simplest self-reproducing cell would be a very high state of complexity and organization, requiring hundreds of types of very complex protein molecules?"
47. So how did there ever arise eukaryotic cells vastly more complex than prokaryotic cells? You may get an answer reciting the tall tale of eukaryogenesis by endosymbiosis. 
48. Has anyone ever observed either life arising from non-life, or eukaryotic cells arising from prokaryotic cells? The correct answer is "no." If you get that correct answer, follow up with a question such as "So why do scientists keep asserting these miracles of chance that no one has ever observed?"
49. Darwin kept claiming that "nature does not make leaps." Is either the theory of abiogenesis (an origin of life from non-life) or the theory of the endosymbiotic origin of eukaryotic cells compatible with such a principle? Is either of these theories a Darwinian explanation? The answers to these questions are "no." If the scientists answers correctly, follow up with a question such as, "So why do scientists keep insinuating that Darwin explained life, when he failed to explain the origin of the two main types of cells?"
50. Is it credible to imagine new types of protein molecules originating by hundreds of little steps, each providing a benefit, or is it true in general that protein molecules only become functional when most of their parts are arranged in the right way, just as a car or a large passenger jet needs most of its parts arranged in the right way to be functional?  The idea that protein molecules arose by a long series of little steps (each an improvement) is inconsistent with findings that very small changes in protein molecules tend to make them nonfunctional, preventing them from folding correctly 
51. Explain what are orphan genes, and tell whether they are rare or very common. Orphan genes are genes that seem to have no clear ancestor in genes existing in earlier species. Such orphan genes are very common. 
52. If you had to richly describe an average human being in a single sentence, some sentence that would provide insight and shed some light, what sentence would you use?
53. Can you name a philosopher whose works you've read, someone who provided a model of conduct or a mode of inquiry or a technique that you sometimes try to emulate? A good answer to this question would refer to Plato. In the dialogues of Plato, the character of Socrates very frequently asks questions of overconfident people, questions that tend to expose when someone is boasting about something he does not really know. 
54. What do you think is the single greatest insight that anyone has ever had after pondering things observed by humans?
55. Can the wonders of biology be explained by a mere theory of accumulation, or do we need something much more than that, a true theory of organization? If the scientist confesses that we need a true theory of organization, ask something like, "Do we need a mere theory of simple organization, or something better -- a true theory of hierarchical organization, one that can account for fine-tuned systems filled with interdependent components?" If the scientist confesses the need for the latter, ask, "Is Darwinism such a theory, or is it a mere theory of accidental accumulation?"
56. Can you describe one time that you "stuck your neck out," and told your scientist colleagues, "You guys all seem to believe in this, but I think you're wrong"? If you get a "no" answer, ask something like, "So would you describe yourself as a 'follow-the-herd' kind of scientist?"
57. What type of spooky phenomena do you hear about, while thinking "That can't possibly exist?" And why do you say to yourself that after hearing reports of such phenomena? This question may produce a revealing confession in which the scientist says that some type of phenomenon cannot possibly occur; and the phenomenon may be something that has been well-observed by reliable witnesses. If you get a confession such as that, ask a follow-up question such as, "But don't all the observations for that phenomenon show that you've gone badly wrong in your underlying assumptions?"
58. Can you think of anything that you might observe that might cause you to think, "My worldview is in need of drastic revision, and some of my most fundamental assumptions are in error?"
59. If you had to richly describe the history of science in a single sentence, some sentence that would provide insight and shed some light, what sentence would you use?
60. What scientific finding or observation in your lifetime has most surprised you, and why did you find it to be so surprising?
61. Which supposedly prevailing idea of today's scientists is most likely to be overthrown, or most deserving of abandonment?
62. Is there anything that scientists of your type are not paying much attention to, which you should be paying attention to, because it suggests the need for a dramatically new paradigm?
63. Why is it that so many scientists use an unreliable technique for measuring memory recall in rodents, involving so-called freezing behavior judgments that are just recording immobility, rather than using reliable techniques for measuring memory recall in rodents?
64. Synapses seem to have short lifetimes, because they are built from proteins with average lifetimes of only weeks, and are connected to dendritic spines that almost all have short lifetimes less than a year. If synapses have short lifetimes, what does that imply about out understanding of memory?  A good answer would be one recognizing the gigantic inconsistency between the described short lifetimes, and the prevailing but senseless theory that memories are stored in synapses. 
65. Can you identify some central belief of yours that is not simply something that you directly observed or that someone else directly observed? If you get an answer, ask, "Did you independently adopt such a belief after years of studying the related evidence, or did you instead simply adopt that belief because one or more of your professors taught you that belief, or because you thought such a belief had become popular among scientists of your specialty?"
66. Have you made a deep study of cases of exceptional human mental performance, such as people with HSAM or people who seemed to have something like photographic memory? If you get an answer of "no," ask a follow-up question such as, "But don't you think you should be studying such cases before making any claims about how a human mind arises?" If you get an answer of "yes," ask a follow-up question such as, "What do you think such cases imply?"
67. Why do today's scientists so often seem to fail to study evidence for the inexplicable, such as evidence for telepathy, clairvoyance, apparition sightings, deathbed visions and near-death experiences? Is it because they don't want to learn about things that might conflict with their belief system?  If you get an answer such as "because they want to limit themselves to things that are on the most solid ground," then ask this follow-up question: "But what about all the scientists who spend so many years on things we never directly observed, such as dark matter, dark energy, string theory and primordial cosmic inflation?"
68. Do you think that 100 years from now scientists will still believe the main explanations scientists give today, or do you think they will look back and kind of laugh at much of what scientists claim today?