We are called to
be ethical stewards of our technologies, but the fear they will
replace our species is unfounded.
In the April, 2000, issue of Wired magazine,
Bill Joy, the Chief Scientist of Sun Microsystems, has written a
personal and most provocative article "Why
the Future Doesn't Need Us" on the dangers of some of the technologies
we are creating and on his fears that these very technologies are
potent enough to make humans redundant, replaceable, and extinct.
He argues we ethically must relinquish the development of those
dangerous technologies that threaten the human race as a species.
He is particularly concerned about the power of destructive self-replication
in genetic engineering, nanotechnology, and robotics.
On the ethical side, Joy has my deep support.
My position has always been that technology in and of itself has
no moral or ethical dimensions. Those dimensions are added
by us when we decide upon the uses to which the technology
will be put. If a particular use of a technology is harmful
to another or violates our moral code, we are ethically bound not
to pursue such use and to take steps to ensure others do not use
it either.
The technological developments we have seen
in our lifetime are simply awesome. On the whole, they have
benefited humankind through the prevention and arrest of disease,
by providing more food for earth's inhabitants, increasing the average
lifespan, and in raising the standard of living for the vast majority
of people. Those involved with the scientific and technological
enterprise rightly take pride that theirs is a noble calling which
has increased the storehouse of knowledge, reduced suffering, extended
our reach, and enriched both mind and body.
Where Joy and I part ways is his fear that self-replicating,
nanoscale robots will gradually take over normal human work and
one day exceed their control by humans. When that happens,
they will replicate without bound and in a short time extinguish
not only human life, but all life - plants, animals, bacteria, every
living organism. Unlike weapons of mass destruction, such
as a nuclear bomb, these devices are knowledge-based means of mass
destruction.
What is missing from Joy's argument is any evidence
that genetic manipulation, nanotechnology, and robots are converging
in such a way as to be conscious of their existence and purposeful
in their actions beyond those for which they were designed and programmed.
There is a well-known adage of "unintended consequences"
when looking at technological advances, some good and some bad.
Almost by definition, we cannot foresee new technology before it
occurs. Even less so can we foresee the impact the new technology
will have on our lives and our environment. The ecology of
life on this planet and the subtle linkages amongst the various
life forms almost guarantees that we cannot with certainty limit
technological impacts. So, in one sense, I suppose Joy may
be right: it is possible for technology to run amuck.
But we have no examples of it doing so of its own accord.
Misuse of technology is not at all the same as technology itself
"willfully" exceeding human control.
Even if one agrees with all of Bill Joy's contentions,
one is still left with the question of where to draw the line for
each technology. That can rapidly stifle progress of any kind.
The larger question, however, is how the consciousness
that humans and higher animals have would develop or be given to
future nanoscale robots. I know of no way for this to occur.
In spite of my misgivings about Joy's arguments,
do read his article. It is provocative. It is stimulating.
And it does raise fundamental issues about our future. I think
we have one. He doesn't.
View reactions
of Wired's readers.
