Although theoretically possible I seriously doubt this vision will come into reality without a quantum shift in politics and company culture. While these visions sound great in a university lab how will they ever escape when the computing arena is controlled by monopolies and everything, and I mean everything, is all tied up in patents, copyright and un-interoperable "standards". All these visions take open standards at the very least. Currently this is not the world we live in. I am watching the program on a Linux system. I have a crippled iPlayer since it relies on the proprietary DRM system from Microsoft. I really don't want to drive one of these clever cars only to find 50% of the roads are closed to me because I am not using a particular companies "standard". And I really really don't want an optical implant only to loose my sight because some company thinks it's using pirated software!!
OS, Newmarket

I am a graduate (2007) in molecular biology. This series of programs is intellectually stimulating. I particularly like the way the program gives real-life examples of how our future is being shaped - such as the young lad with X-linked SCID who was treated with gene therapy. The two highlights for me of this series are the accurate description of technological developments and - most importantly - putting these developments into context by discussing a few of the ethical implications of this work. For example Prof Susan Greenfield asked the viewer the question - what would you do with your time if you could live longer? Dr Kaku discussed the implications of knowing our genome - what will we do if we know we have a chance of getting a certain disease? The series did have a few - very minor - faults. 'The Biotech Revolution' focused on medicine but only touched on cloning. The program did not discuss the two types of cloning - therapeutic and reproductive - and the different ethical issues associated with these two types of cloning. The UK HFEA - a model regulatory body used by other world governments - has granted two licenses to two UK groups (King's College London and Newcastle University) to study therapeutic cloning. 'The Biotech Revolution' also did not discuss the green revolution and the microbe/ synthetic biology revolution - all of these revolutions being possible due to the development in the 1970s of genetic engineering. The green revolution is where we manipulate crops to make them more tolerant to adverse climate etc and make them nutrient rich. The synthetic biology revolution - which is in its infancy - is where we can take a parts list of genes and generate an organism (microbe) from these genes that performs a defined set of tasks - e.g. mopping up oil spills, degrading non-biodegradable plastics, de-toxifying old mines (lead etc) etc.
Rowan Savage, Letchworth

I've got to say that the section of episode 3 that interested me the most was how the advancement in medical science is prolonging our lifespan. The theory that someone who is in their 50s today may be the first person to live to the age of 150. Being a young person, I thought I'd be lucky to live into my 80s but after hearing such a thing I've started to wonder how long someone my age may be able to live. I've also got to say I'm not a big fan of BBC Four but this show has definitely jumped out of the typical stereotypes expected of the shows broadcasted on the channel and I was very impressed with the whole series. I would be very happy to see more of Professor Michio Kaku and more of his and others theories on our future world.
Roy Turner, Poole

We live in moral poverty. People watch these programmes like they watch adverts which create wants where there is no need, except to support the economists creed; 'needs and want are insatiable in general'. Well I have no need or wants other than a roof over my head, food in my stomach, good company, and creative enjoyment, which includes work. Ultimate selfishness is to ensure that everyone has enough, that way we will never live in fear of 'the other'. What will people make with these replicators? What are we going to do with a 'space-elevator'? Escape the planet we've destroyed by over consumption? The BBC, nor Kaku, or any of the authors and agencies they put forward, offers any solutions, at best they are amoral, or, 'open to dialogue'. There is a definitive way to be good that is absolute, the other only leads to self-delusion and degradation. As the great man William Blake tried to tell us, there are many levels to human nature, the highest is divine, the lowest, lustful, greedy, and oppressive. To be the former you have to explore the inner realms of yourself, no expense required.
Avdhutaya, London

I am a physics teacher and have now shown programme 3 to several sets of pupils between 11 and 17 years old. This stuff inspires them! I've never seen so many kids so excited by science. Please do release the series on DVD as the download in my iPlayer is about to expire!
John Turner, Horsham, UK

I have just watched episode 3, only a few days after finishing Arthur C Clarke's book Fountain of Paradise. For all who were interested in the space elevator this is essential reading - and it was written in 1979! What a visionary!
Charles Roach, Whitchurch, Hampshire, UK

Wow! What a little gem that short series was. I watched with my eyes glued to the screen. Please make it available on DVD, and I hope there is another series in the wings. Keep up the good work.
Kev Broadbelt, Stockton on Tees, England

I have watched the Visions of Future and I am thrilled with the programme, however, I found myself quite dismayed with our technological progress thus far. When we passed through the millennium nothing new was seen on the horizon other than new types of mobile phones and computers. A century ago we had telephones, electric lighting, cinema, wireless communication, submarines and flight yet we seem to be in a comparative dead zone at this time. I have read numerous sci-fi novels, including Wells, Clarke and Asimov and viewed many sci-fi movies simply because I believe in the ideology of science and the real progress that it can make for the human desire to copy and ultimately master nature. So forgive me if I am impatient for these marvels to arrive, you see I am full of expectation for the future, hopefully without the present political-economic limitations on progress.
Trevor Lloyd, Birmingham

Having read some of the other comments regarding this programme, they seem rather critical. As a 'lay viewer' I really enjoyed the programmes. To be frank, it put big issues that will affect ordinary people in terms that ordinary people can understand. This has encouraged me to research future in order that I may be in a position to comment should I need to in the future.
Jim, UK

It was brilliant and has given me a new passion and excitement for science.
George Chrismas, London

I can't wait for this super programme to be out on DVD. It tells us that man really isn't the cause of global warming and this is just a gigantic lie and an excuse to put up prices, since after fusion, our energy needs will be satisfied.
David Jacobs, Glasgow

I am shocked by the lack of respect some of the authors of these comments have shown the programme makers. I am glad that you publish them in full. It shows self confidence on your part and shows the authors up for exactly what they are.
Andrew Lee-Gough

An excellent series! More in the same vein, please.
Peter Rolfe, Billericay, Essex

I think it is obscene to project such "visions", or maybe aspirations, of the future before when we still can't live peacefully. If we don't currently have the wisdom to do so, how will this technology bring us any more security than the atomic bomb did? Surely we have to chill out and make a "revolution where it is not good to be a bystander", where we are not masters of intelligence but masters of peace.

How can we pledge to pursue technology to enrich our lives in a world where terrorism resentment of inequalities is a part of every day life? To master technology in a world like this will only catalyse the problems we are facing today.
Alfred Widmann, Brighton, England

I agree with Dan, the programmes are marvellous. They might be a bit light on the science but so what, we have to get our own back on the doom laden visions of the technophobes. I would love to be able to show my students the reality of what technology can achieve. When I show them videos of Asimo they think it is just a person dressed up. Anyone want to lend me some robots?
Tim, Worcester, England

I agree with Alan Watson's "mind blowing" reaction to the programme last night but I am also slightly disturbed by Chris Fowler's vitriolic accusation of charlatanry. I am worldly wise enough to know he could be right. If programmes like this are to be taken at face value they should perhaps carry the seal of approval of the appropriate body representing the scientific community.
Bill Sinclair, Glasgow

The grand conclusion was that the public should be discussing the future dangers. But, where is the forum for it? Who am I going to discuss it with in a deeply philosophical and political way?
Ron Newman, Stowmarket

BBC Four: On our website we have a page that lists books for further reading and websites where you can research and discuss the sorts of issues raised in the programme.

