Jessica Titler
January 20, 2009
Essay Option #2
In reading portrayals of the future, it must be remembered that one is studying an exercise in fiction and prediction. In this way, Bill Joy’s essay Why the future doesn’t need us should not be considered an article of pure nonfiction. In creating a future world, or predicting elements of a future world, a degree of fiction is inherent. Though mankind has searched for a key to unlock the secrets of the future for millennia, there is as of yet no means of predicting future events with complete accuracy. Though Joy makes a compelling argument and creates a realistic future that may be produced by technological advances, his is not the only possible future.
Often a reader forgets this in reading experts’ prophecies of future developments and events. It is in doing so that a reader makes a grave error. Rather than understanding the possibility presented as one option of many, the prospect is viewed as definite and one bases opinions and actions on this. Were readers to understand Joy’s foresight as definite, all technological development may halt or become severely impaired. This would be a dishonor to both future generations and to Bill Joy himself. Taking his forecast as a fixed outcome, his intention is not met. Joy presents one possibility for the future and, though he feels it is inevitable, recognizes that the destruction of mankind is not the only possible result of technological advances. For example, Joy states, “Any changes to such a system will cause a cascade in ways that are difficult to predict; this is especially true when human actions are involved.” It is nearly impossible, with the intricacies and unpredictable nature of human behavior, to predict what the result of unknown future technologies may be.
Although Joy is inarguably an expert in the field of technology and is an authority on the subject of current technology, he has no true means of determining the definite future of technology or the exact path that that technology will take in its development. As a visionary inventor of software, he is more than capable of guessing the next step in the evolution of technologies already in the making, but not necessarily the discoveries they will lead to or how these technologies will be used by our progeny.
In his essay, Joy examines possible outcomes of the improvement of three main technologies: genetic engineering, nanotechnology, and robotics. Prior to even evaluating the effects produced by these three, he makes the supposition that the current path of their development will be that which they continue to follow. As advances are made and knowledge of these expands, they may very well become vastly different than expected at this point. For instance, Joy claims that, “By 2030, we are likely to be able to build machines, in quantity, a millions times as powerful as the personal computers of today…” This claim is reminiscent of many past predictions, such as those that called for flying cars by the year 2000 (I have yet to see any nearly a decade beyond that). Doubtlessly, the development of technology is highly unpredictable.
Supposing the development of these technologies is not significantly altered from current expectations, Joy’s further assumptions are not certain, either. He feels that robots, predicted to be a superior species, will cause the destruction of the human species, an opinion shared by others such as Dyson and Moravec. Yet, it is entirely possible that this will not be the case. While it truly is entirely possible that there may be a robotic end in store for mankind, it is also entirely possible that mankind will survive, overcoming any robotic mutinies or threats. Throughout history, mankind has shown his resiliency and an outstanding ability to withstand condtions that threaten survival of the species, conquering bacterial and viral menaces time and time again. What is the evidence that this may not be the case when the foe is one we have ourselves devised?
It is this uncertainty and bias that must be kept in mind when reading any forecast of the future and it is with these in mind that any forecast must be taken with a grain of salt. Bill Joy’s Why the future doesn’t need us is, thus, a work of nonfiction that is complemented with elements of fiction—predictions, prophecies, and forecasts of the future. These are not definite or assured to occur. It is imperative that this must be acknowledged when reading a work such as Joy’s or else there exists a danger of misconstruing the author’s purpose or becoming deceived by interpreting a possibility as a certainty.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Jessica, I’ve got to hand it to you, you’re making this really hard for me. Your essay was extremely well written; it was presented in a clear thoughtful manner that really helped your argument. Your examples were very supportive and well-placed, and you had very few typographical mistakes.
I’ll start with those, then move on to some questions about your main point, some which might merit changes, others which I’d just like you to consider how you would argue against someone with that point of view. So typographically, all I caught was that you didn’t italicize or put quotes around the title of Joy’s essay. To italicize in HTML, in case you don’t know, you put < i > at the beginning of what you want italicized, and < /i > at the end (just take out the spaces).
About halfway through your second paragraph, you mention Bill Joy’s “intention,” what do you mean by that? You don’t explain to the reader, and it is somewhat confusing, because if you’re trying to sway someone who’s taking his words verbatim, namely thinking that we should stop technological advancement (which, as we discussed in class, isn’t the case), you need to tell them, so they know that you’re talking to them. In the line after that, you discuss how Joy feels that his predicted future is inevitable, but he also feels it is not the only outcome. This contradiction feels somewhat awkward, and to me it doesn’t support your argument the way it’s worded, perhaps if you changed it to something along the lines of “Joy presents… he feels it is the most likely, but he recognizes that the destruction…” Whether you choose to do this or not is up to you, I just feel like it would flow better if you touch it up a little.
Moving on to the third paragraph, I would like you to expand on the last sentence, how is Joy unable to see where developing technologies would lead? He, as you said, is a visionary of the technological world, so one would think that he has some foresight. He wrote this article in early 2000, and even though many of his predictions have not yet come true, microprocessors clocking speeds are still increasing exponentially, so what’s to say his other ideas are wrong?
Going off that, I’d like to challenge your rationale of your challenge to Joy’s claim. Flying cars may not have existed in the year 2000, but they do exist today, both the Haynes Aero Skyblazer and Parajet Skycar are working prototypes, the Skycar is planned to go into mass production if it’s test trip is deemed successful, so they might be more common in the near future. Is there something that you could use that’s a more definite example, that can’t be challenged by saying, “Hey, it is ten years late, but it is here”?
In the fifth paragraph, you may want to add something to support your question with an example of us overcoming the likeliness of NBC-based destruction, perhaps even using Joy himself to debunk his “inevitable” future.
