Giovanni Serrapere
Dr. Adam Johns
ENGCMP 0200 - SEMINAR IN COMPOSITION
28 August 2008
Let the Fates Decide
Why did I have to be born into this generation? That is what I thought after reading Bill Joy’s article “Why the future doesn’t need us.” The dilemmas he presents seem so inevitable, that you are left with a sense of helplessness. I agree that there is great possibility humans will be faced with these problems, but I disagree that we need to “…agree as a species, what we wanted, where we were headed, and why.”(14) I refuse to take part in this agreement because of the terms of the agreement, a lack of faith in its stability, and the foreseeable loss of rights.
Bill isn’t exactly clear about all the ins and outs of this agreement, but I believe because of human nature we will try to focus our efforts on greatly extending our life expectancy. Even Bill is against this, “A technological approach to Eternity- near immortality through robotics- may not be the most desirable utopia, and its pursuit brings clear dangers.”(16) He seems to think we will move past this option, but we will not, we will try to become gods. This would not only be bad for the human race but bad for all life on earth. The circle of life can easily be thrown off balance when a species becomes extinct or others move in. Just take for example when people introduced Tilapia and Perch into Lake Victoria, the indigenous fish in that area were wiped out of existence. What happens when humans begin to overpopulate and start taking more than they are giving back? What happens when our natural resources are exhausted, and a third World War over food erupts? Some things just weren’t meant to be, humans being immortal one of them.
This agreement depends on “…scientists and engineers adopt a strong code of ethical conduct, resembling the Hippocratic oath, and they have the courage to whistleblow as necessary, even at a high personal cost.”(15) There is no doubt in my mind that some scientist will give in to the demands of a government or organization with an agenda. It has been our policy to have the one-up on other countries in terms of nuclear weapons, so why wouldn’t this extend to new even more powerful tools of destruction. Bill admits that the policies needed to control the research would be extensive. “With their widespread commercial pursuit, enforcing relinquishment will require a verification regime similar to that for biological weapons, but on an unprecedented scale.”(15) Let me just state a fact, we have not relinquished the pursuit of biological weapons. That is why recently the suspect in the 2002 anthrax attacks was an Army scientist. What were they doing with anthrax? Basically what I’m trying to say is that the agreement would have too many holes in it to work.
The point I am most passionate about is the fact that Bill Joy wants to chase the dream of a “Utopian” society. His pact would start us on a path for “the greater good”, setting in motion the formation of what I have seen in so many movies. I do not want to be part of a society where I am just a number, another mouth to feed. Maybe they will dope us, so we become like zombies, feeling nothing. Sure there will be less suffering in the short term (that’s until we run out of food), but I will lose all my individuality and I could no longer be considered as actually living. Although Bill rejects this type of utopia, “These engineered human beings may be happy in such a society, but they will most certainly not be free.”(2), what other choice will we have when every aspect of human life is engineered. Because that is what they will choose to do, make life longer, and get rid of all the “inconveniences”. I want the freedom to feel pain or joy, or to have tough times in my life, an even keeled life is a boring one. Patrick Henry had it right when he said, “Give me Liberty, or give me Death!” I see steps being taken in our society that are supposed to be for our own benefit, you could say for the good of society. Like the Patriot Act, the first step in cementing the power of the all knowing government. Forgive me for quoting another figure of the American Revolution, Benjamin Franklin; he said, “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” After all, a police state in America was the one negative thing I could see happening; that is until I read this article, now I see more.
I am fundamentally against any kind of pact because of the imminent terms of the agreement, my skepticism over the solidity of the pact, and because of the intrusion of our rights that comes with a “Utopia”. Bill Joy and I agree on many things but I believe we should not manipulate our future. If something was meant to happen, it will happen. We shouldn’t be thinking so far ahead anyway, how will we ever enjoy what we have now. When it comes time just trust the leaders involved saw that movie with Will Smith.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Best opening sentence so far this semester. Lesson to everyone: being focused and witty is good. Being general and vague is bad. Taken as a whole, your introductory paragraph is provocative; I might have preferred an early hint of the specifics of your disagreement with Joy, though, outlining your argument.
Nitpick: use last names, not first names, when writing papers, even relatively informal ones. “Bill Joy,” or “Joy” - never “Bill,” when referring to authors.
Your second paragraph is very confusing. You argue, simultaneously, that you oppose human immortality, that Joy opposes human immortality, but that any agreement/consensus among humanity would be to seek human immorality, and that therefore, Joy is wrong. Huh? The missing link here is a detailed explanation of why you see the human agreement/consensus working out this way; you skip through what may be the most important point in your argument.
Your point about Anthrax is smart (although a little research would have helped) – but there’s also the flip side, that nuclear weapons have been more or less contained. I’m sure that Joy would agree with you that any attempt to contain technology will be imperfect, but you haven’t made a convincing case, despite one smart example, that it can’t be. The point about anthrax is a good start, not a complete argument.
Your last couple paragraphs border on being incoherent because, again, you freely mix up Joy with what he opposes. You take him as being both a utopian (because he wants to regulate technology) and an anti-utopian (because he rejects the belief that the technologies which he wants to regulate will create a utopia), without any attempt to negotiate between the two.
Despite good examples and a nice, contentious argument, there is a fundamental flaw here: your most fundamental claims about Joy are actually incoherent. You needed to work more directly with the article here.
Post a Comment