OK so some of the science may be a bit flawed but great series anyway. We're always fed gloom and doom messages by the media saying how we should fear the future and 'the end is nigh'. Thirty years ago it was nuclear war and nuclear winter, twenty years ago we were heading towards an ice age, ten years ago it was the hole in the ozone layer now it's global warming. It suits the needs of governments to keep us at a heightened level of unease so they can increase state control and impose more 'green' taxes on us. This series showed that there are also a lot of very positive and exciting things to look forward to in the future. We all need to wake up and smell the coffee, and think outside the box. Thanks BBC for an uplifting series.
Dave, Wrexham

I watched episode 3 last night and thought it was awe-inspiring. For instance, the space elevator concept has been explored by engineers and sci-fi authors for decades but the general public have barely heard of it. I wonder how many people went to bed after the programme dreaming of riding an elevator into space, I did. Amazing! Also, great credit to the programme makers for showing how the fiendishly difficult subject of quantum theory translates into real-world possibilities, without getting bogged down in overly-complex explanations. Well done Beeb for re-kindling that childhood wonder about the magical possibilities of the future - can't wait to get my own 'personal fabricator'!
Dan, London

I watched the third programme last night. I did find the science very "lite" with no contrasting views. For example, "Fusion power is great, why isn't it funded more?" Because it may not be the best way of getting clean energy cheaply - it's hugely expensive, big science which is "20 years away from delivery", as it was 20 years ago when I was doing my physics degree, when the lecturer joked it had been 20 years away in the 1970s... Some good things in the programme but incredibly naive, such as having a space elevator (no explanation of how the laser propulsion worked), we will have a global consciousness and won't be divided by religion or race. People said the same thing about the world wide web. Overall I guess the programme was average for the infotainment of today. The only good thing was that it touched on global warming and wasn't apocalyptic! Yes, we might be able to solve some of the problems without retreating to the pre-industrial age - but that theme wasn't explored in much detail.
Chris, Bristol, UK

I was a little disappointed by this series, as I was hoping for a something a little more detailed, not just another programme for the general viewer. Surely the BBC could make an occasional programme with those a little more techno-literate in mind? That said, most of the content is in fact based on sound science and reasonable predictions. I wholeheartedly second Oliver Kenton's comments about the ignorance of some of the programmes' detractors. The power of exponential growth is such that if the human race survives the next 50-80 years, our world will be transformed to an utterly unprecedented degree. Try it for yourself: look up the rate of progress over the last few decades, and extrapolate the graph forward to the next few. I've done this, in many different variations, and the most pessimistic version I could come up with still had the progress curve becoming near-vertical by 2090. Moreover, as the programmes demonstrate, many things which were purely science fiction 40 or even 20 years ago are happening NOW. Suggesting that things which are now science fiction will happen in the near future is not at all unreasonable. Brace yourself for the future, because it's coming, ready or not...
Stephen Baker, Nottingham

I hope the Chris Fowlers of our world will not discourage scientists and engineers from attempting to solve our problems or discourage the rest of us from making the effort to stop creating them. Have courage Chris. We have to make the effort. There are no supernatural beings likely to come to our rescue. I think Professor Kaku agrees about that.
Peter Arnold Alderney

Won't we ever learn? Is it any wonder that there is so little enthusiasm in our schools for 'science' when it is shown, as in these programmes, as the pursuit of ever more control of everything about us, of a world outside us to be mastered? Such arrogance! This is reducing science to mechanics, to nothing more than studying the anatomy of the corpse of the universe. Intelligent beings, such as we consider ourselves to be, should surely feel instinctively that such a science, such a vision of the future, is essentially dead. Does it not lack the vibrancy of life itself? Dr Kaku, typically of so-called scientists, does not begin to understand the real nature of the cosmos in which we find ourselves, or the part that we human creatures must play in it. How to begin to find this? Consider, seriously, that these may be two sides of the same coin.
John Robinson, Ilkley, UK

The thoughts and images that the programme produces is wonderful. To have insight into the way life will evolve in the future is certainly an eye-opener. Regretfully, as a 76-year-old I will not be around to see and experience these developments, but I do see them as a huge step into space exploration apart from the medical benefits which will arise for the human and animal kind. Whether or not these specific developments will lead to a better understanding between the human species or alternatively only create more dangerous tools with which opposing warlike individuals will use to fight each other, is not clear. However, in the long run it can only be beneficial to the majority, while sadly a minority will suffer as always.
David Ratner, London

I'm really looking forward to those 'personal fabricators', as I'm sure are the majority of people in the world. Imagine, the Iranians will be able to dial up a nuclear bomb without having to go to the trouble of centrifuging all that troublesome Uranium. Freedom fighters in Afghanistan and Iraq will be able to dial up 'Tank Busters' to repel the invaders. Freedom-loving Americans will be able to dial up the ultimate 'President Destroyer'. I'm also looking forward to those robots who will obey our every word. Just imagine when they get downloaded with the latest health and safety instructions. Smoking is dangerous for humans - therefore they will go to all lengths to stop it. I can just see the look on the tobacco farmers' faces as they wage all-out war with those robots which are attempting to stop the dangerous tobacco trade.
P Coil, Sheffield

One of the most thought-provoking programmes I've watched in a long time. It leaves me with hope for the future. I also back up the call to get this shown on BBC One or BBC Two.
Andy Kinsella, London

Having sat through Visions of the Future, I'm left wondering how much this series cost to make, and who was responsible for such a waste of our money (I couldn't see the end credits as they were squashed up in order to advertise the next programme, as usual). Now I am very much in favour of this type of subject, but it must be handled with respect, far too much time in Visions was spent either zooming in and out from the presenter's eye and then slowly panning around the back of his head, or soft-rainbow focused views of him strutting with or looking wistfully at crowds of people moving dreamily in ultra-telephotoed slow motion. These unbelievably precious moments alternated with the same sentence or concept being explained over and over by various 'professors' and 'scientists' posing like clothes catalogue models while pontificating in front of some pointless backdrop. The future for technology is a fascinating subject - and more than just 10 per cent of the time should have been allotted to real information, which means more detailed descriptions of the technologies involved, rather than all this superficial nonsense. If you need to know how to put a documentary of this type together, look no further than 1980s series of Horizon or Equinox as fine examples of the genre. Remember, How, What, Why and Where is more important than floppy hair!
David Gladding, Cambridge

A thoroughly enjoyable programme, a more objective argument may have held more weight than one from coming from 'futurists' who obviously have a vested interesting. Having said that, it gives me faith in man to believe there are intelligent people working on projects for the greater good of the human race with so much belief.
Lee Adams, London

Dr Kaku's aim with this series was to get more ordinary people to think about the implications of technological change. I think he might have succeeded if this had made it to BBC Two. He might have been a bit too confident about his predictions but that's no reason to trash the whole thing as rubbish. I agree the lack of consideration for human and political factors does render it more fictional but that's what's for discussion. One thing determines which technologies become widespread and that is human nature and desires. We don't have humanoid robots around, not because they aren't possible but because people would find them threatening and freaky. A bland machine that we are fully in control of is far more comfortable.

