“Building the future of human existence on the vagaries of human nature.” With emerging technologies; there is no safety margin – because we don’t know what is safe. There is no remediation – because we may all be extinct. And there is no responsibility – because holding a scientific theory accountable is like enforcing an unsigned contract.
The safety of Emerging Technologies is not “an exact science” – it’s a gamble — and we’re putting more and more of our chips on the table.
Zero Population by 2050? You say; “No way!” So what. “It’s unthinkable!” Maybe we ought to think about it.
The Big New Idea: It’s the magic bullet scientific solution to clean up decades of missed opportunities and misconduct – what could be more appealing to politicians.
When will we find out? When it’s too late for scientists to fix their mistake; and too late for politicians to cover it up. Just enough time to wonder why you gave up cigarettes.
[Thanks to the Bunny Rabbits font from GemFonts]
“New Millennium Science: There’s bad news and there’s good news. The bad news is; we may all become extinct. The good news is; it will end discrimination.”
Our government has its priorities straight: inflexible Doctrine. Reality takes a back seat to Centrality — until it’s time for the reality check-out.
Trusting the judgement of someone who has Fame, Fortune, and the realization of a dream in the balance can come at a price.
“Nanotechnology” proponents refute the doomsday scenario of The Extinction of All Life On Earth with: “the danger of gray goo is far less likely than originally thought” – and “such dangers lie too far in the future to be of concern to regulators” – or the “more realistic threats associated with knowledge-enabled nanoterrorism” — none of which sounds like, “it can’t happen” or “impossible.”
While the loss of human life from the “unexpected consequences” of emerging technologies falls under the “shit happens” umbrella of scientific progress – scientists do labor under one constant fear — loss of funding.
In an ever degrading and irremediable biosphere; Our technological morality play reads like the script of a horror movie: And no matter how much you shout at the screen — they never learn.
You wouldn’t let stockbrokers, just because they knew more about stocks than you: decide what level of risk you should take – especially if their gain played a major role in the decision. So why do we let scientists and politicians who have everything to gain from the risk; gamble with our lives – and all life on earth?
What sort of guarantees do they provide? That if we become extinct – we’ll get our money back?
One 50’s science fiction movie offered $50,000 to the first person who could prove that the monster “IT” was not on Mars – that’s the sort of bet that corporations and technologists like to rely on: For many decades; the difficulties in proving that profitable new scientific developments and applications were actually harmful to people and the environment has taken a mountain of facts – and years of fighting regulatory backpedaling.
The biggest contributor to the Chernobyl disaster was not human error – it was human nature.
[Here’s a sure bet] If emerging technologies create an earth-threatening event; what is the first thing scientists will do? Try to cover it up.
Isn’t it time to demand that the burden of proof be reversed — before Science makes their final mistake – our final mistake?
“It depends on how you see the world.” There used to be a morality question: “If you could press a button; and kill a million people on the other side of the world; and get a million dollars – would you do it?”
This simple “yes/no” scenario would be met today with equivocation: “It’s only about 1/8000th of the world’s population – 0.013%.” or “There are too many people anyway” or [maybe even more dismissive] “A million dollars isn’t worth that much today.”
It seems that the only objection to making a deal with the Devil: is not getting the best deal possible.
If in the setting of Science; People don’t have much importance – why are we letting Science decide our future?
Science and politics are what people do; Art is what people are — maybe we should remember that.
When you read those articles that discuss the advantages and disadvantages of new technology, and the risks inherent in low-probability, high-impact outcomes from emerging technologies: there is one important factor that never seems to be included — the benefit to scientists.
With the prospect of fame, fortune, and the realization of a dream in the balance; these scientists are the last people you can expect to give an impartial and unbiased opinion; and yet they are frequently the decision makers in our “should we risk it” scenario building.
Human nature is not something that only operates outside the boundaries of Science. And the Scientific Method demands that they be allowed to experiment to the end limits of their instrumentality – and beyond. Even if it’s the End of the World — They were the ones who brought it about. Megalomaniacs and Doomsday devices operate all the more freely behind today’s Selfless Science façade.
Not with a bang but a Nobel Prize winning obsession.
“Chernobyl wasn’t an accident: It was a safety test.” Leaving aside other interpretations: If the reactions of authorities to the Chernobyl disaster is a test of our future safety – How safe are we?
Let’s look at the “fallout” — in spite of the willful disregard, and deliberate subordination of safety; to monetary, political, and personal agendas – both before and after the “incident”: nuclear proponents insist on labeling it an “accident” – implying that on one is to blame.
The very fact that such a thing can happen; shows that it can happen again — unless you can change human nature.
Some scientists now believe they should contemplate the possible risks from advancing a technology: “wherein slight permutations of initial conditions can lead to unforeseen and profoundly negative downstream effects, for which the technologist and the new technology’s proponents must be held accountable.”
In their worst-case scenario: all life on earth may be extinguished; but someone will be held accountable afterward? — Is that the best that science logic can do?
“Everything in Science is clear cut: Until you get to their mistakes.” Like just about everything nowadays; Science is shamelessly self-promoting – which makes “spin-doctoring” part of the Scientific Method.
The defects in their “Creators of the Universe” persona are patched with “unexpected,” “complicated,” and “unforeseen” modeling tools — using human lives as the material.
And the credit grabbing “science” and “scientist” word choices; quickly change into a generalized “us,” “we” or “people” whenever mistakes appear as outliers on the bell-shaped profile of Scientific Progress.
Dr. Frankenstein has gone mainstream – nothing can stand in the way of Science; there are no ethical or moral boundaries; no value of human life or real concern for repercussions that will stop it. Science has taken a cue from the “One Thought” Doctrine of today; and written their own mantra: “I can; therefor I will.”
When the extinction of the human race is in the balance – what can you weigh it against? And how could you trust anyone that thinks that they can?
Even if we tried to stop the progress of our runaway adolescence – the breaking distance extends far into the future; and we’ve still got our foot on the gas pedal.
Gray Goo may be a low order of probability — but we seem obsessed with rolling the dice.