In modern cladistics, there is a strong pressure to only classify organisms in monophyletic groups — that is, groups that contain all descendants of a common ancestor and nothing else. This is quite reasonable from a specialist’s point of view, as the alternative is quite confusing. Polyphyletic terms like “worm”, “mesozoa”, and “plankton” refer to broad and arbitrary groupings of unrelated organisms, and may be acceptable for casual use, but when you really care about classifying organisms in a consistent way, these terms are useless, and are regularly discarded.

I apply this same principle in my thinking about science, technology, and futurism. Futurist dialogue is rife with ‘polyphyletic’ terms like “Singularity”, “nanotechnology”, and “nuclear”. Some of these terms may have been coined with precise definitions that have since been lost in the cacophony of interested, well-meaning amateurs that are trying to appear informed, or worse, PR spinners that have hijacked words like “nanotechnology” intentionally.

When engaging in constructive dialog on futurist topics, it’s important to know what the hell you’re talking about. Unfortunately, there is a tradeoff for specificity — greater complexity of terms, as well as restricted meanings that prevent rhetorical hand-waving useful for drawing people in without confusing them. Personally, I prefer a layered approach — incrementally more specific terminology for specific purposes. As another downside, groups with too much esoteric language frustrate those without the vocabulary, and inspire calls of “cult!” or “alienated from reality”.

What particularly disappointed me recently in this area is the definition of “Singularity” in Ray Kurzweil’s 2005 book, The Singularity is Near. His definition consists of several pages filled with dozens of bullet points, ranging from “nanotechnology will enable the design of nanobots” to “Ultimately the entire universe will become saturated with our intelligence. This is the destiny of the universe.” (Not only is the latter phrase an addition to the confusion around the term, it implies an inevitability that ignores global catastrophic risk.) Please, Mr. Kurzweil, be more specific, and summarize terms in a few sentences at the most.

Sometimes, it’s beneficial for someone who wants to change the definition of a term to simply use it in the intended context, and hope it catches on. Even I am guilty of this. For instance, I use the word “cybernetics” to refer to cyborg technology, as we see it used in fiction, especially anime, instead of using Norbert Wiener’s frustratingly broad traditional definition. This causes conflict with some of my older colleagues, who respect Wiener’s definition, but among the younger crowd, it is a simple fact that “cybernetics” is strongly associated with cyborgs. In this respect, I am simply riding on a pre-existing wave.

Be careful about the meanings of words. Some people might get into an argument that has nothing to do with the substance at hand, but merely disagreements over the meaning of words. To avoid this, we must take the time to define our terms precisely, and not get flustered when we find that our own intuitive definition of the term is overly broad and nonspecific.