However, anything that confers a real competitive advantage on the individuals or companies that have it will happen. Even if it freaks people out there will be those that adopt it. Athletes will have no choice but to enhance their bodies, professionals will augment their brains, people will diverge. That is the scariest prospect. The ability to look down on earth like the first astronauts will not suddenly bring all people together because the monkeysphere principle will still apply so long as we can only comprehend 150 others as being human. If one thing needs bringing up to date and redesigning, it's human nature.

As for all the short-sighted idiots who go on about poverty being a bigger concern; in case you haven't noticed but money can be created out of thin air now, the Federal Reserve does it on a regular basis. Wealth is relative. Economics 101: value comes only from scarcity. Resources are the problem. Energy, oil and water are the new money. There needs to be more thought into the taboo subject of people having too many children before they can even support themselves. In today's world having as many children as you like can not be a god-given right.

So if you think the money spent on research into energy and genetics should be spent helping billions more consume a world that can barely support the current lot, you might as well start preparing for the wars over dwindling resources and slow death of humanity now.

As for the last show, the thought of personal replicators does bring the thought of all the redundant workers who are no longer needed to produce anything, with just intellectual property owners becoming rich. However, there is some hope if you look at the world of Second Life, where anything can be replicated too, yet it has a functioning economy of its own. Just a thought.
Chris Funk, London

The programme seemed to be obsessed with mastering nature/the environment, why aren't we trying to live in harmony with it? This arrogance will lead us to forget who we really are. Technology needs to be understood outside the framework of science as it is not capable of governing itself. The programme said we need to think now how these technologies will affect us as humans in the future but even that is too late. These technologies were born more than 50 years ago and just as we didn't have the foresight to see the impact of previous technologies, neither will we be able to see what impact these will have. The philosopher Martin Heidegger described how we already use the world as one big resource and warned that if we're not careful, scientific ways of thinking will become so dominant that our thinking will ultimately only take place within this realm. By doing so we will lose sight of what it really means to be human beings living on this planet. If this programme is anything to go by, this could already have happened.
M Vickers, Gresford, Wales

I watched Visions of the Future last night in the vain hope that Professor Kaku might actually have something worthwhile to talk about. Honestly, presenting a theory like quantum physics, but then not offering an explanation and only saying "it works!" was frustrating. A load of rubbish. Don't bother presenting a programme about complex scientific theories but not explaining them!
James, London

I watched this programme on the basis of interest from a spiritual prospective. I follow the Baha'i Faith. One of the main views is that we see science and religion as two complementary systems of knowledge. Baha'is see the harmonious interaction of science and religion, each operating within its proper share, as one of the prerequisites for the establishment of a peaceful and just society. Baha'u'llah (the founder of the faith) affirmed that man's intelligence and reasoning powers are a gift from God: "This gift giveth man the power to discern the truth in all things, leadeth him to that which is right, and helpeth him to discover the secrets of creation." This is was the clear message of what was being said on the programme.
Sue Hebenton, Aberdeen

It is a sad reflection on man that he can throw money and resources at atomic fission in order to fight, but he can not do the same with atomic fusion. I think it was 30 years ago we were promised "within 50 years" and nothing has changed. Will we get it before or after the irreversible changes brought on by global warming?
Tom Hickson, Malvern, England

For anyone interested in how complex it would be to just map the connections involved in the human brain, check out this article on Technology Review. I like this quote: "Using standard methods, it would take roughly three billion person years to generate the wiring diagram of a single cortical column, a narrow functional unit of neurons in the cortex." I also wonder how useful a map of a single person's brain would be. There might be macro features that could be explored but every person's brain is constructed based on their own experience: connections form in response to sensory input. So how much could we learn from one map even if its generation could be got down below 100 years.
Tony, Derby

It's frightening to think that people actually take this sort of spiel seriously. Are we really to believe that when the replicating appliance is perfected every household will have one, thereby removing class distinction? Tosh - you'll have to work damn hard to afford it, and then you'll only get the model you can afford. You can be sure any future technology will be commercially regulated, as it always has been, perpetuating the haves and have nots. Honestly, what kind of trip are these programmers on? A big egotrip if you ask me. Surely there must be some sensible people out there who can see that science is only as good as the guy who distributes it. Who was that bumbling red-neck expounding the wisdom of nanobot warfare? Ooo-er, scaaaaaary! I think of all the people out there who go hungry, decade after decade, for want of a helping hand. All the corrupt politicians out there trying to imitate the two-facedness lurking in our corridors of power. The subversion of truth and high moral standards by the concerted perpetuation of ignorance, through under-funded schools and oversubscribed pornography. Instead all we get are high priests of technology afflicted by delusions of omnipotence. Reality is in your heart! Tune into that!
Clive Bates, Nefyn, Wales

Very thought provoking please repeat soon. If we do live in a 'multiverse' like most theoretical physicists believe then some or all these scenarios will happen somewhere.
JH, Dorset

Prof Kaku is an amazing visionary. I found his explanations of future technologies totally believable. These things are exciting and all spiritually possible and will come into being in the near future. Boundless energy can surely be created by cold fusion with water. Bring it on, I say. In the right hands, these miraculous things will come into being.
Brenda Curtis, Cambridge

Excellent programme. Just an idea: save space travel to find other civilisations by broadcasting genomes into space. Funny thing this synergy.
Stephen, Barnsley

Truly awesome. A great insight as to what our children will be able to look forward to. I watched all three programmes. More please, BBC Four.
Dean Manley, Stockport

I enjoyed all the programmes that have been shown on BBC Four TV. To me this type of show gives a quick look in to the future of what mankind could do or what we will do. Moreover, I think this show will need an update on some of the stuff that has been shown in it. It's good to see that we can still get programmes that make you think of what might be just around the bend. Keep up the good work all at BBC Four TV.
Richard Foster, Ashford, London

Professor Kaku is expressing a hope and an excitement that many of us already feel, and he does it with love; that's essentially his merit. I'd rather listen to him than to so many scientists who make you feel like an imbecile.
Az, Scotland

I watched the third of these programmes last night. The man presenting it was clearly a charlatan. It is disgraceful that the BBC wastes money from the licence-payers peddling this unscientific rubbish. There was a parade of "scientists" or "engineers" or "technologists", all of whom were shameless self-promoters, concerned only in convincing gullible funders (government, business, etc) to give them vast amounts of money for research which will never amount to anything. This stuff is obviously as huge a science "boondoggle" as was the Star Wars programme under President Reagan. The chance of this vision of the future coming true is as high as was that of the sixties-futurism that offered us air-cars, food pills, and enormous amounts of leisure time (robots would do all the work and produce all our basic needs). Why don't you commission some programmes made by people who know something about "science", rather than having them made by media studies graduates, who know nothing about anything and have degrees based on studying EastEnders? Wake up, BBC Four, "Professor" Kaku is taking you for ride.
Chris Fowler, London

I really enjoyed Visions of the Future and think that the issues brought to mind some interesting concepts. The worries are that these innovations will be always manipulated due to our current paranoia and the need for people who are currently in control to be always in control, but the programme is also a beautiful demonstration of how fantastic human beings are when we think about our future and development and how we dare think outside of the box and out of the norm.
Richard Hammond, Billingham