Once again, I’d like to complement you on your essay, it really was an interesting read, and I did have to try really hard to find things to question you about. I think that if you shore up your examples a little bit, it’ll be even better.
In reading portrayals of the future, it must be remembered that one is studying an exercise in fiction and prediction. In this way, Bill Joy’s essay “Why the Future Doesn’t Need Us” should not be considered an article of pure nonfiction. In creating a future world, or predicting elements of a future world, a degree of fiction is inherent. Though mankind has searched for a key to unlock the secrets of the future for millennia, there is as of yet no means of predicting future events with complete accuracy. Though Joy makes a compelling argument and creates a realistic future that may be produced by technological advances, his is not the only possible future.
Often a reader forgets this in reading experts’ prophecies of future developments and events. It is in doing so that one makes a grave error. Rather than understanding the possibility presented as one option of many, the prospect is viewed as definite and one bases opinions and actions on this. Were readers to understand Joy’s foresight as definite, all technological development may halt or become severely impaired. This would be a dishonor to both future generations and to Bill Joy himself. Taking his forecast as a fixed outcome, his intention is not met. Joy presents one possibility for the future and, though he feels it is nearly at the very least the most likely endpoint, if not inevitable, he recognizes that the destruction of mankind is not the only possible result of technological advances. For example, Joy states, “Any changes to such a system will cause a cascade in ways that are difficult to predict; this is especially true when human actions are involved.” In this statement, Joy admits the chaotic nature of the succession of events in time. It is nearly impossible, with the intricacies and unpredictable nature of human behavior, to predict what the result of unknown future technologies may be. While Joy’s predictions of a cataclysmic extermination of mankind by robots are feasible, so is a future where mankind and robots coexist in symbiosis.
Although Joy is inarguably an expert in the field of technology and is an authority on the subject of current technology, he has no true means of determining the definite future of technology or the exact path that that technology will take in its development. As a visionary inventor of software, he is more than capable of guessing the next step in the evolution of technologies already in the making, but not necessarily the discoveries they will lead to or how these technologies will be used by our progeny. The steps involved in the imagination, conception, development, and production of any particular technology are numerous and highly complex. Predicting each of these steps correctly involves much supposition and an enormous amount of guessing. To avoid error in all of this is exceedingly impractical.
In his essay, Joy examines possible outcomes of the improvement of three main technologies: genetic engineering, nanotechnology, and robotics. Prior to even evaluating the effects produced by these three, he makes the supposition that the current path of their development will be that which they continue to follow. As advances are made and knowledge of these expands, they may very well become vastly different than expected at this point, perhaps unrecognizable. For instance, Joy claims that, “By 2030, we are likely to be able to build machines, in quantity, a millions times as powerful as the personal computers of today…” This claim is reminiscent of many past predictions, such as those that called for flying cars by the year 2000. Although prototypes do currently exist, untested, in a few laboratories, I have yet to see any in the common use expected by scientists of the past nearly a decade beyond that deadline. Doubtlessly, the development of technology is highly unpredictable.
Supposing the development of these technologies is not significantly altered from current expectations, Joy’s further assumptions are not definite, either. He feels that robots, predicted to be a superior species, will cause the destruction of the human species, an opinion shared by others such as Dyson and Moravec. Yet, it is entirely possible that this will not be the case. While it truly is entirely possible that there may be a robotic end in store for mankind, it is also entirely possible that mankind will survive, overcoming any robotic mutinies or threats. Throughout history, mankind has shown his resiliency and an outstanding ability to withstand conditions that threaten survival of the species, conquering bacterial and viral menaces time and time again. What is the evidence that this may not be the case when the foe is one we have ourselves devised? It is surely feasible, in fact, that a self-created foe would be more easily eliminated, with mankind possessing an intimate knowledge of said enemy’s fundamental mechanisms and innate weaknesses.
It is this uncertainty and bias that must be kept in mind when reading any forecast of the future and it is with these in mind that any forecast must be taken with a grain of salt. Bill Joy’s “Why the Future Doesn’t Need Us” is, thus, a work of nonfiction that is complemented with elements of fiction—predictions, prophecies, and forecasts of the future. These, as is true of any forecast, are not definite or assured to occur. It is imperative that this be acknowledged when reading a work such as Joy’s or else there exists a danger of misconstruing the author’s purpose, of being deceived in interpreting a possibility as a certainty.
James - especially since you were impressed with Jessica's paper, this is a thoughtful and detailed response - you're doing a good job of showing that it is possible to have a meaningful response to even very good work.
Jessica - this is a compelling and even fun introduction. It does raise theoretical questions, though - aren't there times and place where a degree of prediction is both understandable and desirable? While we certainly don't *know* what's going to happen in the future, nobody would deny, say, our ability to predict certain astronomical events, and even certain human behaviors (to a degree).
Take this: "While Joy’s predictions of a cataclysmic extermination of mankind by robots are feasible, so is a future where mankind and robots coexist in symbiosis." I think you're right; moreover, I think Joy would clearly agree with you. His argument is fundamentally about *risk*, not about certainty. So are you arguing that *in general* we shouldn't think about risk, or that there is something specifically wrong with the way Joy does it?
I like your writing, and at a theoretically level it's impossible to disagree with your point that, at some level, the future is unknowable. I also think that point is clearly applicable to Joy, but that you don't do a fully satisfactory job of doing so. Where does he claim, implicitly or explicitly, that he definitely knows what will happen? How and where does he step to far? Do you prefer alternative predictions, or deny the power of prediction in general (what about weather forecasting? economic forecasting?).
It's a smart and provocative paper, but not focused enough in its critique of Joy.
Post a Comment