The US has its "genius visa", which encourages top scientists to come into the country, and now 50 per cent of those working in Silicon Valley are foreign-born. But we don't know how long we'll be able to hold on to the brain drain [from the rest of the world] into the US. Trump has made a commitment to the space program, which could lead to a bounty of new technologies, just as it led to spin-offs like the microchip in the past.

How do you attract more women to science?

Historically, the treatment of women in sciences was atrocious. Things are a lot better now – up to 50 per cent of students in the biological sciences in the US are women – but it's a protracted process. There is a danger of being condescending and patronising to women students, imagining they can't handle the heavy-duty maths. Luckily, that idea is dying.

Science appears to have become unfashionable in Western countries sometime after the 1980s.

There will always be hardcore science fans. The circulation of Scientific American magazine is about one million and there are around 10 million people in the US who actively seek out scientific subjects. Personally, I can't understand why more people aren't jumping up and down about science. This is a very exciting time to be alive.

What inspired you to take up a scientific career?

When I was eight years old, Einstein died, and he was on the front page of what seemed like every publication in the country. I remember reading or hearing that he could not finish his greatest work – what would later became known as the theory of everything. I found it intriguing; I wanted to be part of it. We hardly knew anything about the planet when I was growing up – how nature works, how living things evolved.

Is it ironic that we know more about the planet at the very time we're systematically destroying it?

Some of our environmental problems will be solved by technological advances this century. We could see the solar age begin as battery and storage capacity increases exponentially.

You've said the key to understanding the future is understanding physics.

Physics teaches us what might or might not be possible. It forces us to understand the limits of science and how much of science fiction could become science fact.

Hardly a month goes past now without scientists discovering another rocky planet in our Milky Way galaxy, located inside the Goldilocks Zone (not too hot, not too cold – just right) that can support life.

In the Milky Way alone, there are likely to be half a billion Earth-like planets, and even if only a very small percentage of these planets are home to evolved, complex life, that's still a lot of intelligent beings.

Do you think we'll trace alien life this century?

Perhaps within the next 50 years, we'll be listening in on a radio communication between alien species.

The late Stephen Hawking warned that it might not be such a great idea for us to contact them.

Some aliens could be warlike, but there are plenty of uninhabited planets for them to plunder, and it's unlikely we will ever meet because of the vast distances involved. And if they're thousands of years ahead of us, they won't be terribly interested in us – we'd be too primitive.

They'd look at us as lower-order creatures – much as humans regard animals on Earth?

Exactly. We see squirrels as cute but it doesn't mean we're interested in talking to them for hours. We'd get bored.

Would any conversation with an alien species be in mathematics?

Yes, I don't imagine that aliens would care less about Shakespeare, which is for earthlings only. We would be talking in equations. Mathematics is a language – once you master calculus, it gives you an insight into Mother Nature and eternal principles.

The other thing Hawking warned us about was artificial intelligence. What's your opinion?

We've been brainwashed by Hollywood on this. Our most advanced robot has the intelligence of a cockroach. We can't even get a robot to get out of a car, something a five-year-old can do. We're not likely to see a robot that thinks, and looks and talks like you, uses your voice inflections, until the end of this century.

The McKinsey Global Institute predicts that up to 800 million workers in 46 countries will lose their jobs to robots by 2030.

Robots are replacing many repetitive jobs. We don't cry about the fact we no longer have blacksmiths and wagon-makers.

It's an old chestnut, the worry about new technology destroying jobs.

Exactly. Only 15 or 20 years ago, pundits were anguishing about a "digital divide", those without access to technology being the new underclass. It never happened, because access to computers became cheaper and cheaper. The real problem is not access to jobs, but filling them. Plenty of jobs in technology are begging to be filled today, but they require workers with a high level of technical and scientific education. Western governments need to put a lot more emphasis in this area.

Do you see religious fanaticism and terrorism as threats to global order in the coming decades?

The terrorism of today is temporary and is a reaction to the fact that civilisation is making a transition. Religions come and go, and the current wave of fanaticism is a reaction against modernisation. We are moving to a Type 1 civilisation [where the planet is entirely self-sufficient from energy drawn from the sun] that's scientific and tolerant. Some folk don't want that; they imagine they'll feel more comfortable in a world 1000 years before the rise of science.

Much has been made of social media eroding our faith in democratic institutions. Is democracy under threat from privacy-invading tech?

Technology is a double-edged sword. One edge can cut against ignorance, poverty and disease; the other can cut against our freedom and privacy. Democratic institutions are the best we have in the world today and people will fight to protect them.

More than 20 years ago you predicted the rise of the "internet of things", in which the web would move into cars, phones, home appliances and security. Now that's happened, what's next?

At some stage the internet will be replaced by the brain-net, where you can convey messages and memories rather than just text. You could walk into a room, mentally turn on the lights, the sound system and the heating. In coming years, the internet will disappear more and more into the background.

You've said that Moore's Law – the theory that the number of transistors that can be squeezed onto a computer chip will double every two years – is breaking down.

We are already witnessing the slowdown of Moore's Law and it will collapse within 10 years. Computer power simply can't maintain its exponential rise using standard silicon technology. Semiconductor manufacturers are in a massive race to find a successor to silicon.

You've written that we have no alternative but to colonise space.

We need a back-up plan. The dinosaurs didn't have a space program, and that's why they're not here today.

You believe there is likely to be not just one universe but an infinite number of "multiverses" – alternate universes with different laws of physics.

Many think our universe is like a bubble – when the bubble bumps into another bubble, a big bang occurs, creating another universe. We'll probably get the answer to this question from orbiting telescopes in the next few decades.

Will science be able to slow the ageing process in the coming years?

Yes, we're beginning to identify the genes responsible for ageing. We live twice as long as chimpanzees, but genetically we're 98.5 per cent identical. Which means only a small bunch of genes are responsible for doubling our lifespan. If we can manipulate those genes, we might be able to reset our biological clocks.

Children born since 2000 are already expected to live to 100, thanks to advancing medical technology. Do you see longevity being expanded further?

Definitely. With advancing genetic engineering, it may be possible to stop the ageing process at the age of 30, say – you stop ageing at that point. Let's hope their maturity levels don't stop at 30, though, otherwise we'll wind up with a society of permanent adolescents.

We used to hear a lot about the promise of nanotechnology. What's happening there?

Nanoparticles could be particularly useful in treating cancer – molecules that can zero in on cancer cells and destroy them, leaving healthy cells intact. Chemotherapy, of course, kills normal cells as well as cancerous ones. Early detection should mean we can eradicate cancer cells before they have the opportunity to grow into tumours. Studies over the past few years have shown that pancreatic cancer for example – one of the most lethal forms of cancer – can take up to 20 years to form after the first cell changes appear – much more slowly than was previously thought.

You're 71. Do you ever get tired of all the international travel your work entails?

Sometimes I feel tired and old and ask myself why I'm doing this, but this isn't just work, it's my hobby. When it's not fun anymore, I'll stop.

Michio Kaku is speaking in Australia from November 8 to 14; for more information, visit thisis42.com.

To read more from Good Weekend magazine, visit our page at The Sydney Morning Herald or The Age.