“In times like these, it is helpful to remember that there have always been times like these.”
Ten years beyond Bill Joy’s controversial article in this publication, and we have yet to be overtaken by the robots. Humanity has not been destroyed by hyper-contagious disease. The nanotechnological terrorists have yet to strike. But does this mean we are in the clear, that Joy was just being cynical? Not likely.
In Why the Future Doesn’t Need Us in the April 2000 issue of Wired, the co-founder of Sun Microsystems warned of the apocalyptic risks of genetic, nano, and robotic technology (GNR). He argued that GNR poses a much different risk than nuclear, biological and chemical technologies (NBC) because of their inherent nature. NBC is complex technology that requires a certain level of raw materials and resources in order to be employed. As a result most of its development has come within the national (read: “military”) context where both its secrets and its materials have been able to be well protected. Further, NBC is discrete, in that it doesn’t self-replicate and requires continuous human construction and execution. Joy argues that these are the reasons why doomsday predictions regarding NBC have yet to pan out.
Joy finds GNR to be a totally different story. It’s less susceptible to being controlled by national entities due to the fact that it’s less resource driven and more knowledge driven. Commercial entities engage in much more GNR research than they ever did for NBC simply because it’s more profitable. As a result, GNR is not restricted to national entities and is very accessible to the masses. Perhaps more importantly, Joy argues that GNR has the ability to self-replicate which means that it can easily extend beyond human control – this is not the case for NBC technology where although the effects of such technology could be devastating, they always require humans for there creation, multiplication and deployment.
With respect to robotics, Joy endorses Ray Kurzweil’s view that in the near future, we will have the ability to download our consciousness onto machines. We will also continue to deploy more intelligent robotic technology to do human tasks, to the point where robots will exist that are able to recreate themselves. These features will essentially make human existence obsolete or at the very least, altered to the point that we can no longer be truly considered human. Genetic engineering has the ability to create what he calls “White Plague” – highly contagious, deadly disease. Nanotechnology has the ability to create what he calls “gray goo” – uncontrolled replicators capable of destroying the biosphere and selectively eradicating certain areas or peoples. Joy argues that all of these technologies are completely accessible to those with merely a desire for knowledge. As a result, he thinks that we should abandon our quest for knowledge in these areas through regulatory means. If we don’t (and fast) we are essentially architecting our own demise.
Joy’s article spawns two types of critics. The first are those like John Horgan who disagree with Joy’s premise. In The End of Science, Horgan argues that science has actually achieved most of what it can achieve at least in a paradigm-shifting sense. He claims science today, to be a practice that achieves minute advances, unlike those achieved in the last few centuries. As a result, the capabilities that Joy and Kurzweil envision will only ever exist in the realm that they currently do – science fiction. For the purposes of this discussion (and the fact that I am not a scientist), I will not specifically address Horgan’s argument but instead take Joy’s premise as truth.
The opposite stream of “criticism” of Joy’s views (although it is perhaps better categorized as indifference) is that the GNR implications that Joy outlines are not only possible – they are actually inevitable regardless of the policy choices that we make. They think that creating and enforcing regulations that prohibit the quest for knowledge is completely unfeasible because it is in our nature to desire knowledge and the overwhelming majority of human beings would never accept it. Alternatively, even if we were able to regulate for a time, it would merely be delaying the inevitable.
Joy is basically dumbfounded by these individuals, who he admits make up a large portion of the scientific community. Despite the fact that they are aware of the GNR risks and what is at stake, they continue to pursue their scientific quest. These scientists (like Danny Hillis who Joy uses as an example in his article) believe that there should be no limits placed on our quest for knowledge, and seem willing to accept the consequences, even if they include the total transformation or even eradication of humanity.
To address the issue of GNR inevitability, two things have to be addressed. First, we have to look at what it would actually take in order to create a regime that Joy desires – one that sees our quest for GNR knowledge to cease. Second, we have to look at the plausibility and practicality of such a regime being created and enforced. After doing so it will be evident that Joy is running a steep uphill battle against GNR and its implications – one that he is very much unlikely to succeed in.
In order to be able to avoid the consequences of GNR, we would have to have a monumental paradigm shift in the way we operate. Instead of seeing ourselves as beings that desire to think, solve problems and create inventions, we would instead have to be willfully blind to our abilities. Although we would be aware that certain answers are within our reach, we would have to specifically set out to avoid them.
It seems highly unlikely that humans will accept Joy’s proposal, at least, before it’s too late. As stated, it would require a completely enormous paradigm shift in the way that we think and operate. It appears we are biologically structured to seek knowledge and truth and to abandon such a thing would be scientifically impossible – especially at the macro level. However, we are also genetically engineered to strive for survival. So we are left with a threat that is almost “genetically circular” – our quest to obtain something and our quest to survive.
This genetic circularity also seems to exist in another context: climate change. Our biological desire to want to consume more conflicts with our quest for survival. So far, it seems that we have valued consumption over survival in this context. Generally speaking, our voting trends support the theory that we value the economy over our environment to this point. I believe that this is because we are short sighted and require real, intrinsic, and visible threats before we seriously address them. Although the overwhelming majority of people acknowledge that climate change is happening at least to some degree, virtually none have been actually locally affected to this point. If for example, ocean levels begin to rise at a significant rate, we would be much more willing to seriously combat the effects of climate change. Why? Because the masses are much more likely to be significantly impacted in the near future and the threat is a much more visible and local one. That cataclysmic event is what’s needed to spur real action on the issue.
Like climate change, I believe that GNR also requires a cataclysmic event in order for the masses to start taking it seriously to the point where they are willing to fundamentally alter their own behaviour in order to survive. However, as Joy points out in the context of GNR (and perhaps as some see for climate change), it may then be too late. The ability for self-replication in GNR implies that once the genie is out of the bottle, it is not possible to be put back in. The fact that we can create GNR defence technologies to combat GNR itself is totally negated by the fact that GNR is much more threatening and will have done far too much damage before it can be either combated or reversed. Indeed, Paul Harvey has never been so wrong.
After discussing all of this, I can’t help but remember a tour that I took of Thomas Edison’s old home during a family vacation some years ago in Fort Myers, Florida. It reflects the importance we place in knowledge and invention as well as the irony of where GNR technology appears to be taking us. When the tour guide brought us to Edison’s swimming pool, she mentioned that he never himself used it – he found exercise to be a waste of time because the only reason the body existed was to have some place to support the mind.
I wonder if Edison would think GNR would be a dream come true?
