From the eyes of an optimistic scientist fixed on discovery and the promise of a wonders beyond comprehension, the future holds the possibilities of beautiful and fantastic technologies with the power to shape our lives for the betterment of humanity. In Bill Joy’s Essay, “Why the Future Doesn’t Need Us,” Joy argues that scientific discovery, contrary to this previous statement, holds the possibility for terrible consequences that may ultimately lead to the destruction of our planet or species. Marry Shelley’s acclaimed novel, Frankenstein, offers insight to the latter argument by hinting that technologies obtained without discipline may lead to destructive outcomes through the narrative of Victor’s education and experiments. While still a wonderful work of literature, Shelley’s novel exaggerates the fear of her time and no longer accurately portrays the possibilities of scientific discovery of the present and future.
Joy presents a number of fears of a more modern era in which nuclear proliferation, genetic engineering, nanofabrication and robotics dominate the field of terror. Of these grossly exaggerated fears, western society has yet to see the negative backlashes of these technologies in the manner that Joy presents them. Possibly the oldest of Joy’s modern set of technological fears, nuclear arms have yet to annihilate the world as we know it after over 50 years of the “looming threat.” More recently still, transposons from genetically engineer corn still haven’t turned the American public into hideous mutated masses of functionless flesh and bone. The truth about these subjects remains true to this day that just because there is a negative potential to some technology, this may not be the probable outcome. Nuclear technology, while possessing the power for great destruction, also has the potential to provide the energy worldwide to eliminate global use of non-renewable resources such as fossil fuels and lower harmful carbon emissions that are causing global climate change.
Having grown up during a period of industrial revolution, Shelley experienced a vast amount of technological change in her lifetime, which understandably raised many fears of undesirable outcomes from the new and yet-to-be-proven technologies of her time. To this degree, Shelley expresses her fears in the form of unproven and undisciplined discovery in the biological sciences that leads to the creation of a grotesque creature with the potential for terrible actions such as murder. Victor’s stubborn approach to the sciences is founded in “old” and “disproven” theories of natural philosophy, which leads to an unethical discovery without proper restraint. This idea of unethical and dangerous research no longer holds as much merit in today’s society with the many restraints and barriers to what research is done; most notable of these is the power of money to restrict what is considered valuable technology to research and develop. For these reasons, it is unrealistic to believe that technology will stray toward anything but commercially prosperous or beneficial discoveries.
While the fears of new and unproven technologies will remain as long as our society presses forward in the name of science, the negative effects of such technologies predicted by Shelly and Joy have yet to be seen. Technology is going to advance and evolve in the coming centuries whether we take an active role in it or sit back in fear. While a sentient robot takeover may be in the realm of possibility for some, I prefer to look at proven technologies such as my docile, genetically-engineered glowing fish and hold these as a testament to the true nature of these “dangerous” technologies.
4 comments:
From the eyes of an optimistic scientist fixed on discovery and the promise of a wonders beyond comprehension, the future holds the possibilities of beautiful and fantastic technologies with the power to shape our lives for the betterment of humanity. In Bill Joy’s Essay, “Why the Future Doesn’t Need Us,” Joy argues that scientific discovery, contrary to this previous statement, (rhetorical) holds the possibility for terrible consequences that may ultimately lead to the destruction of our planet or species. Marry Shelley’s acclaimed novel, Frankenstein, offers insight to the latter argument by hinting that technologies obtained without discipline may lead to destructive outcomes through the narrative of Victor’s education and experiments. While still a wonderful work of literature, Shelley’s novel exaggerates the fear of her time and no longer accurately portrays the possibilities of scientific discovery of the present and future.
