Christopher L. Owens
Dr. Adam Johns
ENGCOMP 0200
13 January 2009
Argument of a Realist
Though the evidence of mankind’s exponential technological development is undeniable, the long-term consequences of this ascendance are highly disputable. Bill Joy in his futurist essay Why the future doesn’t need us, assumes the stance of technological watchdog and proposes that the development and distribution of certain emerging information and technology should be limited to prevent what he believes to be a potentially imminent cataclysm- human extinction. However, as witnessed in Mary Shelley’s opus, Frankenstein, the primordial human desire for knowledge and mastery of the environment, the core facets of human existence, will realistically overcome any cry for halt. In such demanding climbs, few turn back when so close to the precipice.
Why the future doesn’t need us primarily focuses on three likely 21st century technological breakthroughs in robotics, genetics and nanotechnology and how self-replicating technology presents a novel threat to humanity (Joy). Bill Joy suggests that exploration in these areas should be curtailed as fear of rather unlikely negative consequences dictates his conservative decision-making, essentially a risk-averse viewpoint. He is not a Luddite in the sense of being completely against technological change for its own sake, but irrationally wishes to stunt the greater development, which would likely produce much more good than harm, because he fears the most negative of possible outcomes.
Shelley, however, created an extreme example of the results of new science, yet more importantly a realistic portrayal of scientists in Victor Frankenstein. Both his greatness and his flaws used as reminders of his humanity. His desire to study the creation of life clearly outweighed any fears of abomination. He like many other scientists would pursue this knowledge to its very limit. Curiosity, the essential need to know controlled his every action and this models one of the most critical facets of human nature. As Frankenstein noted, “the energy of my purpose alone sustained me” (Shelley 57). And, unlike other species, humans have the unique ability to gamble on likely consequences. Humanity’s collective development has included many blunders and achievements, but this special trait as demonstrated in Frankenstein is the stuff that differentiates human thinking.
Hopefully it has become clear that the idea of limiting knowledge or study of Joy’s dangerous subjects or any other contradicts what has made humanity so successful to this point. It is possible that man may create abominations not fully understood as Victor Frankenstein did, but for millennia humans have benefited from the extreme majority of technological breakthroughs, so to assume a risk-averse mindset would be foolish. People will continue to learn and search and seek and likely as their existence demands as long as the majority ignores irrational fear and continues to think in a logical, risk-neutral, realistic manner.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I think this essay is good and very well thought out. One thing I would like to point out though is your use of commas. You might want to pay more attention to grouping the clauses and using commas more often; otherwise your sentences sound a bit run-on. As for the quality of the actual essay, the second paragraph seems to be just a recount of what Bill Joy is saying in his essay. There does not seem to be much argument within the paragraph, and I would like to see a little more to argue the thesis. The third paragraph is much more contributing to the argument as well as giving the reader an opposing perspective to the second paragraph. The last paragraph is a good conclusion. Reinstating what you’re arguing, and helping the reader get back on track to better understand the essay as a whole. It seems that what you are really trying to say is that you think that although dangerous, advancement of technology has proven to be very beneficial to mankind. This is at least what I derived from the last paragraph. Perhaps if you addressed your argument a little more clearly in the first paragraph the reader will be able to follow along your thought processes better.
Christopher L. Owens
Dr. Adam Johns
ENGCOMP 0200
13 January 2009
Argument of a Realist
Though the evidence of mankind’s exponential technological development is undeniable, the long-term consequences of this ascendance are highly disputable. Bill Joy in his futurist essay Why the future doesn’t need us, assumes the stance of technological watchdog and proposes that the development and distribution of certain emerging information and technology should be limited to prevent what he believes to be a potentially imminent cataclysm- human extinction. However, as witnessed in Mary Shelley’s opus, Frankenstein, the primordial human desire for knowledge and mastery of the environment, the core facets of human existence, will realistically overcome any shallow cry for halt. In humanity's demanding climb of development, it is more than unlikely to turn back when so close to the precipice.
Why the future doesn’t need us primarily focuses on three likely 21st century technological breakthroughs in robotics, genetics and nanotechnology and how self-replicating technology presents a novel threat to humanity (Joy). Bill Joy suggests that exploration in these areas should be curtailed as fear of rather unlikely negative consequences dictates his conservative decision-making, essentially a risk-averse viewpoint. He is not a Luddite in the sense of being completely against technological change for its own sake, but irrationally wishes to stunt the greater development ( which would likely produce much more good than harm), because he fears the most negative of possible outcomes. His vision for the future is of bleak stagnation, where generation after generation lives in the same mud as the last.
Shelley, however, created an extreme example of the results of new science, yet more importantly a realistic portrayal of scientists in Victor Frankenstein. Both his greatness and his flaws used as reminders of his humanity. His desire to study the creation of life clearly outweighed any fears of abomination. He like many other scientists would pursue this knowledge to its very limit. Curiosity, the essential need to know controlled his every action and this models one of the most critical facets of human nature. As Frankenstein noted, “the energy of my purpose alone sustained me” (Shelley 57). Also, unlike other species, humans have the unique ability to gamble on likely consequences. Humanity’s collective development has included many blunders and achievements, but this special trait demonstrated in Frankenstein differentiates human thinking.
Hopefully it has become clear that the idea of limiting knowledge or study of Joy’s dangerous subjects or any other contradicts what has made humanity so successful to this point. It is possible that man may create abominations not fully understood as Victor Frankenstein did, but for millennia humans have benefited from the extreme majority of technological breakthroughs, so to assume a risk-averse mindset would be foolish. People will continue to learn and search and seek and likely as their existence demands as long as the majority ignores irrational fear and continues to think in a logical, risk-neutral, realistic manner.
Works Cited
Joy, Bill. "Why the future doesn't need us". 11 Jan. 2009
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy_pr.html.
Shelley, Mary. Frankenstein. London: Penguin Books, 1992.
jms306 - this is a rather vague and indifferent response to the paper. What is the argument? Why did you like it? How, specifically, could it be better addressed? You don’t address the specifics of this paper at all. Chris - you begin with a huge generalization, which is really never a good idea. Your first paragraph as a whole is a little wordy, but still interesting - there is no hint, though, of your viewpoint - you are arguing that halting change is unlikely, but that doesn’t really tell us what you think, nor is Joy calling for a total halt, so you may be dodging the specifics of his argument in favor of a possibly inaccurate paraphrase of it.
I’d say exactly the same things about your second paragraph, actually - you aren’t responding to anything that Joy actually says, but to a dubious summary or paraphrase of it. Where, exactly, is he wrong or irrational? He simply isn’t advocating stagnation, at least in any simplistic sense - deal with the text of whatever you’re analyzing, not just your impressions.
Your thoughts on Frankenstein are interesting, but you needed a transition to clarify their place in your argument as a whole: I’m interested, but I don’t understand what you’re up to.
Your final paragraph is simply a series of unjustified generalizations - my impression is that you don’t really even know specifically what Joy is proposing; you’re simply labelling him as anti-progress and attacking him as such.
Overall: There are some good sentences here, and the beginning of some good work on Frankenstein, but your response to Joy is so vague, and so indifferent to anything that he actually says, that it ultimately lacks substance.
Post a Comment