Spoiler! The singularity is not coming. But even more importantly, the envisioned problems it is supposed to bring are not coming either, which is good news. In this essay, we are going to explain why the term is severe case of clickbait, why the problems, while the underlying phenomemon is true, will turn out to be non problems, and last but not least, why should we stop fearing the future, and embrace it instead.

This might strike one as nitpicking, but we have to get it out of the way. What is a singularity? In mathematics, singularity is a point at which a certain function ceases to make sense or ceases to behave "well". There are many applications of the term, but the essence, in all instances, is that the point of singularity is special, and even more, very peculiar. Just to pull a really simple example, the function 1/x has a singularity at zero, where it simply does not have a value at all, and as you go closer, the function grows beyond limit. This means that if such a function represents a real world process, and we try to walk our way from negative number upwards through zero to a positive number contiuously, it will not succeed, because somewhere close to zero we will experience something impossible.

Singularities show up in a number of physical models. But it does not, by any means, imply that there are singularities in the real world. On the contrary, we expect the models to stop being accurate near the points where they predict singularities. The very fact that they predict weird and unnatural things indicates that they not a good approximation near that particular point, and not that nature indeed has unbounded or downright nonsensical metrics.

Human progress is not expected to have singularities. Not only because, as we discussed, the psysical world is absent of them, but because all the models we can reasonably formulate about growth, let it be technological, economic or scientific, do not even predict singularities. All growth models are based on the assumption that the rate of change is either proportional to the current value, or maybe a little progressive. As an example, let's take a simple model in which savings are the cause of greater economic output, which of course in term causes raising income. The raisinig income means larger base for savings, and the circle perpetuates infinitely. One can be even more optimistic, and assume a greater rate of savings as the income grows. Such functions are more or less exponential, and they all have nice smooth curves that makes sense in all future times. No singularity in sight.

But hey, this is just a metaphor, don't be so uptight about it, right? Unfortunately, metaphors have the tendency to come to life. Many misconceptions started as analogies, only to be taken literally very very soon. A good analogy evokes the right mental picture, the right associations. It helps intuitive understanding. Singularity is not a good metaphor. Singularity implies a hard limit, real growth models don't. Singularity implies some unimaginable event, something that comes swift and changes everything once and for all, and this might mean the end of all of us. Real growth does not have such a special point in time, it does not foreshadow a final day, something we all will observe and experience. No, growth comes continuously, and nobody will be able to say at any point that this is it, today is the day.

Granted, this does not make it a non problem. But something else does, and we are going to discuss that shortly, right after we present the singularity argument in its actual form, without the sensationalism.

To turn the discussion into something more grounded and serious, let's fix the argument, and see how it fares then. Realistic (or one might say, desired) growth models all predict some form of exponential growth in metrics measuring additive amounts, as in income, energy expenditure, number of people, etc. The exponental function has quite some amazing properties which are hard to wrap one's head around. Let's have a look.

The exponential function grows faster and faster, and it knows no limits. If our metric is population (which is not expected to grow exponentially in the near future, but just as an example), at one point there will be a trillion birth every second. At one point there will be a quadrillion. If we take energy consumption, at one point we will use all the energy the Sun can provide, and at one point, we will need to add a Sun worth of new energy source every second.

Of course, human adaptation has limits. A few hundred years ago, the world our ancestors were born into was the same they died in. In the 1800s, first in human history, people started to experience progress. As adults or elderly, they were surrounded by achievements that simply didn't exist in their childhood. It was an exciting time to live in, but maybe not all change is welcome all the times, some might worry.

We, the current generation, can only imagine the shock some of our parents experience when they face the internet or the insane traffic in cities. The rate of change is high, and the capacity of an elderly person to catch up is diminishing. But since the rate of change is unbounded, eventually even young people will have difficulties keeping up with progress. At least so goes the argument. We will return to this in a minute.

Today, the human population is around seven billion. How many human beings lived on this planet, in total, so far? Thousands if not hundreds of thousands of generations passed, depending on where you start counting. Yet, it turns out that the total number of people ever existed is around 70-100 billion. 1% About 10% of all humans whoever lived are alive today. How can it be? Similar figures can be found about all metrics. Most scientific discoveries happened recently. Most human experience happened recently.

