Damien Broderick in his book, The Spike: Accelerating into the Unimaginable Future, Reed International, Kew 1997 imagines a future in which technoscience transforms us as humans. Critically evaluate his speculations and postulate a future of your own based on your understanding of current trends.
Broderick's points out that the speed of technological change (primarily in computer processing power) based on previous advances, can be charted to a point where the rapidity of growth is exponential. Beyond this it is difficult to hypothesise what life will be like (Broderick, 1997). Perhaps it is easier to put forward several possibilities as to what could happen beyond that point, or even just before it.
The concept that Broderick calls 'the spike' and others call a technological singularity is fleshed out by Broderick in his book. He uses examples of how this 's-curve' in progress can be charted with the case of human transport, and indeed there is an impressive rate of speeding up through the centuries with this example, yet the rate falls away before becoming an asymptote. Why is this, and would this also be the case with the possible coming singularity of computing power? (Broderick, 1997)
Concerning the point of human transport, it becomes apparent that
the scientific and technological developments were not (and still
are not) pure and unfettered by the outside (unscientific) world.
They are part of the, Marx-coined, sociotechnological system.
Broderick falls into a boxed way of thinking on the issue of
moving a space vehicle to 99.9% the speed of light, saying it
"would take a lot of propellant" (Broderick, 1997, p-11) and then
points right at the issue with the phrase, "It would have taken a
tame black hole in your [car fuel] tank" (Broderick, 1997, p-11).
In order to move at speeds faster than achieved at present,
something other than fossil fuels and conventional systems of
energy conversion are needed (1) . The emergence of such a system would
be a direct threat to those who currently hold power through the
possession and refining of conventional fuel, plus the devices
that are powered by it (2).
To follow this line of thinking comes the first possibility of
what may happen in the future - that of the technological
singularity (with regards to computer power) would never be
reached because of social forces. As Vernon Vinge says, "The first
ultra-intelligent machine is the last invention that man need ever
make (provided that the machine is docile enough to tell us how to
keep it under control)," (Smith, 2002).
The problem becomes one of, if this ultra-intelligent machine (and
its successors) was to be a conscious, feeling being with rights
(Bell, 2-002) then it would also know fear (a-lá HAL from 2001) and
stemming from that, greed and aggression. This would clearly be a
threat to the current world power structure. On the other hand, if
the being could not comprehend human emotion then its decisions
would constantly be in conflict with those of the (inherently
illogical) current power structure.
Take the current scenario where cargo ships full of grain sail to off-shore locations and dump their load into the sea for the purpose of increasing grain prices. This happens while people in other parts of the world starve or are malnourished. Now suppose scientists do create the "perfect Friendly AI" that has the inbuilt ethics not to harm any person and to help people where it can. According to the Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence, (a non-profit organisation pushing for the speedy eventuation of the technological singularity) this "first self- modifying transhuman AI will have, at least in potential, nearly absolute physical power over our world (3)" (SIAI, 2001). But we can't expect it to invent technology that will render all forms of scarcity non-existent within the first half-hour of it being operational, so what will it do? Will it allow resources to continue to be wasted for the benefit of the market economy, or will it send companies broke by taking control of infrastructure to aid suffering people?
While raw computing power can be charted as growing more and more rapidly into the future, the software needed to make this power useful cannot. In fact since (approximately) 1990 computer software has lagged behind the hardware it runs on and in the mainstream it is not known for its reliability or intuitiveness. This would seem to present a major problem for achieving the point of the technological singularity. It is said that once that point is reached the super-intelligent machine will be perpetually self- improving (writing its own software) but much effort and careful planning must go into the software to push the machine over that line of sentience. The structure of such a machine's ethical software is terribly important, and is the point where computer science and philosophy meets. Questions that need to be raised are; is thirty years (or whenever the hardware is ready to go) long enough to formulate a set of ethics that are applicable to this kind of entity which won't be relating to humans as one human would to another, but as an entity with immense power. Can this set of ethics be used with regards to people of different cultures and should it just be scientists and philosophers who are involved in this formulation of what it is to be 'friendly', or should all people have some say in it? Ultimately all people will have to relate to this entity. These things need to be agreed upon even before the task of formulating it all into a software architecture that is both extremely flexible and unbreakable.
