The Fall/Winter 2003 Issue of CIO Magazine contains a series of articles written by well-known thinkers, like Robert Reich, Paul Saffo, Howard Rheingold (Read this sidebar for more), or Ray Kurzweil.
In this long text, Kurzweil writes about the dangers introduced by new technologies. More specifically, he gives his views about genetic engineering, nanotechnology and robotics (collectively known as GNR). Here are some essential quotes.
Future dangers from new technologies may appear alarming when considered in the context of today's unprepared world. The reality is that the sophistication and power of our defensive technologies and knowledge will grow along with the dangers. When we have "gray goo" (unrestrained nanobot replication), we will also have "blue goo" ("police" nanobots that combat the "bad" nanobots).
Similarly, GNR technologies cannot be stopped, and broad pursuit of relinquishment will only distract us from the vital task in front of us: to rapidly develop ethical and legal standards and defensive technologies that will be essential to our security. This is a race, and there is no alternative.
Some pages after, he discusses biotechnologies.
We are at the threshold of the biotechnology challenge. As nanotechnology comes closer, we will need to invest in the development of defensive technologies for that as well, including the creation of a nanotechnology-based immune system. Bill Joy has pointed out that such an immune system would itself be a danger because of the potential of "autoimmune" reactions (that is, the immune system using its powers to attack the world it is supposed to be defending).
However, this is not a compelling reason to avoid its creation. No one would argue that humans would be better off without an immune system because of the possibility of autoimmune diseases. Although the immune system can itself be a danger, humans would not last more than a few weeks (barring extraordinary efforts at isolation) without one. The development of an immune system for nanotechnology will happen even without explicit efforts to create one.
Here is his conclusion.
Most important, we need to understand that these technologies are advancing on hundreds of fronts, rendering relinquishment completely ineffectual as a strategy. As uncomfortable as it may be, we have no choice but to prepare the defenses.
As a matter of coincidence, Fortune interviewed Bill Joy a day after he left Sun Microsystems. And of course, he talked about the article he wrote for Wired in April 2000, "Why the future doesn't need us," in which he said that rapid advances in GNR could endanger our lives. Let's listen to what he calls the sixth phase of his career.
What really sucked up a lot of time the past couple of years was the aftermath of my Wired article, when I decided to try to expand it into a book that warns about why biotech, nanotechnology, and robotics have the power to render human beings extraneous.
Asked by Fortune to give more details, here is what he says.
If I were to propose one thing that we as the human race need to do, I'd say we can't let the future just happen anymore. If too many of the possible futures are catastrophes, we have to try to steer down the less dangerous paths. That implies that you somehow have to manage markets, geopolitics, and human behavior in the way we have become able to manage the scientific process. Those are inconceivable things.
So what does it mean to apply design to the choice of our future? I don't have a good answer for that. It's an existential question: If we don't choose, the choice will be made for us in a way we won't likely want.
Please understand that I only quoted Kurzweil and Joy's words. You must read the full articles, even if they're quite long.
Sources: Ray Kurzweil, CIO Magazine, Fall/Winter 2003 Issue; Brent Schlender, Fortune, September 29, 2003
5:01:17 PM Permalink
|
|