Joy presents a number of fears of a more modern era in which nuclear proliferation, genetic engineering, nanofabrication and robotics dominate the field of terror. Of these grossly exaggerated fears, western society has yet to see the negative backlashes of these technologies in the manner that Joy presents them. (no…Joy looks to the future) Possibly the oldest of Joy’s modern set of technological fears, nuclear arms have yet to annihilate the world as we know it after over 50 years of the “looming threat.” More recently still, transposons from genetically engineer corn still haven’t turned the American public into hideous mutated masses of functionless flesh and bone. (True, though the effect of such products have not been a consistent genetic influence on the population for a sufficient amount of time for those effects to be noticeable without spanning multiple generations) The truth about these subjects remains true (Rhetorical)to this day that just because there is a negative potential to some technology, this may not be the probable outcome. (Awkward sentence structure and unclearly stated thoughts) Nuclear technology, while possessing the power for great destruction, also has the potential to provide the energy worldwide to eliminate global use of non-renewable resources such as fossil fuels and lower harmful carbon emissions that are causing global climate change. (Though this is true is adds nothing to the argument of Joy’s article, which discusses the potential dangers of nuclear weaponry)
Having grown up during a period of industrial revolution, Shelley experienced a vast amount of technological change in her lifetime, which understandably raised many fears of undesirable outcomes from the new and yet-to-be-proven technologies of her time. (Did those technologies that she saw not open the opportunity for the World Wars?) To this degree, Shelley expresses her fears in the form of unproven and undisciplined discovery in the biological sciences that leads to the creation of a grotesque creature with the potential for terrible actions such as murder. (An industrial mechanized monster?) Victor’s stubborn approach to the sciences is founded in “old” and “disproven” theories of natural philosophy, which leads to an unethical discovery without proper restraint. This idea of unethical and dangerous research no longer holds as much merit in today’s society with the many restraints and barriers to what research is done; (Some grammatical errors) most notable of these is the power of money to restrict what is considered valuable technology to research and develop. For these reasons, it is unrealistic to believe that technology will stray toward anything but commercially prosperous or beneficial discoveries. (Possibly in an unfettered capitalist economy, though many technologies that have been dangerous and destructive have also been quite lucrative)
While the fears of new and unproven technologies will remain as long as our society presses forward in the name of science, the negative effects of such technologies predicted by Shelly and Joy have yet to be seen. Technology is going to advance and evolve in the coming centuries whether we take an active role in it or sit back in fear. (Technology would progress without humans actively engaging in its advancement?) While a sentient robot takeover may be in the realm of possibility for some, I prefer to look at proven technologies such as my docile, genetically-engineered glowing fish and hold these as a testament to the true nature of these “dangerous” technologies.
POSTED BY CHRIS WEISS AT 11:46 PM 0 COMMENTS
I can appreciate the optimistic attitude of this post and personally can relate to the author in the fact that he embraces the technologies at our disposal and respects the abilities which they posses. Unfortunately the stance taken to argue Joy and Shelly’s points are unfounded in the fact that they remain directed at the current state of technological affairs while Joy and Shelly both direct their positions to the future possibilities of disaster. The author’s arguments are all solid; they’re just used in an improper context. Over all it was a solid will founded argument, only on unfounded grounds. You are very much correct, though, in saying that all of the terrible things predicted or foreshadowed in both Joy and Shelly’s works have yet to be fulfilled.
ps. i made in text remarks (contained in parentheses, i orignally marked them in red but the color did'nt transcribe. My responce summary is after the original work
From the eyes of an optimistic scientist fixed on discovery and the promise of a wonders beyond comprehension, the future holds the possibilities of beautiful and fantastic technologies with the power to shape our lives for the betterment of humanity. In Bill Joy’s essay, “Why the Future Doesn’t Need Us,” Joy argues that scientific discovery, contrary to this previous statement, holds the possibility for terrible consequences that may ultimately lead to the destruction of our planet or species. Marry Shelley’s acclaimed novel, Frankenstein, offers insight to the latter argument by hinting that technologies obtained without discipline may lead to destructive outcomes through the narrative of Victor’s education and experiments. While still a wonderful work of literature, Shelley’s novel exaggerates the fear of her time and no longer accurately portrays the possibilities of scientific discovery of the present and future. The dangers of rapid technological advancement foretold in Joy’s essay and Shelley’s Frankenstein have not manifested themselves thus far and remain entirely speculative.
