Are we really willing to take such a risk?

Hamid A. Campbell
Dr. Adam Johns
ENGCMP 0200
01.13.2009
Are we really willing to take such a risk?

While the acquisition and passage of knowledge is essential to an ideal, functional society, the possession of too much knowledge can have dire, irreversible consequences. This idea is the central theme of Mary Shelley’s 1818 gothic novel, Frankenstein. In the novel, Shelley implicitly argues that new scientific knowledge and rapid technological advancement pose a threat to humankind. Bill Joy’s essay, Why the future doesn’t need us, also explores the idea of limitless knowledge and its possibly dangerous outcomes, particularly in the twenty-first century, as the risk that we take in discovering and applying such novelties that may render man obsolete is the effective endangerment of the human species. Both Shelley and Joy seem to be apprehensive of the fate of mankind as a result of its very own creations, and the abuses and misuses that abundant knowledge enables. While Frankenstein is a work of fiction and Joy’s article purely an expression of concern from a scientific standpoint, both documents support each other by cautioning the reader of the eventual destruction and disasters that science and technology could impose upon humankind.

Joy’s article explores the threats of science using a variety of examples, the strongest of which is his comparison between the displacement of the South American marsupials by the North American placentals over the course of a few thousand years and the possible displacement of mankind by the technology for which it so longingly pines. Inhuman creations of man, such as robots, would be highly intelligent and complex, causing their human creators to develop an unhealthy dependence on them and to entrust these omniscient machines to “make more of their decisions for them,” effectively eliminating the necessity for human knowledge and logic in the future, thus the title of his article (Joy). Joy proposes that machines will compete vigorously with their human counterparts for matter, energy, and space, inevitably driving their inferiors to extinction, as did the North American placentals to the South American marsupials. This idea is also embodied in Frankenstein, in which a creature manufactured by the central character, Victor Frankenstein, begins to wreak havoc upon man, instilling fear in every person with whom he comes into contact and eventually causing the deaths of those close to Frankenstein either directly or indirectly.

The events in Frankenstein certainly shed light on and validate the fears of Joy. The unfortunate chain of events in the novel certainly arouses fears in the reader and should cause one to take Joy’s essay seriously. The novel forces the reader to contemplate the long-term risks of the present science and technology that seems to fascinate us. In his article, Joy takes care to convey his fear that “things [are moving] too fast,” expressing his concerns about the consequences of rapidly expanding technology. He expands this view by focusing on the twenty-first century technologies (genetics, nanotechnology, and robotics) and the ease with which they can be accessed by individuals and small groups, such as terrorists. Such technologies will not require elaborate facilities nor rare materials, but “knowledge alone will enable the use of them” (Joy). If Victor Frankenstein, a scientist looking to advance the field by pioneering the creation of his own being, and a man who possesses a tremendous amount of scientific knowledge, ultimately created something that caused as much damage as it did, can you imagine the destruction that such incredible knowledge can inflict upon mankind if placed in the wrong hands?

Humankind cannot afford to invest its fate in dangerous technologies, technologies that may or may not prove to be our friends in the future. The quest for knowledge is certainly one that should be embarked upon in a cautious manner, as the very knowledge that we seek could eventually be the initiator of our demise. In a world that is rapidly and ever changing, attention must be paid and care must be taken to ensure that the progress that science and technology allows us to make does not pose a fatal threat to humans, primarily progress in robotics, nanotechnology, and other fields that involve the creation of supernatural materials, devices, and beings.

The common misconception of new technologies is that they will all do a world of good all of the time. It has been postulated that nanotechnology and the manipulation of matter at the atomic and subatomic levels could create a “utopian” future of limitlessness, in which materials and goods could be more cost-efficiently produced, and just about any imaginable disease or ailment could be cured. While this is certainly an attractive idea, let us consider the negative ramifications of such advancement. In fields such as nanotechnology and molecular electronics, in which the most basic and elementary particles in nature are altered, it is much easier to create destruction than it is to be productive. The danger is implicit in Murphy’s Law, which broadly states that “anything that can go wrong, will.” Nanotechnological devices can be built to selectively destroy only certain demographics, such as a certain group of people or geographic region, providing this field with clear terrorist and military uses. In science, the slightest mistakes or miscalculations, even by the most brilliant and respected scientists, can sometimes mean a great, irreversible amount of danger and destruction, as evidenced by the monster in Frankenstein. Are we really willing to take such a risk?

Works Cited
Joy, Bill. "Why the future doesn't need us." Wired April 2000.