Technology in the 21st Century: Dangerous, but necessary
              (by Anthony-George D'Andrea)

It could be argued that the fields of genetics, nanotechnology, and robotics have the potential to pose a serious risk to the human race. At first it seems logical to immediately put an end to any development in these fields because of their destructive potential. However, it could also be argued that one shouldn't stop developing or producing a certain technology simply because it can harm a person.

In a debate between the chief scientist and cofounder of Sun Microsystems, Bill Joy, and the man who developed the first print-to-speech reading machine, Ray Kurzweil, both agree that there are some parts of technology that pose serious problems to society. Kurzweil believes what he calls, 'fine-grained' relinquishment is the correct solution over Joy's 'wholesale' relinquishment because it satisfies what today's society is seeking: the betterment of the human race as well as its safety.

Everywhere we look, we see the world developing technologically. Who would not want a world free of disease and hard physical labour, full of potential for biological enhancement? Everywhere around the globe people are working on technology with hopes to make our lives better. It can be assumed that this is the general want of the human population because it makes sense that a person would always want to improve his or her current condition. However, along with this technologically-advanced life, a demand would most likely follow for a proportionate increase in safety measures, or minimization of risk. Joy does not see the conjoining of these two aspects as possible, whereas Kurzweil, with his 'fine-grained relinquishment' argument, believes that these conditions can indeed be achieved.

Joy sees 21st century technologies - genetics, nanotechnology, and robotics (GNR) - as especially dangerous over other types of technology such as nuclear, biological, and chemical forms, not so much because of their overall destructive power but because of their resource availability. Finding uranium and the proper equipment to create and maintain a nuclear bomb is difficult. However, when it comes to nanotechnology for example, the mere knowledge of the technology would suffice in having the possibility to create it. Joy sees this as an enormous threat to humanity because individuals or small groups can abuse such technology and can potentially turn the world to ruins.

Joy proposes a solution to this problem; a form of relinquishment. He believes the only way to end the advancement of such technologies is to put an end to the development of an entire field of technology. This 'wholesale' relinquishment would, for example, put an end to all of nanotechnology and anything that is connected to it. Joy believes that immediately cutting the lifeline of certain technologies and halting further development could save the human race from future generations of unprecedented danger and destruction.

Joy seemingly has good reason to be worried about the further development of GNR technology and accordingly provides a solution for it. At first it seems like an acceptable idea. If the development of a certain technology will provide us with pain and suffering in the future, then it makes perfect sense to stop its development. He convincingly argues that this is the only way to stop our early extinction by bombarding his readers with several cons about the development of technology. With the potential for terrorist and military uses for nanotechnology or the fear of being attacked by a plague created by an insane molecular biologist, most people would be taken aback by the potential for harm and it is this concentrated support for the cons which leads to making Joy's solution seem plausible.

This narrow vision dismisses Joy's solution as a feasible one, for it only meets one of society's needs: safety. This is something wanted by all, but by committing ourselves to utter and complete safety, we would be sacrificing the advancement of technology and the potential for a better life; something which is equally wanted by the human race.

In Kurzweil's article Promise and Peril, he states that people go through three stages when examining the prospect of a developing technology. The first is that of awe and wonderment at the potential the technology has to do well. The second stage is that of a sense of fear, knowing that with new technology come new problems, and the third and final stage is that people will realize that the only responsible path in dealing with this technology is a cautious one.

This last stage is one of importance to Kurzweil's argument. We must be sensible in what to allow or what not to allow in order to have the technology in accordance with the demands for safety. Kurzweil provides the reader with what he calls 'fine-grained' relinquishment. Instead of banning an entire section of technology, as Joy had proposed to do, 'fine-grained' relinquishment would put an end to only certain aspects of a technology, such as the reproductive abilities of nanotechnology, thereby eliminating the most potentially dangerous aspects of the technology instead of the technology as a whole, and thus implementing a safeguard.

Joy fears that the technology's potential to function in any capacity alone is what allows the potential for danger. He indirectly objects that 'fine-grained' relinquishment is too weak to deal with the developing technology and is not firm enough in providing the human race with safety. This objection, however, holds no substance and is easily dismissed with one word: entanglement. Although Joy may be correct in saying that the development of technology can bring about terrible things, it again can also be argued that technology is responsible for several good things that society has today. Entanglement is this duality of the pros and cons of technology and the difficulty in tearing them apart from one another from a piece of technology. Thousands of vaccines for diseases have been discovered such as polio and smallpox; facilities with wheelchair accessibility along with automated door openers have allowed the disabled to free themselves of certain disadvantages; several inventions such as cell phones have made our lives easier, all as a result of technical advancement.

By taking away the development of technology ones takes away the chances of providing a possibly safer and healthier future. Joy's objection would end up hurting his end goal. The entanglement of both the pros and cons of a certain technology make it difficult to decide how that certain technology should be dealt with. The fact of the matter is, however, that with technology there will always be the chance of something terrible happening along with the equal opportunity for something good to occur. 'Fine-grained' relinquishment would diminish the chances of unsafe consequences without impeding upon the other beneficial aspects of the technology.

Kurzweil said it best when he described technology as being a double-edged sword. To stop the development of technology because it has the potential to cause harm is as ignorant as stopping the production of golf clubs because they can be used to hit things other than golf balls. Seeing the many benefits that can come with today's technology allows us to take the risk of developing it somewhat confidently, knowing that it's ultimate intent is to bring about something good. In today's society it can be argued that Kurzweil's solution is the one to abide by.

People's lives rely on the technology we have today. Had an issue such as this come up one-hundred years ago and had Joy's solution been implemented, many people who could have been saved thanks to a technological development would have passed away. Penicillin and insulin would have been non-existent along with the many that could have used it. By stopping the development of technology, people of the world are being robbed an opportunity to live healthier, happier and longer lives. Kurzweil recognizes this and with caution, provides an even solution that manages to tame technology, maximizing the benefits for the human race, while protecting the world from as many dangers as possible.

By raising awareness of such an issue, both Kurzweil and Joy display the seriousness of the technology that is being developed. Nanotechnology, genetics, and robotics are technologies that will be seen more often than ever as we make our way through the year 2005. Of course, as any technology would, each one brings its own set of fearful and destructive possibilities, along with promising benefits. The choice to be made is how much room do we give these growing technological giants to breathe?

Joy, quickly acting on what he believes is the obvious choice, argues that the only way to survive is to suffocate that certain technology; to stop it at all costs and preventing harmful possibilities. Kurzweil seems to take his time in deriving a solution and when he does, it is one of reasonable stature. Instead of suffocating the technological giants, Kurzweil believes that in order to still enjoy the benefits of technology, we must give them enough room to survive, but not enough for them to wreak complete havoc. Kurzweil, seeing technology for what it truly is, not just as another problem in society, provides an answer for the the technologically enhanced world that we live in today; one that will allow the human race to prosper with both advanced technology and safety.

Sources

Joy, Bill. "Why the Future Doesn’t Need Us". Society, Ethics, and Technology. Ed. Morton E. Winston and Ralph D. Edelbach. California: Thompson & Wadsworth, 2003.

Kurzweil, Ray. "Promise and Peril". Society, Ethics, and Technology. Ed. Morton E. Winston and Ralph D. Edelbach. California: Thompson & Wadsworth, 2003.

[ issue contents ] [ fmm home ] [ send feedback ] [ tell a friend ]