Jason Miller
Dr. Adam Johns
ENGCMP 0200 - SEMINAR IN COMPOSITION
26 August 2008
Future Perfect
In a world that keeps on tearing itself down what chance does its inhabitants have? Is the future so bleak that the human race will virtually become extinct? Luckily one man has expressed his fears in an article called ÒWhy the Future DoesnÕt Need Us.Ó Bill Joy wrote this article addressing his fears and offers some solutions. The questions that so many scientists ignore are addressed in the article. This allows the common man to have an insight on how dangerous some new technology can be.
For those claiming that Joy is a mere Luddite, skeptic of todayÕs growing technology, they are wrong. He has been and still is a huge part of technological advances. Several times through out the book Joy states his involvement in the advancement of technology. ÒI was lucky enough to get a job programmingÉ(Joy 5).Ó He has also been a Òco designer of three microprocessor architecturesÉ(Joy5)Ó which shows that he has directly dealt with the field and still he is weary of some technological advances. Despite his history with computers he still fears the repercussions of advancing technology. This gives many of his points more merit than a luddites point because many luddites have little hands on experience with the technology that they fear.
Now that Joy is no longer considered a luddite by anyone, the meat and potatoes of his claims can be discussed. The most disturbing claim was the inevitable evolution of humans into cyborgs, or half human half robot creatures. Becoming a new robotic race does have its advantages. People would be able to live longer and have a higher quality of life. Disease would virtually become extinct and the human race can fully flourish; or at least the new cyborg race will flourish. This would throw us into a state of Utopia where society could enjoy life without worrying about if it hurts their well-being. People would no longer be susceptible to many common ailments that plague us today. As appealing as these sound, one question has to be asked; will we lose our sense of identity and become slaves of our creations?
One way to solve this predicament is to develop a code of hygiene across the world. The United Nations could launch a worldwide program to improve the standards of living for everyone in the world regardless of location. In theory this would help decrease disease rates in the world, which, in turn, would lower mortality rates. This theory is basically people helping people. This eliminates the use of technology and helps form a bond between people across the world. As great as this sounds, the monetary cost of such a product would be too great for any society to carry and in a world where money means everything, the plan would surely fail.
A better way to solve this conundrum is to limit the uses of technology on humans. A council of scientists, engineers, and physicians could be assembled from across the world and decide on what technology, if any, would benefit society. Upon the release of new technology it would have to be passed by the board. If it doesnÕt meet the standards set by the governing body, the technology in question would be deemed dangerous to mankind. Not only would this slow down the growth of technology it would give people a sense of security. Prohibiting certain technology does seem logical, but as the phrase goes, you canÕt keep a lid on knowledge. People would continue developing dangerous technology for the sake of science.
Fortunately Joy offers a solution that can salvage societyÕs fate. He believes that a Òstrong code of ethical conductÓ (Joy 14) between scientists and engineers could save humanity. Along with the aforementioned council, the code would be a solution. The code would state that the scientists must think about what harm it could do to society. In doing so, science would no longer be a field of figuring out a different way of doing something. Science would be used for the sole purpose of benefiting society. If any person is found to have broken such a code they would be punished appropriately. Punished as in stripping them of certifications not death or physically harming them. This is the only logical solution because it allows technology to be developed with a sense of conscience.
Society must slow down and take a look at itself. Perhaps by putting a governing body in charge to deem technology dangerous or by making a code between scientists humanity will stand a chance. Regardless of the solution something has to be done. At the rate technology is moving the human race is bound to become mechanical instead of biological. This means people will exist instead of actually living. Yes, there is a difference; cars and mountains exist. People, however, are meant to experience life at its fullest not just drift through it like a machine. I donÕt know about the rest of society but I would rather live 60 years than exist for over 200.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
As with almost everyone else, your introductory paragraph is vague and more-or-less useless; in a short paper, you want to avoid filler as much as possible. You claim both strongly and directly that Joy is no Luddite. I agree, for what that’s worth, but if that claim is important to you a few less generalizations and a few more citations might have been just the trick – it’s not completely obvious to me that a programmer *can’t* be, in some ways, a Luddite (I worked with a programmer who raised chickens and bees, lived on a farm, homeschooled his kids, etc. Not that he was exactly a Luddite either, but I think you get the point).
I didn’t understand your “hygiene program” - I was completely unclear on what you were proposing. I also thought you rushed through your discussion of the possible benefits of a cyborg revolution, or whatever you want to call it - if this is important to your paper, it deserved a few more specifics.
Your discussion of Joy’s “code of conduct”, which you relate to a sort of governing board of scientists and engineers, is the most interesting thing here, but it’s also vague. To repeat the same questions I asked someone else - how will this board be funded? How will its will be enforced? What will its guiding principles be? Simply by compressing your writing (which tends to be wordy in this paper) you could have freed up the room to at least *begin* to offer some details on your ideas.
Post a Comment