Kaczynski's Industrial Society and its Future presents a dystopic view of the future and makes some interesting predictions about similar possible futures where super-intelligent machines are allowed to proliferate (4). These predictions are based on what appears to be a fairly accurate analysis of modern society's current problems and the motivations of scientists. The over- riding motive is that of setting a goals and achieving that goal (the scientific solution) through the process of making an effort through research (Kaczynski, 1995). This is similar to goal- setting in any other field, for example, a long jumper saying they want to break their own record, and then doing it through hard work and training. The big difference is that several goals achieved by scientists can add up to a technology, (such as a new biological weapon) that can be highly detrimental to the whole human race, and individual scientists rarely delineate between achievements that are beneficial or detrimental to humanity. To them, knowledge is knowledge and it is not their place to decide what it is used for (Kaczynski, 1995).
The solutions that Kaczynski proposes to the problems that science is causing are befitting to one who advocates murder to further their cause, but really are not solutions at all. Reversing civilisation back to a tribal era would only start the process of scientific innovation again, and any authority used to ensure that the process did not happen would be no better than the authority that the manifesto seeks to usurp.
As Broderick's quote of Stine states, 'We can't close the Pandora's box of technology' (Broderick, 1997, p-12). This is echoed by Ray Kurzweil in his response to Bill Joy's urge for caution in the coming era of genetics, nanotechnology and robotics. Kurzweil says that the only way we can stop technology advancement would be to have a totalitarian, state-enforced ban (Smith, 2002). Again, this would only push the research underground.
However, I believe that Kurzweil misrepresents Joy's concerns. Bill Joy gives us two possible futures. One ends in the destruction of the human race through the spiraling of out of control technologies, particularly genetics, nanotechnology and robotics. On this he states that the closed shops of corporations pushing for the competitive edge is the worst place for these technologies to be developed (Joy, 2000).
The other possibility is that the scientific community willingly develops a much stronger sense of ethics and that new forms of intellectual property law are set up so that formerly sensitive proprietary information on scientific endeavours could be monitored by regulators or society as a whole. It would be a future where we have (right now) re-examined what a utopic vision of the future is made up of. If achieving some form of immortality can be done, but not without the possibility of wiping out civilisation, then should it be attempted at all? This version of the future also includes scientists who have a sense of humility; who, despite their curiosity and sense of power gained through manipulating parts of nature, know that there are some things that are better left alone.
Broderick's view (at least on the issue of cloning) is more optimistic than this when he says that, "we can do better than nature - let's hope so anyway,' (Broderick 1997, p.17) and perhaps we can, but is that also the case with food sources or the issue of grafting technology onto nature, as with cybernetic implants? This is the problem of the technological slippery slope. Cloning sheep may seem okay because it has already been done, and manipulating human genes is promoted as a good thing because it could wipe out certain illnesses, but several of these advances together can just as easily leave society in a worse position rather than improving it. The problems that accompany each of these 'advances' once they leave the laboratory are never anticipated (or at least never mentioned) by scientists (Kaczynski, 1995).
One possible way to avoid futures such as those suggested by Kaczynski (apart from his own suggestion of destroying all technology) is to begin the process of melding the human with the machine, or at least be in a position that when a super- ' intelligent computer is created, it remains inferior to humans with enhanced intelligence. Or similarly, as Vinge puts it an "intelligence amplification [through] computer networks and human- computer interfaces" (Smith, 2002). However the results of this could be just as disastrous as unfriendly AI. At this point in time humanity seems to be pulling in many different directions, which would need to change before any such 'intelligence amplification'. Essentially what is needed is a spiritual evolution throughout the human consciousness, the main part of this being the letting go of all fear, and from that, aggression, greed, envy etc. It is said that the greatest human fear is of dying and this is probably why the idea of achieving immortality is so attractive to most people, including Broderick (Broderick, 1997, p.21). Perhaps we shouldn't be escaping death through technological means, but overcoming the fear of it first, and then giving ourselves the option to postpone it via technology. This change in mind-set would also overcome problems of a conflicting present-day power structure and the possible emergence of a new epoch in human history via a technological singularity.
