|
Select the Browser's Back Button to return to the Forum Page |
|
The Future Needs Something... by Joe Hecker Does the future need us? There is no clear answer to this question for the answer can be argued in both the black and white extremes as well as in gray areas which lie between. Personally I believe that the question must be defined in order to delve into the issue. On one extreme lies a group that, for all intents and purposes, can be labeled geocentricist; alluding to the ancient group of people who believe that the Earth is the center of the universe and thus man is a supreme being. Luddites would fall into this category. In this scenario, it is obvious that humans are essential to the future. Across the spectrum lies the group that believes that humans are near insignificant. Humans are thus insignificant. A centrist group could possibly believe that humans may not be of extreme significance on a universal level, but hold keys that alter the course of man. For the purpose of analyzing the question at hand, the focus of discussion should remain within a given range of the universal spectrum, a miniscule amount of time. Although this amount of time cannot be quantitatively defined from the present, it represents a future not too far off. The geocentric position thus becomes a belief that man will remain the dominant being on Earth. And the nihilist point of view illustrates the fall of man from his current supremacy. My stance on the matter is close to that of the nihilist. I believe that humans are doomed to extinction, however I do believe that we have some control over how this comes about. Bill Joy asserts that mankind will become obsolete in the future as a result of genetic technology, nanotechnology, and robotics in his article “Why the Future Does Not Need Us.” His conclusions are logical and well supported. The dangers that he speaks of are prevalent. Humans are currently the most dominant species as a result of our unique biology. As medical science progresses, scientists attempt to defy and defeat death by genetic engineering, in particular through cloning. In other words, scientists are changing the very biology that has made humans the most dominant creature. Although ethical issues arise on the subject of cloning, the scientific issues are more prevalent. Joy points out that acts of cloning can actually reduce that ability of an organism to survive. “Our overuse of antibiotics has led to what may be the biggest such problem so far: the emergence of antibiotic-resistant and much more dangerous bacteria. Similar things happened when attempts to eliminate malarial mosquitoes using DDT caused them to acquire DDT resistance; malarial parasites likewise acquired multi-drug-resistant genes,” (Joy 2). If this is the case, humans risk weakening our biology and thus our ability to survive. At this point, humans would be susceptible to superior beings. This is where ethics comes into play. I believe that it is the role of man in the universe to learn as much as he possibly can. Therefore, I do not think that the natural progression of the physical sciences should be restricted in the long run. However, the short run is a bit different. Under the current guidelines and mentalities, technology in all areas is ahead of the law. Key examples of this are the electronic file sharing systems such as Napster and the public outcry at the consumption and marketing of genetically altered foods. History has shown that societies have a difficult time adapting to radical change, especially when it comes to changes in law. In addition, a law that is erected expo facto cannot affect an act that has already been executed. If laws were to be erected around the use of technology, they would have to precede the scientific advance. This is a near impossibility, but what would be more effective is if technology could be slowed so that laws surrounding its usage could maintain more control. Yet do to the nature of man, this would be a Herculean task. However if the pace at which technology evolves were to slow to accommodate rational law, one of Bill Joy’s main fears would be ebbed. The 21st-century technologies - genetics, nanotechnology,
and robotics (GNR) - are so powerful that they can spawn whole new classes
of accidents and abuses. Most dangerously, for the first time, these
accidents and abuses are widely within the reach of individuals or small
groups. They will not require large facilities or rare raw materials.
Knowledge alone will enable the use of them. (Bill Joy 3) Much can be done to slow the destruction of man. Doing this gives humanity its best chance of survival in the eyes of technology leaders like Bill Joy. However, technological progression should never be null. Humans must consider the pace of our progression as our knowledge expands. It is the goal of future generations to maintain an equilibrium between being technologically swelling and being technologically static. To one side of this extreme would lay the possibility of being conquered by our own computers. On the other side we would cease expanding our capabilities; cease learning. In either case we would cease to be human.
|
|
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. |