Perhaps even more interestingly this is not a pecualiarity of our time. It will always be like this. A thousand years from now, more science will be done in any hundred year period that in all previous history combined. We live in the shadow of the future.

Whatever is possible, is close. The exponential function grows so fast, it reaches any limits in astonishingly short time. Double your goal, and it will be deferred by just some more years. Assuming 1% growth in energy consumption per year, which is pretty humble, we are going to use all energy coming from the Sun to the Earth before the year 3000, all of the Sun's output not long after 5000. This is less than the time between us and The Great Pyramids.

No matter how audacious a plan or forecast is, just give mankind another hundred or thousand years, and it will be achieved. Provided, of course, that we can maintain exponential growth. It is never an "if". It is a "when".

Now for the refutation. What the proponents of the singularity concept don't seem to understand is that in their view the cart is pushing the horse. Somehow, technology can advance so fast it leaves us all behind. But actually who, in this scenario, rushes forward? If we are all left behind, aren't we just safely together, as before?

Today, the problem of some people, especially less educated and the elderly, is that others are adapting, thus they become minorities, and the world is just not designed with them in mind. In a time with less and less use of physical cash, understanding bank accounts and credit cards become necessity. In the age of the internet, it is harder and harder to find services without it. But it is not technology leaving people behind, it is a majority leaving the minority behind. A very different scenario. The same situation can't happen to everyone, if nobody uses some new money transfer method, it will not exist, will it?

Technology advances as fast as people can adapt. Isn't it obvious? Technology is not an independent phenomenon, it does not have any direct influence on our lives. It just enables products and services which we can buy. If we don't like them, we don't buy them, and they don't become widespread. It is impossible for a product or service to spread without a large number of people opting to use it. The people don't seem to be reluctant or shocked, but rather quite eager. If they are not eager, the service in question will not be heard of. Quite certainly there's a lot of potential services out there that nobody picks up, and they just fade to obscurity.

Of course, not everyone adapts equally. There is differentiation in rate. Some people will incorporate new technologies faster, they will be the forerunners, the early adapters, who will be quick to try cryptocurrencies, cyborg technologies, life extension, seasteading or early stage space exploitation. Others will move slowly, preferring safety over dubious benefits. There is differentiation in area or field. Some people will explore virtual worlds, but shy away from biotechnology. Others will experiment with drugs, but prefer matter over computer bits. Yet others will risk their lives at the frontiers in space.

Thus, society becomes more fragmented. This is not a problem however, with human society becoming more complex, fragmentation is not avoidable anyways. In fact, we are already way more fragmented than we can comprehend. There are professions, beliefs and lifestyles you've never heard about. There are so many of them, one would have to spend a lifetime just to catalog. In the future, new lifestyles and new movements will be created faster than one can catalog, so this option is forever gone. But that's hardly a meaningful difference. If the menu in a restaurant is so long we have no chance of reading it all, should we complain? Should we feel frustrated for not being able to find the best meal?

Fragmentation of society is not a problem if it can function properly regardless. If we can find our way through life. If the fragments all can bring something to the table, and cooperate with each other. In fact, the greater the variety is, the more opportunities it provides for cooperation. So far, we don't see any signs of this cooperation being hindered or disturbed. On the contrary, as the information age matures, the future appears to be a Great Synergy of Dreams.

It also deserves mentioning that we expect new techniques to emerge that help us keeping up with change. The general rule of a free society and a free economy is demands tend to be fulfilled. If there is a demand for increased adaptability, someone will figure out a way, or most likely a multitude of ways to provide that. We have plenty of candidates. Psychology is an emergent science, still in its infancy, but right before an explosion we might get to experience. Computer assistants, closer and closer to AI every year, is coming to help us. Finally, it will not take long to see brain enhancements, via bioengineering, genetic engineering or implants, to take off. Technology is a problem that brings its own solutions. Except it is not even a problem to begin with.

But at the end, what was said above is still true: with all these new techniques, new ways of life, our ability to adapt still is and will be limited. That puts a cap on how fast society can develop. And it is fine. It is our journey after all, and we decide how fast or slow we are going to go.