|
Select the Browser's Back Button to return to the Forum Page |
|
Does the future need us? by Jim Breitmeier Fact: all things on earth are finite Does the future need us? this question was been posed many times throughout the course of human events. The fact is, the future does and doesn’t need us. This can be ascertained by the idea that the future isn’t dependent upon the existence of mankind, or anything else tangible for that matter. If this is the case, the future relies on no one and nothing except for God, and therefore the future doesn’t need us. Time marches on, and cannot be affected by humans, robots, viruses, or other supposedly “living beings.” To quote Tyler Durden, “you are not special. You are all the same decaying organic material.” Whether that material be organic or inorganic, it eventually breaks down and disappears. However, this idea poses a problem. What is time without an observer? The entire concept of time relies upon humans to measure it, and without hosts, this virus of time also dies. But then one asks “Does the future depend upon time? if the answer is yes, then the future needs some being, and if the answer is no, then the future will exist regardless of any beings. The relevance of past experience can practically be nullified, for although the world may not be acausal, the outcome of systems, especially incredibly complex ones such as earth, cannot be predicted with any degree of accuracy beyond a short time interval. We are standing on the shoulders of giants. This phrase has been drilled into my head for many years, and it can definitely be applied in this situation. All technology has required a previous advancement in order to continue its progress. The cart couldn’t exist without the wheel, the car couldn’t exist without the cart, and so on. All things are dependent on the knowledge of the past. With this stated, the future, even if robots or AI assumes power over the earth, humans will have been integral in the creation of those robots, from the joints and physical workings to the most minute of printed circuits. Such robots would carry with them the legacy of all of human civilization, a final testament to the tenacity of mankind. The past has control of the present, but at the original time, the results were not yet known. As of yet, we have no way in which to determine future events. If the futurists of the 1950’s were correct, today we would be holding class on the moon or mars, riding around in sleek and ultra efficient vehicles flying through great skyways intersecting the earth. Obviously, that ain’t happened yet, and it still appears to be many years in the making. Though we now have a larger knowledge base, the actual people of today are no more intelligent than those of the past, and likewise are just as prone to mistakes, resulting in the same kinds of oversights and inability to predict non-technical future events. The way in which history is written often only focuses on the winners in the conflicts, not the loser’s perspective. I have a friend currently taking classes in London, England, and she tried to enroll in a history class that focused on the American Revolutionary war, and she was not allowed to enroll in the course, primarily due to her knowledge of the American perspective on the war. This reflects upon the nature of history, that the perspective of good and bad are relative, and if right and wrong, good and bad are relative, then anything can be considered in such a way. Am I biased? You better damn well believe it. As a rational being, (in general, it might be good to start thinking in terms of rational beings instead of human beings, for if and when AI does come into play, it will also be a rational being, and deserves the same respect that people do. Anything less would be carbonist, and nobody wants to be a bigot, right?) What was I talking about? Oh yeah, my big biased self. Biases aren’t bad, they just make us who we are. They get imparted into all that we do, and frankly, that doesn’t bother me. In a weird skewed kinda way, the future needs us, even if only through our biases. Any stuff we create has our biases built into them, and therefore carries a part of us with it. Enough of this existentialist philo- babble. (that’s like psycho-babble, but with philosophy instead) because people are necessary to make the first robot, we are necessary to the future, and not just as the batteries that “The Matrix” makes us out to be. I personally believe that at a fundamental level, once something has intelligence, it also has the ability to tell right from wrong, and instinctually would do or try to do the right thing, which is normally to help others, even at the risk of its own well-being. If this is the case, then we have nothing to worry about. What have we learned today? Well, we learned that
the future might or might not need us, we learned that in England, Americans
can’t take history classes, we learned that 2+2=5, and most importantly
of all, we learned a new word, ‘philo-babble.’ In conclusion:
I am a fence straddler. I can’t decide whether or not the future needs
us. and Frankly, Scarlet, I don’t give a Damn. Just hold on a minute. I’m not done yet. Were the hell did 2+2=5 come from? But it has now been written, so it must be true, right? You thought I was finished, but I’ve only just begun to rant rave and roll, so buckle up, It’s gonna be a bumpy ride. Why does it matter if the future needs us or not? If we aren’t here, we won’t know any better, so it’s no loss, no foul. Moreover, why is my or anyone else’s opinion on the subject important? People can’t predict the future. Now, we do know that we win in the end, God tells us that in the bible, and I trust in Him more than any earthly being I’ve ever met. Yeah, blind faith, but blind faith and hope beats sorrow and despair any day. I think I’m almost done, plus I gotta go break the robot that’s banging on my door to come and take my place. Well, that ride wasn’t exactly either long or bumpy, but who’s really counting right. Sorry, I said I was done, so this is really it. Doesn’t this go to show the tenacity of mankind? The answer to that question is yes, if you hadn’t already figured it out. Well, I guess this really is good bye, and good luck keeping the robots at bay. Peas out yo.
|
|
Wired 8.04:
Why the future doesn't need us.
Wired 8.04: A Tale of Two Botanies
Wired 8.07: Rants & Raves
Executive Bios: Bill Joy
Valley to Bill Joy: 'Zzzzzzz'
Debating Humanity's Demise
Why the future needs Bill Joy
cluebot.com | Why Bill Joy is Elitist, Myopic, and Wrong
Special Focus on Bill Joy's Hi-Tech Warning - The Center for the
Study of Technology
Bill Joy Hopes Reason Prevails
In Search of Cyber Humanity
Oh Joy, Another Futurist Rant
Pop!Tech: Praises and Protests
The Rise of Dot-Communism
Sep/Oct 00: Not by Reason Alone
ZDNet: Printer Friendly - Rage Against The Machine
HotWired: Unabomber's Manifesto: Index
Hans Moravec home page
Peek at new book: ROBOT by Hans Moravec
Background 2: Accidents, Malice, Progress, and Other Topics
The Age of Spiritual Machines by Ray Kurzweil The Kurzweil Companies http://www.kurzweiltech.com/companies_static.html
Social Life of Information Home Page
Foresight Institute
Can Robots Rule the World? Not Yet
BBC News | FROM OUR OWN CORRESPONDENT | Robots rule OK?
ABCNEWS.com : WNT: What if Machines Get Too Smart?
Privacy's Yin and Yang
Promise and peril of technology:
The future is already written
Bill Joy, Killjoy? by Robert Wright The Future Needs Us: A Rejoinder to Bill Joy - Terry van der Werff - Global Future Global Future Reportô March 14th, 2000 Dr. Terry van der Werff, CMC Speaker Consultant http://www.globalfuture.com/wired-joy.htm |
|
© Copyright 2000 Christine Boese and the students listed above. |