Austin Hixson
Seminar in Composition (ENGCMP 0200)
Dr. Adam Johns
January 20th, 2009
The relationship between mankind and the technology in which mankind has created is one of progress, humility, and ultimately, fear. Yet, even though many of the advances of modern technology have taken a turn towards the more dangerous and risky side of things, we are not at the point where we must halt the technology race and prepare ourselves for imminent destruction at the mercy of our own creation.
Bill Joy’s essay “Why The Future Doesn’t Need Us” is a testimony for such a termination of advancement. Joy, who has been a pivotal part of some of the largest leaps forward in our modern age has now taken a position of forewarning against the role of technology in the future of our human race. Each and every technological advancement and achievement that Joy has been a part of has done nothing but bring great things to the computer science field; and now Joy feels it necessary to warn us of the dangers of these achievements. In this, there is no sense. Likewise, Mary Shelley’s novel Frankenstein tells a story of what can happen when the responsibility of consequence is absent; when one becomes drunk of his own power and unable to visualize the ceiling effect that has so often saved many from the harm of our own ability. It is as if Bill Joy has read the story of Frankenstein and somehow concluded that this is the point in which mankind is, at present.
My conclusion, however, is quite different. Although, I am not ready to say that the state of technology thus far has not harmed anyone or anything, I am, however, certain that it has not reached the point in which it is an unendurable threat to the human race. It is Joy’s intense “Luddite” stance that seems to almost discredit his argument as extremist. The man who has been so revolutionary to the cause of technological advancement and so consistent in his ability to further along our capabilities in the computer science field has essentially gone “rogue” and would rather see his contributions be decommissioned and entered into a technology museum than implemented into new, promising technologies. It is this ironic aspect of Joy’s argument that first lead to my questioning of its validity.
Victor Frankenstein did not realize the significance of his experimentations until, ultimately, it was too late. The state of his research had gotten to the point of no return, and had Frankenstein not gone through with his research, it very well could have been far too late anyways due to the lack of introspection throughout the entire process of experimentation and scientific advancement. I do understand Joy’s concerns; it is not the reality of these concerns in which I find the basis of my argument. Moreover, it is the lack of rationale behind the ideals that Bill Joy shares with other fellow “Luddites” of the 21st century. Certain things can almost be viewed as inevitable throughout modern times. Weapons will be further-developed and become more complex, and the effects of the saturation of modern medicine will be seen throughout society. Yet, putting these two observations aside, it still remains the inability of mankind to make any sort of technology, outside of the arms and medical arena, dangerous to a human. As much as many engineers and programmers would like, it still remains impossible to engineer a robot that is anywhere near the state of stand-alone intelligence, and thus, anywhere near being considered “dangerous” to a human. It is facts like these that put certain concerns to rest; concerns that have been raised by the Luddite community.
Bill Joy has made clear his stance on the advancement of technology in the 21st century. Joy’s argument has a clear parallel with the story of Frankenstein, where the time has come in which humankind’s negligence toward the power of technology has resulted in a dangerous and hostile creation. We, however, continue to thrive alongside our technological advancements, all the while remaining well aware of our responsibility to treat technology with the respect it deserves. It is this respect that will take us to new realms and will keep us from becoming overly fearful of something that can surely create endless possibilities for the advancement of human nature.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
This paper brought up a lot of good points, especially concerning Joy and his article. Some quotes from Joy would be helpful, however. You mention the difference between Joy's focus on improving technology throughout his career and his cautiousness now; thus, quotes that show this inconsistency would be beneficial. You also make the bold statement that you are certain technology isn't an "unendurable threat" to humans, but there is no evidence for why this is true.
You connected Frankenstein to Joy's article well but didn't really show how Frankenstein supports your argument. In fact, you show how Frankenstein made his mistake by pursuing knowledge too far, which actually contradicts your argument that we should be like Frankenstein and continue advancing science. I think your references to Frankenstein should be switched for references that better support your argument.
There were a few areas of your paper that were a little confusing. Several sentences were long and awkward. For example, you wrote, “Although, I am not ready to say that the state of technology thus far has not harmed anyone or anything, I am, however, certain that it has not reached the point in which it is an unendurable threat to the human race.” You could get rid of the first half of that sentence without affecting what you’re trying to say. Also, wordy phrases like “the state of his research” could be shortened to just “his research”. Finally, I was confused when you started a sentence in the 4th paragraph with “moreover,” which doesn’t seem to fit in that context.
Andy - Good response.
Austin - Your introduction and thesis are rather vague; you could have used a more precise focus.
Your second paragraph is really a second introduction; you are characterizing Joy rather broadly, rather than focusing on or analyzing any particular part of his argument.
Through the rest of your paper, you only generalize; there is no specific response to any particular aspect of Joy's argument, and no evidence for the positions you take. There's nothing else to say - you claim much, and prove nothing.
Post a Comment