|
Select the Browser's Back Button to return to the Forum Page |
|
The Future, Humans,
An Argumentative Tidbit by Seth Carroll According to most anthropologists, historians, and archeologists, mankind has been “civilized” for some ten thousand years now. Over that span of time, at no point has mankind relinquished its position as the most dominant species on earth. Indeed, the question of humanity’s continued existence has only arisen within the past half-century with the development of nuclear, chemical, biological, and genetic technology that present the real threat of destruction of a mass scale. This potential for disaster, understandably, leads many to put together the simple equation that the potential for destruction will eventually lead to destruction. The question, then, is what will happen when humanity is gone: does the future need us? The question of whether the future needs us or not is also a question of whether the future has much choice. Perhaps, though, one must first examine if the future does indeed “need” us or not. To do this, a logical first step is to ask ourselves if the present needs us. What does this planet benefit from our being here? Like Agent Smith said in the movie The Matrix, humans have become a virus to the planet. This Hollywood comparison to the virus brings carries much truth. Humanity has multiplied across the face of the earth since becoming civilized, consuming and destroying whatever it needed to in order to thrive. Happiness with existence quickly gave way to a desire for absolute comfort and control of the planet. Humans no longer desired to coexist with and cultivate Mother Nature, but to force Her into submission. Without the bane of humanity, the planet would thrive and return to the natural balance, which we have overthrown. So, if the present doesn’t need us, the future certainly doesn’t. The world has never really needed humans to thrive. Thus arises the second part of the dilemma: will we be in the future, regardless of whether it needs us. The immediate answer seems simple; we’ve been around this long, why wouldn’t we be around a bit more? And for most of the history of humans, we’ve accepted that resounding and comforting notion with all the humbleness of a rock star. It hasn’t been until the last fifty years that we’ve come to the realization that perhaps our days are numbered. According to Joy’s argument, advances in the fields of genetic engineering, nanotechnology, and robotics present a doomsday scenario in which humanity may actually destroy itself by going to far down a road initially intended to make itself more dominant. It really almost seems inevitable, the new order, the inheritance of the earth given over to the creation of the old guard. Then there’s just no room for humans, they don’t benefit the planet, and they seem prone for self-destruction. Perhaps not… are humans so conceited to believe they can really usher themselves out? Can we truly fool ourselves into believing that our dominance over this world has come about merely because of our own ingenuity? Is it not, rather, more likely that humans have not been allowed to have this control? Must we suppose that we are the absolute extremity of the hierarchy? How then, if we were replaced, could one explain what allowed us to be replaced, because if we replaced ourselves then we would be replacing the highest rung on the ladder, and how can the highest rung replace itself? Perhaps the future doesn’t need us, perhaps we were never needed, but the future might have to live with us. If we are indeed the highest form of existence, humans will not be replaced and, if not, then it really isn’t up to us. The question of whether the future needs us or not clearly lends itself to a larger pool of questions that have no immediate answer. No crystal ball exists to tell us the answers, so the questions will continue until the future arrives; but, then again, the future will never really get here after all.
|
|
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. |