Joy presents a number of fears of a more modern era in which nuclear proliferation, genetic engineering, nanofabrication and robotics dominate the field of terror. Of these grossly exaggerated fears, western society has yet to see the negative backlashes of these technologies in the manner that Joy presents them, which begs the question if we’ll ever see such effects. Possibly the oldest of Joy’s modern set of technological fears, nuclear arms have yet to annihilate the world as we know it after over 50 years of the “looming threat.” Moreover, technologies such as genetically engineered corn designed to resist a number of bacterial and pest threats haven’t come remotely close to overgrowing the countryside and forcing other less optimized species into submission. The truth about these subjects remains true to this day. Though there is a negative potential to some new and rapidly expanding technology, the negative future foreseen by Joy may not be the probable outcome of such technologies. For example, nuclear technology, while possessing the power for great destruction, has created a whole new field of energy production as a result. Instead of destruction, the research that led to the first atomic bombs now promises to provide massive quantities of energy worldwide, and eliminate global use of non-renewable resources such as fossil fuels and to lower harmful carbon emissions that are causing global climate change.
Having grown up during a period of industrial revolution, Shelley experienced a vast amount of technological change in her lifetime, which understandably raised many fears of undesirable outcomes from the new and yet-to-be-proven technologies of her time. To this degree, Shelley expresses her fears metaphorically in the form of an unproven and undisciplined discovery in the biological sciences that leads to the creation of a grotesque creature with the potential for terrible actions such as murder. In the novel, Victor’s stubborn approach to the sciences is founded in “old” and “disproven” theories of natural philosophy, which leads to an unethical discovery without proper restraint. This idea of unethical and dangerous research no longer holds as much merit in today’s society with the many restraints and barriers to what research is done; most notably, the power of money to restrict what is considered valuable technology to research and develop. Without funding, there is no research in a field. For this reasons, it is unrealistic to believe that technology will stray toward anything but commercially prosperous or beneficial discoveries such as advanced robotic prosthetic limbs or higher yielding crops.
While the fears of new and unproven technologies will remain as long as our society presses forward in the name of science, the negative effects of such technologies predicted by Shelley and Joy have yet to be seen. Technology is going to advance and evolve in the coming centuries whether we as individuals take an active role in it or sit back in fear as the world presses on without us. While a sentient robot takeover may be in the realm of possibility for some, I prefer to look at the proven and tangible result of such technologies before speculating on such a grand scale as Joy does. My genetically-engineered glowing fish haven’t destroyed the biosphere yet, and I don’t expect that they or similar resulting advancements will do so any time in the near or distant future.
Bob - Interesting, detailed response. I originally missed the inline comments, but this was a good strategy.
Chris - Your first paragraph is awfully wordy. It could easily have been trimmed down to a couple sentences - your central idea is very straightforward, and you don't even provide any examples or details in a rather long introduction.
Your second paragraph doesn't engage with any particulars of Joy's argument. For instance (as Bob points out), he details at some length both why nuclear arms remain a dangerous threat and why GNR technologies are more dangerous still. You simply ignore everything he has to say about nuclear arms, though, which I find troubling.
Look at this quote: "Of these grossly exaggerated fears, western society has yet to see the negative backlashes of these technologies in the manner that Joy presents them, which begs the question if we’ll ever see such effects." Here's the question: do you disbelieve in prediction, full stop, or do you disbelieve Joy's particular predictions? If the former, then argue that. If the latter, you need to be more engage with what Joy actually says.
Your third paragraph interested me greatly - in fact, I wonder if it shouldn't have become the whole paper. That doesn't mean your argument is well-made, though - just that it's interesting. Take this line: "For this reasons, it is unrealistic to believe that technology will stray toward anything but commercially prosperous or beneficial discoveries such as advanced robotic prosthetic limbs or higher yielding crops." As an initial critique of this argument, let me point out that you are basically conflating "commercially prosperous" with "beneficial." After all, people have made lots of money making napalm and Chicken McNuggets (both in their own ways products of sophisticated technology) - but it's a great stretch to see how either one of them has done us any good. Quite the opposite, actually. My point is that to make this argument you would need to successfully argue, at least through a couple controversial examples, that no bad research is currently done. This point is incredibly controversial (which is why it's interesting) and needs to be defended as such.
Your final paragraph reads, to me, simply as an assertion of your own optimism, which helps me to rephrase my difficulties with the paper. I see little in the way of evidence here, and nothing at all which might help to convince someone to *become* an optimist. In an essay you're not trying to describe your own optimism - you're trying to convince me to share it, and you're not doing that. You need to think in terms of *focus* and of *evidence*.
Post a Comment