I've just watched programme 3 - The Quantum Revolution - absolutely mind-blowing and more than justifies the licence fee on its own! See it again Wednesday evening at 8pm!
Alan Watson, Belfast

Only saw the last programme - splendid. It reminds me of my grandfather who was a professor of physics. About 35 years ago when he was 80 we were discussing with him the changes he'd seen in his lifetime. He agreed there'd been a lot but assured us they would be as nothing compared to those we'll see in ours. So far he's been absolutely spot on! And it's getting faster.
Brian Hughes, Cheltenham

These programmes have given us a fascinating glimpse into the possibilities available to the human race over the next few decades. We, the human race, stand at a crossroads now. In one direction science is able to deliver an amazing future if it is given a chance. The rate of progress in many fields is exponential and the fields themselves are converging to provide the benefits hinted at in Michio Kaku's film. In the other direction we have the danger that our inability to take effective ACTION on climate change means that we may be overwhelmed by global disaster before we can benefit from the scientific revolutions now taking place. The IPCC has laid down in stark terms the dangers facing us and has said unequivocally that the time for ACTION is now, and that the next decade is critical. If we 'faff' about as we have done for the past 20 years - loads of talk and no effective action - we will be too late. We will have totally lost control and our future as a species will be largely out of our hands.

More than ever before we need to be led by giants who can act decisively, not wait for yet another committee report, call for more research, or defer decisions till after elections. We need to order those nuclear power stations NOW. We need to build the Severn Barrage NOW. We need to massively increase our wind power electricity capacity NOW. Catching up with Germany who has 10 times our installed capacity would be a useful start. We've heard today from Gordon Brown about his new targets for renewable energy. It's easy to set targets. It's delivery that counts. With his government's performance against even their own targets over their decade in power does anyone believe he can deliver?
Stan O'Neil, Melton Mowbray, England

A truly amazing programme... more, more, more... Enlightening and uplifting.
Paul Yeats, Newcastle upon Tyne

"And we are really here on a wonderful threshold of knowledge. The ascent of man is always teetering in the balance. There is always a sense of uncertainty, whether when man lifts his foot for the next step it is really going to come down pointing ahead. And what is ahead for us? At last the bringing together of all that we have learned, in physics and in biology, towards an understanding of where we have come: what man is." Thus spake Professor Jacob Bronowski in the Ascent of Man in 1973. Now Professor Kaku has made an absolutely outstanding job of picking up the torch and exploring the potential of the Biotech revolution and communicating the excitement of that new 'digital biology'. The series neatly points out that whereas in the last century we learned how to destroy ourselves with the Manhattan project, in this we are learning to repair and - maybe - enhance ourselves through the Genome Project and its cancer-busting descendants. Arise, Luddites, and think.
Dr Stephen Thomas, Winchester

As a teenager I looked for the men walking on the moon. Maybe in the future my children and students may be able to see people going into space on a nano tube. Great ideas let's have more of this.
Peter Goley, Merseyside

Great programme. Can't wait for the guys at CERN to create new matter. Very exciting times.
Jack East, Tunbridge Wells, Kent

I'm a granny. This programme was brilliant. Can we have more? I want to know about the possibilities in the future and about those very clever interesting people.
Jules Freeman, Bristol

Thought-provoking stuff - but I would be interested in seeing the predictions made in the 1960s (for example, on space exploration). What level of accuracy do scientists actually achieve?
Nick Stubbs, Newmarket, UK

To those of you worried about robots taking jobs, the fact is that falling birth rates in the post-baby-boom developed world (especially Japan, as a BBC report details on Monday 19 November) mean that there will not be enough young people to do the jobs anyway. Robots are a necessary part of our developed society. Then, once we have paid for the development of these robots, they can be used in the developing World to help farming (for example). Deciding to wait until the third world catches up with us, before we somehow have a 'moral right' to progress further, hinders us all in the long run.
Jeremy Anderson, St Albans

Why are the last three movies from Michio Kaku at YouTube unavailable?
GT

BBC Four: For rights reasons, most clips on the BBC website and on the BBC area of YouTube are unavailable to watch outside the UK.

CRISIS... Natural Balance is at stake. To every invention - questions rise, and looking at today's actions, today's technology abuse, today's culture… it is showing, we won't handle evolving technology reasonably, technology is evolving quicker then majority of peoples and governing intelligence. I don't believe we will understand the brain completely, maybe in the sci-fi future, when we evolve, we might discover new aspects that will simply create new implications… But on general technology evolution will always be questioned - Natural Resources? And other questions rise. I think we should worry more about the consequences of emerging technology and human NATURE and how quickly we adapt… Tackling it from other perspectives, psychological, philosophical and people's lack of reasoning and wider thinking, I think we should worry about the government, human life control, I think we should realise how much propaganda, brainwashing, and lack of freedom we are getting now and how! This might create problems if this gets worse, or better.
MGX890, England

I knew there was a reason I purchased a television! Thanks.
Dion Weston, Portsmouth, Hampshire

I just hope I'm not too old before all this happens. Will my age even matter?
Robin Miklinski, London

Why are we not as a globe making sure we get fusion energy up and online? It's about time the oil barons realised their time is nearing an end, and for that matter if we keep sucking oil out of the ground our world. Imagine the government not being able to blither on about climate change all day and actually get on with the job of running the country! I applaud the work being carried out by these dedicated people. Keep it up.
Paul Neal, Aberdeen

Well it's about the nano carbon things and the nano bots, if you could teach a nano bot to reorganise carbon atoms into a nano carbon string, can't that in theory turn all carbon structures into a nano carbon? And because all life on earth is carbon-based, can't you use the nano bots to turn a thin layer of human skin into a thin layer on nano carbons and basically make your skin bullet proof because it's stronger than steel?
Terry Fordham, Basildon

The basic question "Where does this intelligence come from?" to enable us humans to fulfil these visions of the future is sadly ignored? I think John Cowie's book Silbury Dawning: The Alien Visitor Gene Theory provides the answers. The book suggests that this has already happened before! Around 13,000 years ago a highly intelligent extra-terrestrial life-form arrived and bred with, or somehow implanted its genetic material and educated our Homo-ancestors, thus speeding up their development. The offspring of the Alien Visitor/Homo sapiens continued to evolve rapidly because of the Alien Visitor gene which gave the new species many advantages not enjoyed by other animals. Consequently the Homo sapiens, which did not gain this Alien Visitor gene struggled to compete against their counterparts and eventually became extinct. Those that survived became US!