From a relativist point of view Western science is just a tradition like any other (such as voodoo, witchcraft) (Feyerabend, 1978) and in this way I find it also analogous to the Roman Catholic church before the Renaissance. Western Science's authority crosses all national boundaries, it claims itself superior to all other methods of thought, it has its own 'saints' (Newton, Einstein, Darwin) and yet it, as a tradition, seems to have stagnated. Western Science has lost sight of the principles that underpin its ethos; universalism, 'communism', disinterestedness and organised skepticism (Merton, 1973). Few within the scientific community, save those with long and well established track records can put forward theories or evidence that modify (or heaven forbid(!) renders false) the findings of 'the great forefathers' of modern science like Darwin. No matter how objective or verifiable findings are, if they are coming from an unknown, or from a post-colonial country and challenge the supposedly unbreakable laws of science, then they are labeled as heresy.
In its quest to complete the biggest project ever, science must make sure that it's mature enough to create its own god, or at least ready to make itself redundant forever.
Footnotes
(1)It is my belief that such systems may have already been developed, or at least could be quickly brought to a fully functioning status if given the green light by those in control of current modes of transport.
(2)The clearest example of this being the case, in my mind, is that of solar technology, of which the first patents were quickly jumped on and bought up by the fossil fuel companies. These first implementations of solar technology were very basic, and as a technology it has not developed at all due to it being stifled. From the objective point of view it is perfectly logical to eliminate competitors through whatever means necessary.
(3)The next sentence is, " The potential existence of this absolute power is unavoidable; it's a direct consequence of the maximum potential speed of self-improvement." (SIAI, 2001)
(4)Probably the most feasible of Kaczynski's future scenarios is that of
paragraph 173 from Industrial Society and its Future :
" If the machines are permitted to make all their own decisions, we can't
make any conjectures as to the results, because it is impossible to guess how
such machines might behave. We only point out that the fate of the human race
would be at the mercy of the machines. It might be argued that the human race
would never be foolish enough to hand over all the power to the machines. But
we are suggesting neither that the human race would voluntarily turn power
over to the machines nor that the machines would willfully seize power. What
we do suggest is that the human race might easily permit itself to drift into
a position of such dependence on the machines that it would have no practical
choice but to accept all of the machines decisions. As society and the
problems that face it become more and more complex and machines become more
and more intelligent, people will let machines make more of their decision
for them, simply because machine-made decisions will bring better results
than man-made ones. Eventually a stage may be reached at which the decisions
necessary to keep the system running will be so complex thaL human beings
will be incapable of making them intelligently. At that stage the machines
will be in effective control. People won't be able to just turn the machines
off, because they will be so dependent on them that turning them off would
amount to suicide." (Kaczynski, 1995)
References
Bell, J., 2002, 'Technotopia: Clones, Supercomputers, & Robots',
http://www.kurzweilai.net [viewed 4/10/02]
Broderick, D., 1997, The Spike: Accelerating into the Unimaginable Future,
Reed, Melbourne, pp. 1-21, 23-29
Feyerabend, P., Science in a Free Society, New Left Books, London,
pp.86-91, 96-107
Joy, B., 2000, 'Why the future doesn't need us', Wired,
April 2000
Kaczynski, T., 1995 Industrial Society and its Future,
http://www.emf.net/~estephen/manifesto/unabetoo.html [viewed
3/10/02]
Merton, R. K., The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical
Investigations, ed. N.W. Storer, University of Chicago Press,
Chicago, pp.268-78
S.I.A.I., 2001, 'Creating Friendly AI: the Challenges of Friendly
AI', Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence,
http://www.singinst.org
Smith, G, 2002, 'Vernon Vinge's Vision', from 'Technotopia and the
Death of Nature',
http://www.kurzweilai.net [viewed 4/10/02]
An End Note:
This essay was written in the second half of 2002, if you want to reference it it's Team Sunny Breaks (or email for name), and you're viewing this at www.sunnybreaks.org.
I got 80% for this thing! :^)