Glenn Goss
Dr. Adam Johns
19 January 2009
Our carelessness as a whole will, one day, lead us to our demise. For example, the invention of the first antibiotic, penicillin, was very effective in curing infections and diseases. Overuse of this medication throughout the years has resulted in various strains of bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics. Now our doctors must resort to experimental and toxic medications to treat illnesses that were once easily curable. A second example of human carelessness is pollution. Fuel emissions from our vehicles and energy sources are eating away the ozone layer and destroying the atmosphere. This poses as a major problem. With the ozone layer continuing to dissipate, the earth's temperature is rising. Global warming, or the green house effect, could potentially disrupt the world's weather patterns, resulting in climate changes and melting of the polar ice caps. The effects of these changes would be catastrophic.
Notice, the things that are going to cause the extinction of the human population in this world are the result of advancements in technology. Misuse and accidents involving this technology could be devastating. This is the argument in Joy's essay, and I believe it to be a valid and meaningful one. Robotic technology and computers will one day be so advanced that they will be able to have minds of their own. Joy states, " Stories of run-amok robots like the Borg, replicating or mutating to escape from the ethical constraints imposed on them by their creators, are well establishes in our science fiction books and movies." The day of intelligent robots found in these science fiction books and movies may not be too far off. One of Joy's most prominent worries is that this robotic and computer technology that will soon be generated will be able to self replicate. A discovery was made regarding a 32-amino-acid peptide that could auto-catalyze its own synthesis. This may hint at a route to self-replicating molecular systems on a basis far wider than Watson-Crick base pairing. (Joy) Imagine the human population taken over by self-replicating robots, our own creations. The technology inside of them is so advanced that they come up with their own way to self-replicate. The creators, never having planned for such things, have no way to stop this replication. It's the same concept as rapid cell growth causing cancer. Doctor's can occasionally control it, but soon the cancer takes over our entire body. Scientists could control the replication of the robots up to a point, but soon they would become overwhelmed leaving us all helpless.
The events in Frankenstein could act as a sign to exercise extreme caution when developing new technologies. Frankenstein's experiment-gone-wrong resulted in a monster. This parallels one of Joy's arguments in his essay, stating that gray goo replicators could stem from a simple laboratory accident. After the creation of the monster, he escapes and wreaks havoc on all he comes encounters. Similarly, the creation of highly intelligent robots would be uncontrollable, much like the way the monster was in Frankenstein. Victor Frankenstein lost complete control of the monster after he created it. Today's modern scientists and engineers would be rendered helpless if they were faced with a technological crisis involving self-replicating robots. We all must heed Joy's many warnings of what is to come in his essay. If we do not exercise some realism, we may wind up helpless human beings, overtaken by creations of our own minds.
Joy, Bill. Why the future doesn't need us.
Shelley, Mary. Frankenstein.
3 comments:
I like how this paper is written. It is a side that I personally wouldn't take, but it makes me see the other side. I did feel though that at the start of the paper, that it was going to be about the fear and it turned out to be more about carelessness and lack of foresight. What is the thesis of the paper? It seems like the line "Our carelessness as a whole will, one day, lead us to our demise" is a more accurate thesis of this paper. The fear of carelessness this essay is trying to portray, but it seems to get lost after the first paragraph. Either elaborating more on the carelessness at the beginning or on the fear of carelessness of invention throughout the rest would make this an even better paper.
Phil - this is a shell of a response. Developing your thoughts on what the thesis could/should have been would have been great, but this just was too abbreviated.
Glenn - Your introduction ends with a generic call for action - this is a *more* general version of Joy's argument, and yet you have 3 pages to work with: it should have been more *specific*.
You talk about antibiotic abuse, pollutio, the ozone layer and global warming in one paragraph. Why not focus more?
Then you move into a discussion of Joy which, while showing clear awareness of essential components of his argument, is still pulled in multiple directions. Where do you add anything to Joy's argument, or qualify it, or challenge it, or extend it? All I see here is a highly generalized and somewhat chaotic agreement with Joy. The challenge isn't to repeat what someone else has said - it's to develop it.
Fear is one thing that every human faces. Much of the fear we encounter is created by our own minds; just as many of the inventions and creations we make will instill fear in us at a later time. Technological advancements are thought to be great accomplishments, examples of the leaps and bounds made by mankind. Who would think that someday these accomplishments could in fact take us over? This is a very distinct possibility. Frankenstein by Mary Shelley foreshadows the things predicted to happen by Bill Joy in his essay, Why the future doesn't need us. We cannot just ignore his many warnings, we must act now. With the GNR technology becoming more and more advanced, perhaps a way to regulate these things may be in order. With newly passed laws and government regulation, we may be able to control the production and invention of new technologies that could potentially harm us in due time.
The invention of penicillin and it overuse, as well as misuse, is a perfect example of where laws and government regulation would have come in handy. When this antibiotic was first introduced it enabled us to cure many illnesses and infections that were difficult to cure or non-curable previously. Various strains of bacteria developed a resistance to the medication, leaving doctors asking questions, wondering why and how. Now many of the illnesses that were curable by way of penicillin must be dealt with using experimental and toxic medications. If there were regulations imposed on this medication early on, we would most likely not be faced with the hardships we are today involving antibiotic resistance bacteria. These problems faced with penicillin and other antibiotics could likely be faced in the future with GNR technology. The things that are going to cause the extinction of the human population in this world are the result of advancements in technology. Misuse and accidents involving this technology could be devastating. This is the argument in Joy's essay, and I believe it to be a valid and meaningful one. Robotic technology and computers will one day be so advanced that they will be able to have minds of their own. Joy states, " Stories of run-amok robots like the Borg, replicating or mutating to escape from the ethical constraints imposed on them by their creators, are well establishes in our science fiction books and movies." The day of intelligent robots found in these science fiction books and movies may not be too far off. One of Joy's most prominent worries is that this robotic and computer technology that will soon be generated will be able to self-replicate. A discovery was made regarding a 32-amino-acid peptide that could auto-catalyze its own synthesis. This may hint at a route to self-replicating molecular systems on a basis far wider than Watson-Crick base pairing. (Joy) If we begin to act now by setting forth laws regarding how scientists and engineers use this robotic technology that could potentially self-replicate, we would be much better off in the long run. Limiting scientists to developing technology that can be completely controlled by the creators would be very reassuring. This could potentially eliminate Joy’s fear of self-replicating borgs.
The events in Frankenstein and bacterial resistance to penicillin and other antibiotics could act as a sign to exercise extreme caution when developing new technologies. Frankenstein's experiment-gone-wrong resulted in a monster. This parallels one of Joy's arguments in his essay, stating that gray goo replicators could stem from a simple laboratory accident. After the creation of the monster, he escapes and wreaks havoc on all he comes encounters. Similarly, the creation of highly intelligent robots would be uncontrollable, much like the way the monster was in Frankenstein. Victor Frankenstein lost complete control of the monster after he created it. The invention of penicillin had many positive effects at first. The creators of the antibiotic lost complete control of the extent of the usage of the medication. This foreshadowing of what could potentially come is the main reason laws and regulation must be brought forth. We all must heed Joy's many warnings of what is to come in his essay. Government intervention by way of new laws and regulations that would control the development of new, harmful technologies could very well be the thing that saves us.
Post a Comment