Up until now our evolution and our lives have been constrained/curtailed by nature/nurture, but as the TV programme spectacularly shows it is becoming eminently clear that in the next 20 to 30 years we will have the god-like power to engineer a new species of human that transcends our current evolutionary boundaries. Cowie suggests this immense knowledge which we are slowly recovering from one generation to the next via a trans-generational memory gene is further proof of an extraterrestrial intervention. Our development is potentially unstoppable as it is also part of our ongoing recovery process to take us to the level of intelligence which we inherited when this extraterrestrial arrived and thrived on Earth and will enable us to explore space in search of our extraterrestrial ancestors.
Louise, London

Brilliant, fascinating series.
Joanna Mayor, London

A disappointing lack of actual debate about the ethical implications of many of the predictions described. I find Professor Kaku's view of the future to be misguidedly optimistic. It largely fails to see these technological developments in any kind of social, political or economical context, and barely touches on the fact that incredible as the advances in technology have been, and will no doubt continue to be, it remains a very thin slice of humanity who enjoy the benefit of them. The second programme touched on the idea of 'techno-haves' and 'techno-have-nots', but failed to explore it. I would very much like to have seen a more rigorous exploration of the potential pitfalls of advances described than a mere listing of them, which is all the series really offered. I think it's also true to say that mankind may be 'advancing' by the day in terms of science and technology, and there are no doubt tremendous benefits, especially in terms of medicine, but are we really any wiser or happier? I for one don't think so.
Daniel, London

I miss Tomorrow's World which went from seven-minute items with some depth to far too short and faddy clips and was quite rightly replaced by The Gadget Show and others of its ilk. Tonight's programme was presumably designed to make us think so thanks for that.
Bob Copeman, Birmingham

An excellent programme from a prophet and visionary. I found it utterly fascinating.
Irene Moore, Congleton, UK

Many of the proponents, of these new technologies derived from advances in science, are simply interested in the commercial profits to be made and of course they will put a positive spin on what they would wish us to believe the future holds.
Anthony Flint, Manchester

Prof Kaku presents a superb blend of physics and biology and chemistry at the forefront of technology. Absolutely riveting! Up until now I thought that I was really keeping up to date with scientific advances but the remarkable achievements presented in this programme truly make me feel proud to be human. I hope that these great undertakings are continued by the next generation. We are only at the beginning of discovering the world/universe around us!
Sheri Barrington, Weymouth, England

I have a chemistry degree and am excited by the good use of nanotechnology. As I have got older I have come to realise that knowledge without wisdom is very dangerous. Mankind's spiritual development is not keeping pace with his/her technological development and it could be argued that prosperity is reducing our spiritual progress.
Linda Sims, Ludlow

This programme did an excellent job of pulling together the visions of the future from a scientific perspective. What was shown is indeed theoretically possible. However, an entire series could be devoted to the reasons why many of these things will take much longer than anticipated or will never happen. The world is controlled and driven by commerce. Strings will be pulled at the highest level, for example, to ensure that a fully operational fusion reactor is many years away from disrupting the dollar/oil commercial cycle. The desk-top fabricator would radically change our opinions toward the work ethic and dramatically affect tax revenues. In the final analysis, easy access to cheap energy, food and material goods would erode governments' control on society, and those in power like being in power. Sadly, they are also the ones expected to provide the funding for the research into these technologies. Call me cynical but I think the brakes are already on.
Rob Kingscott, Stourbridge, UK

I watched all three parts of Professor Kaku's series and found it refreshing to come across an opinion on the future that highlights the positive aspects of human endeavour. I was excited to hear about the advances that have been made with regard to energy. I have believed for a long time that finding a cheap, clean form of energy is the key: the only shot we have at being able to save humanity and our planet. Some of the fundamental things this will solve:

- elimination of reliance on politically unstable parts of the world for our energy
- the obvious CO2 and climate change issues
- production of fresh water which in essence only needs energy to be created

I strongly believe that we as humanity should be putting our efforts into developing these energy forms. While many people, through fear, find it tempting to use their energy to fight progress, nothing beats positive action to change the world for the better.
Shaun O'Connor, London

One hundred years ago, people looked to the future with gold-plated ambitions. History shows us what the past 100 years was like. Professor Kaku is inviting us to deal with the future. The fact is, I feel he is offering a new leadership for the future, a time when our skills as humans are going to be most needed, being alarmed and excited are the best in human nature to flourish culture, why can't the future be as said, new generation = new energy = new world. Creating a realisation of tomorrow's vision today!
Rob Ashmore, Dublin

This series is truly outstanding. Kaku is an outstanding presenter. Let's have more. All the discovery projects if taken to their hoped for conclusion will effect changes so radical that it bruises the mind even thinking about them. The religious naysayers will become objects of fun in the future. These programmes should be aired on the bigger channels and repeated. This is what television is for, not boring twaddle like Strictly Come Dancing.
Peter McKenna, Bray, Ireland

What a fantastic series of programmes. The only thing that stops us making such remarkable advances is ourselves. The utopian beliefs are something to aspire to; as humans we are likely to abuse as well as use these technologies. Let's hope we can engineer ourselves in to better beings where we don't have the primitive desire to screw things up for others. There are many empty planets in the universe which we could populate with different engineered versions of ourselves, or experimental artificial lifeforms. I think we must keep a master copy of every gene and technology. The universe may experiment with all these things, but we should never forget our history as a race, even if we become unrecognisable.

Where is the detail? The thousands of people this programme will inspire will work out the detail. Let's hope it is all used in an ethical and responsible way. This is unlikely given where the cash usually comes from, but then as soon as we get 'home fab kits' we could make our own cash. Oh, damn, that's the ethics out the window already. It seems I need both an intelligence and an ethical bio-enhancement. Life is precious.
Stewart, Paisley, Scotland

I for one enjoyed the programme. I sometimes forget that there is new research going on out in the world when all I see and hear from popular media (TV, radio, newspapers) is the same old celebrity gossip, climate debates (complete with current soundbites like "carbon footprints") and political tit-for-tats. I am surprised that so many people who have commented here have rubbished the programme on the grounds that the scientist have "Said all this before" when they have talked about these new technology revolutions being around the corner. You guys are right, it might not be around the corner or 50 years from now but at least they are trying to make a better world in the only way they know how. Personally I don't care if it takes them 50, 100, 200 years whatever. The point is the new science is here and will be beneficial eventually. Give them some credit.
Yashin Kara, Preston, UK

Professor Kaku is at it again; imagine being one of his students. Still, this series does make you think of the road ahead. Technology is baffling to the technophiles as it is, 50 years will see an ever increasing spiral of specialists in narrowing fields. Michio paints his vision with broad brave strokes, very good but where is the detail in the devil?
Alan Hughes, Dublin

The derogatory comments on this page usually come from able-bodied people - are they glad that some are disabled or not so clever? Does it make them feel superior? I for one loved the programme and hope everything is done for the progression of gene therapy. Who in their right mind believes that being disabled makes you a better person? I have two grandchildren aged three and five who are going blind because of genes. Is that what people who are negative want and hope to remain in humanity? Happiness is fleeting for all of us but I would rather be unhappy and have sight than unhappy and be blind. Please let sanity prevail. It is no longer the Middle Ages; we must help those unable to help themselves.
Gloria Lindsay, Clydebank, Scotland

Enhancing memory could have a great downside. Too much information may cause many people to suffer mental health problems, or even worse. After all, it is not memory that produces geniuses but creativity.
Raphael Michael, Surrey, England

I've been hearing these kinds of predictions for the last 50 years. But whether human cloning, or even brain implants, to prevent Alzheimer's or other diseases will ever take place will depend more on the politicians who are scared by all the negative elements in society. Can you imagine the Daily Mail approving?
Alan Jowett, Manchester

Humans have tended to make progress by overcoming disabilities. Physically gifted people may not have to make as much effort. This might also apply to the clever ones.
Peter Arnold, Alderney, CIs

In a world where we have ever more wealth and gadgets, we also have less happiness, fulfilment and satisfaction. Believing he knows better than nature, man pursues his blinkered ideas for improvement. Eradicating disease is fine, but will more strength and better memories really make us happier? Now, if we could find the genes that give us more wisdom, compassion and understanding, and less aggression and selfishness, we might really improve our quality of life. I suspect that might not be so easy.
Mike Collins, Harrow

Predictions are just that - predictions - and this programme is one man's journey and views on the future. What is one man's flight of fantasy is another man's invention and direction. This programme is a great signpost to the possibilities of the future and a brilliant way to get involved and validate your own imagination. Always a big fan of Michio Kaku and where his head's at. Mine will be tuned in every Monday for the continuation of a very cool series.
Louis Lygo, London

Both programmes have been very disappointing - they've touched on lots of interesting issues but failed to explore them. No serious opposition is given to the stream of generally positive views about technology and where we're probably headed with it. Instead what we get is a veiled 'advertisement' for this fantastic future we are supposedly on the doorstep of. This whole approach is symptomatic of the bigger problem - although we like to believe that we are in control of this technology, in truth, it is already out there with its own momentum (or rather that given to it by money and power) and it will inevitably cause us as many problems as it solves. (That's the unwritten law of consumerism).

While Dr Kaku and the programme-makers have now made several limp and disingenuous claims about the need for debate, they seem oblivious to the fact that such a debate is exactly what many of us had been tuning in for. I just hope those two hours of my life will feel less wasted by the time I'm 180 years old and deciding which head to wear to the cool party I'll be attending.
Martin Wallace, Liverpool

I enjoyed the first programme and I'm looking forward to the others. But - would you trust any corporate company or government with any of this technology? We used to worry that we were approaching a Brave New World, then we worried we were moving towards 1984 - now we can see, the reality is we are getting both.
Jessica Deacon, Maidenhead, UK

Visions of the Future: Biotechnology. I thought this programme brought a message which it is very important people hear: "The debate needs to be had now as science is advancing fast". Please BBC, re-screen this on one of the main channels. The programme presents lucid arguments from both scientists and philosophers, delivers facts which many will not know and the presenter steers the programme admirably. I believe this programme warrants airing on either BBC One or BBC Two as part of the BBC's commitment to educate. Many people do not have any handle on genetics or the advances in biotechnology made in recent years, this programme offers a chance to educate such people and kick-start reasoned debate.
Patrick McDonnell, Dundee

Sci-fi authors have been addressing the problem of cloning/gene enhancement ethics for years. The latter was sufficient ground for disbarment from Star Fleet Academy! You could do worse than trawl the sci-fi media for a set of ground rules. Five minutes on your supercomputer should do the trick.
John Timbers, Dartford, Kent

Some of the comments here are grossly misinformed. Johny Ffinch, you think it'll take a century for these things to occur? It's only been 30 years since the first home computers and already we have a global network with a multitude of virtual worlds on it. Mr Vivian David Hankey, you clearly need to read up on neural nets. What you say is true for traditional programmes, but not neural nets which are what AI is based upon. I can understand how many people were burned by the 70s/80s shows with scientists in shiny jumpsuits, but you need to understand that not all seculation is equally invalid. Follow Moore's law. It's held up so far and we have no reason to think it won't in the near future. This predicts a human brain level of processing power in a computer by 2040 (give or take a few years). Now, link that to a neural net, and you are less than 10 years away from a human level of intelligence. And that's a pessimistic view. I thought this programme was interesting, debate provoking and it has encouraged me to do more reading. A success all round.
Oliver Kenton, Manchester

A very interesting programme. For those who seem to criticise and make comparisons to Tomorrow's World of the 60s; I don't remember super computers, human genome mapping or cloning being a reality in the 60s. Then it was made up for entertainment. But it is today and I wouldn't be surprised if this technology does come into existence. Dr Kaku is a great presenter of this show.
C Kerton, Portsmouth

I have watched only one of these programmes, but I was appalled by it. One expects the futurologists to claim to know what's going to happen in the future, but for a theoretical physicist to do it is a disgrace. I wish everybody would just come to terms with the fact that nobody knows what the future holds. I can't believe this nonsense is being broadcast.
James Thomson, Bedford

I saw the first programme and thought it was excellent, like a modern-day version of Tomorrow's World. It was interesting, informative and showed us normal folks what's happening in the technology world. Fantastic!
Kenneth Pundyke, Bangor, Co Down

A truly fascinating programme. I am 73 years old so this will be something I cannot be part of. I hope that people do not reject the whole concept without thinking of the medical gains, and the quality of life it will eventually bring to the future older generation. I hope this programme will be on DVD. Please let me know if it is?
Do, Horsham, UK

BBC Four: There are no plans to release a DVD of Visions of the Future at this time.

There's nothing wrong with dreaming but come on, scientists have to be realistic, these so called scientists believing we will be able to make anything out of molecules. No country in the world would give you the freedom to mess about with DNA.
Neil, Edinburgh

I was also dissatisfied with the first programme. Machines are still a long, long way from any but the most limited type of intelligence. A better programme would have looked at the wide variety of investigations into AI and compared them. The linking of a chip into the brain was interesting but far too superficial to draw any conclusions. Overall, not impressed but I'll probably watch the rest.
Tony, Derby

They said that in the year 2000 we would be flying on hoverboards. I think that we should be thinking about sorting out the mess in this world that we have already; that is, poverty, instead of dreaming about what other gadgets we can smother our greedy selves with next.
Michael Bartlett, Northampton

This programme is brilliant and I have enjoyed the two episodes that I've seen so far. The advances mentioned in the programmes such as human interfacing with machines is already taking place and will only be more common place in the near future. It is true that there have been many predictions that have not come true, yet, but one person named Ray Kurzweil is brilliant because his predictions are extremely accurate because they're not based on a crystal ball, but on trends. I can see that within the next 25 years we will be able to repair and 'reverse' aging so that we can live hundreds or even thousands of years. At the moment I practice calorie restriction and am only 23 years old, I hope to be part of this future. This programming was far better than the usual stuff you see on TV, which is very depressing! Something to look forward to in the future. Brilliant!
Matthew Lake, Cardiff

To be honest, I was a little disappointed with the programme. I was looking forward to something in a similar vein to the superb Light Fantastic programme produced last year, but was again subjected to the endless camera angles and filler material. These programmes need to tell a story and have some kind of deductive reasoning shown to engage their audience. This seemed like yet another scientist telling us we would all be walking around with computerised sunglasses 'in another few years' AGAIN. They were predicting that on Tomorrow's World in the 80s and in every pseudo science programme since. Let's have more CONTENT in the programmes with less of an emphasis on presentation. Remember Horizon in the 80s?
Miles Bancroft, Medstead, UK

On the one hand I really enjoyed the pace and vision of Dr Kaku's exploration of emerging technologies. Visions of rapidly emerging technologies that will not just save the world but be quite enjoyable at the same time have quite an appeal. On the other hand I had the same reaction to the latest Star Wars Trilogy - it's good fantasy, but is it based on reality? As a child I was weaned on broadcasts of Apollo launches and expansive declarations by clever scientists that we would all be walking on the moon and driving jet cars by the end of the millennium. Instead, we face extinction by global warming and global warfare and space technology has crawled at a snail's pace. Kaku's optimism seems a tad overdone to me. Someone recently said that most of the scientists predicting life-extension within 20 years are themselves 20 years away from retirement and old age. Perhaps our own rapidly approaching mortality pushes us to optimism about scientific breakthroughs when the reality is going to be much more moderate progress in the short term and totally unpredictable outcomes in the medium to long. Makes good TV though! Bring it on!
Tim Turner, Birmingham

What a load of nonsense. Dr K's predictions seemed to take no account of the social and political realities - nor seemed to show any understanding of human nature. We won't all live in virtual worlds! We won't have virtual dinner parties. We know this, for example, because the more 'digital' we become, the more people crave real experience. Attendances at live arts events are up like never before - people's hunger for travel is never greater. The reality is that real people want real experiences. Humanity always subverts technology. And perhaps the producers could have reminded him that the use of the pronoun 'we' was almost offensive. The 'we' he was talking about seemed to be the American middle class - with limitless money, energy, and a liberal socialist politic. Awful, risible TV science at its very worst!
Martin Jacobs, Stockport

Oh for those golden days in the 1980s when programmes like Horizon knew how to serve up science and make it interesting AND informative. Of special merit were the ones concerning the wonders of space exploration, the Voyager probes in particular. Nowadays we have Rovers on Mars, the Cassini spacecraft orbiting Saturn, a lander on Titan, a probe on its way to Pluto and beyond... perhaps we could be treated to a traditional, non-dumbed-down-drama-doc-waffly-fuzzied-over-arty-soft-focused Horizon programme on some of these subjects before the Pluto probe actually arrives at its destination!
Dave Gladding, Cambridge

Why no mention of the biggest users of leading-edge computer power - the military? What kind of future world are they going to create? I was amazed that this wasn't discussed.
P Batten, Surbiton, Surrey

A very thought-provoking start to what looks like an interesting series from Prof Kaku. It scares me a little to think that as a species we may be running head-long into these future scenarios of artificial intelligence, brain implants, robots with humanity and humans with nanotechnology etc. But the whole feel of the programme reminded me of the older Tomorrow's World programmes from the 70s, where we were being told that by the year 2001 we WOULD all have robots running around our houses doing chores for us etc; and plainly we don't all have that - although the technology is there for it. The fundamental reason I believe our lives have not been overrun by robots is emotion. We do not have them because we choose not to have them on some emotional or ethical level. Maybe the artificial intelligence involved has not yet reached the level of sophistication for it to be of significant use to us to warrant us having them. Mind you, having said all that; the robots predicted by Tomorrows World back in 1977 may have arrived in a different form - the mobile, the mp3 player, the laptop computer. They may not be able to run upstairs (yet!), but they sure can process information quicker.

The programme does show a very one-sided view; a view of life and technology without constraint and unfettered, without laws, consumer intervention or ethics. So before I run to the hills and lock myself into some feudal farming, subsistence existence to avoid the onset of some kind of Gattaca/Blade Runner humanity meltdown, I will watch the remaining two episodes with great interest on my part and great fear for my future grandchildren's existence.
Neill Owen, Cardiff

Judging from the advance stuff, Dr Kaku is not addressing the gross imbalance between the rich West and the rest of the world. I want a vision of a just, equitable and sustainable world, not a hi-tech one.
John Southern, Cardigan, Wales

Amazing - made even me, a hardcore computer user, step back and take a look! I LOVED IT!
Josh

I did enjoy the show and it did show some insightful predictions on the future of technology. The show is a bit optimistic and doesn't really show human ignorance and the ever-growing yoke of religion. Technology is great... if we're allowed to use it!
Andrew Prince, Worcester

Welcome to the world of "Amateur Gods". Frightening really, considering many scientists don't make particularly good humans!
Ken Barnes

I agree with Mandy Cameron. For me the future suggested by this programme ignores economic, social and environmental constraints. One example would be the world-changing effect of the end of oil. How will this future be manufactured or delivered to us without oil/petrol for instance? Classify this programme as science FICTION.
David Yates, Scarborough

The reason that so much technological effort is going into the creation of [humanoid] robots is so that a new species of mechanical slave can be created. The other side of this is of course that the labouring classes will be made redundant. If humankind proceeds along this path it is inevitable that there will be much social conflict and society will be radically different in the future. Sci-fi tales of robot rebellions or species of machine ruling the planet at the expense of human kind are fantasy. That will not be allowed to happen. But what if all labouring tasks from picking vegetables to domestic cleaning and cooking can be done by robots? What place is there for those with no capacity for more than labouring tasks? They will be forced to compete with the slave machines which will reduce them to the level of slaves themselves. While the cost of robots is still high cheap labour will always be used, but when they are mass produced the balance will be changed. Consider what happened with computers. Such competition in the past has always been won by the machines starting with the mechanical looms that put the Tolpuddle Martyrs out of work.

What are the advantages of a robot? It is reliable, after the initial capital cost (say that of a small car) it only requires maintenance and recharging, subject to the latter, it does not tire. It does not require any other benefits or consideration and is always pleasant and obedient. Like an automatic washing machine you just set it going and forget about it. And you can switch it off.

So in the future society will consist of a "middle" class whose work will be mental. In other words they will earn their livings in management, design or any form of decision making or judgement that is unsuited to the computer brain. The idea of a whole class of people living in idleness is fantasy, if for the only reason that there must be an economy - if only to pay for the robots - which involves money being earned and spent.

So what of those who have no capacity for anything other than labouring? Will they perhaps be exterminated or deliberately infected with some selective disease - perhaps one which renders them sterile? Or will they be driven into enclaves where they are fed drugs to keep them sedated? Will they be driven out to the wastelands or exist within society as an alienated underclass always liable to insurrection while maintaining a lower level crime and violence. The latter is most likely.

Of course science-fiction has treated these scenarios in various ways over the years but it is becoming clear that humanoid robots are inevitable it also makes it possible and necessary to take a clearer look at the sort of society that will result. It is this question that sci-fi does not address. (The standard tale of the perfect but authoritarian city under a dome and an underclass of mutants in the surrounding jungle always ended with the dome being blown up - at least on 60s BBC TV). The fantasy romance and drama of science fiction needs to be filtered out. What will happen to all the Latino/Mexican/Caribbean domestics, farm hands and labourers in the US? What will happen to the eastern Europeans in the UK? Will the changes take place without widespread violence?

Not only will there be reasons for violence within Western societies, the difference between the countries which have and those that have not changed to be robot served will also create tensions. So will robots also be made into soldiers or will this remain a task for the labouring classes? Will the value of a human life be reduced to less than the cost of a robot? Some countries will successfully make the change (Singapore? Japan?). Others may consist of robot serviced middle class gated enclaves surrounded by waste lands of the Mad Max variety where war is continuous. Eventually, after perhaps a hundred years, robot serviced societies will prevail and humanity will have entered a new phase.
A Beamish, Bridgnorth

I'm continually frustrated by TV's treatment and science and engineering and the first part of Visions of the Future just added to this. Dr Kaku spun an extreme view of the future which he backed up with half-truths and selective research. He interviewed all the usual tenured suspects from cushy academic institutions who have been spinning positively about "being on the threshold" of a brave new world for at least the last three decades. There was no critical thought presented on alternative viewpoints. I'm in awe of the technical achievements of scientists and engineers over the past few decades. Why not present our scientific progress for what it is, rather than what you think will make good TV?
D J Thorpe, London

A terrific start to what looks to be a very promising series. Once again Kaku is providing us with the opportunity to delve into the amazing world of the scientific mind. Though at times overly optimistic, Kaku's logic is like a breath of fresh air. I eagerly await the next two episodes.
David Walter, Newcastle upon Tyne

Excellent programme - and I disagree with comments like "waste of the licence fee". The brain implant to combat depression was something I thought wasn't possible with current technology, and I think bringing awareness to more people - even if it's not as in-depth as the techno-nerds would like is a great idea, and is going to help me in 40 years time. To quote Heroes: "You can't stop the future."
Neil Kent, Fareham, Hants

This is the most insightful and well-balanced programme I have seen in years, and with still two more episodes to come I am converting to BBC Four. For this kind of programming I don't mind paying the licence fee.
Matthew Wilkinson, Bawell, Leicestershire

My recent reacquaintance with Virginia Woolf's Mrs Dalloway prompts me to suggest that all physicians meddling with people's minds should acquaint themselves with the mentioned title.
William Roshinsky, Corning, USA

How disappointing this programme was; Dr Michio Kaku showed little originality in the presentation and content, relying on the neon signs video screens and the streets of Tokyo to give the impression that we stand at the gates of some sort of Blade Runner/Matrix world. The whole programme is underweight, and the expert interviewees seemed to look at their contribution as a fanciful marketing opportunity. Dr Kaku's previous series on Time was excellent, let us hope the next two instalments of Visions of the Future get somewhere near to that standard.
David Bellerby, Bristol

This is a very interesting and compelling series so far and it's probably a bit harsh for people to say that it's not tackling the wider implications of how the changes will affect us as I don't think it was meant to. But one thing I did find disturbing and quite sad was the way in which the presenter outlined that those who were not prepared to clue themselves up and take advantage of the new technology would be left behind, particularly those in the third world, and that this would create a bigger gap between the haves and have nots. How sad that in these times when technology can and has advanced so much, there will still be millions of people on the planet living in poverty and dying of starvation, even 50 years from now. Something is wrong somewhere.
Liam Smith, Hull

I found the start of the programme a little dull and nearly changed channels, but as it went on it became both thought provoking and informative. We have always 'humanised' machines to some extent, calling things 'he' or 'she', giving them names etc but had never considered the importance of building humanistic traits into a robot to enable us to work and interact with it (and, I suspect, trust it). I thought the piece about brain implants was very informative. I had no idea about the current work being done to correct mental problems and while the idea of having a chip to enable us to enhance our brain function is still little more than a possibility it will be championed by some, such as the military, and bitterly opposed by others and one of the precepts of the programme is to get people thinking about the possible consequences, good and bad, of future technology before it arrives.
Andy Kayll, London

A problem with this vision is that if you could beam a web browser into your eye would it make you any more intelligent? Reading something is not the same as understanding something, so maybe this future is a long way off?
Jinwah Serapis, London

Such programmes are all very well but they are never balanced by debate regarding the problems confronting the human race... growing poverty, rising crime, the advancing underclass, wars, terrorism, economic-social and environmental problems, over-population, global warming, changing weather patterns, unemployment, among many others... How are man's mounting dilemmas going to fit in to this brave new world?
Mandy Cameron, Reading

I thought the programme was absolutely amazing. I found the AI debate about their course of action (either peaceful or hostile) quite fascinating. The idea of the micro chip being inserted into our heads is an interesting research subject I will personally undertake myself. Thank you for producing such an excellent programme.
Andrew Pellatt (OU Student in Computing and Psychological Studies), Romsey, Hampshire

Utter, utter, utter crap. That the BBC can use my licence fee to make a programme so totally devoid of ANY critical thinking just beggars belief. Just forget scares about mobile phone masts and widespread rejection of GM foods, this idiot suggests that "in the future people will interface with computers through their brain!" Yeah… right. I'm sure this credulous cretin would be first in the queue. It's no surprise that an American presents such a Western-centric, technologically determinist view of "the future". There's no mention of global climate change here, just a simplistic straight-line extrapolation of the past 30 years. Heroically moronic TV without any merit whatsoever - except, perhaps, some of the laugh-out-loud haircuts. No wonder they prefer their virtual avatars. Please BBC - make a sensible programme about the future, and stop with all this techno-geeky nonsense. I agree, in 20 years we can look back and have a good old laugh, but until then it's just bloody annoying that you give these idiots so much air time.
Andrew Wootton, Manchester

A series of largely unsubstantiated statements "In the future we will..." backed up with selectively edited material (what exactly was being measured when the rat connected to a chip demonstrated "improved performance"? The answer, I happen to know, was probably nothing. Marvin Minsky is a lovely chap but he has been predicting that a brave new world of intelligent machines was only a decade away for 50 years. The real eye-opener in terms of IT has been the extent to which it showed us that things we thought were hard (like playing chess) were relatively straightforward, while things we thought were easy (like picking up an apple) are incredibly complicated. I've met Asimo too, I've played Second Life they are both extremely limited technologies and in the latter case, any intelligence is possessed by the users, not the software - a fact that got conveniently glossed over. Quite possibly all the things that were described may come to be but there is far more evidence to suggest that we are a century away at least than that they are just around the corner. All in all, a disgraceful piece of television, devoid of journalistic integrity which colluded in providing a platform for a collection of sloppy thinkers and frauds. Only Susan Greenfield emerged with any credit despite the programme-makers clearly editing her comments to give the impression she was taking the ludicrous propositions of the presenter seriously. I cannot believe that whoever made this programme was not aware of how partial and sensationalist it really was. You should be ashamed of yourselves.
Jonny Ffinch, London

Prof Kaku, there is only one way that the computer will ever overtake the human being in thinking and intelligence and that is if a government decides to rule its people by compulsorily fitting everyone in there country with an interactive computer chip and have a controlling computer interact and learn from the actions and thoughts of those that it is linked with so that in time it will be able to out-think and out-perform us, but as things stand we the people, we invented the microchip and we have to give the computer the information that enables it to do the things it can do both now and in the future so that although there are robotic machines now and will be in the future we the human beings will and do have control over what the robots may or may not do and how and when it may do them as we have to provide the information to allow it to work. As I have said the computer will only over take the human being if a mad dictator decides to implant the people that he or she rules will we all become cyber beings.
Mr Vivian David Hankey, Burton upon Trent, Staffordshire

 Visions of the Future Homepage

BBC Four homepage