Our Techno-Utopian Future: Fallacies and Predictions
What's the ultimate destiny of our civilization? Are we destined to become "living batteries" a la the Matrix, refugees in a post-apocalyptic radioactive desert landscape, or peons of a totalitarian surveillance state? Or, can be look forward to a luxurious but boring utopia, with robot servants and automated factories to meet our every whim, but nothing to do? FULL ARTICLE
Comments (29)
http://www.moller.com/
FLYING CAR! FLYING CAR!!!!
Boo to you nay-sayers!!!
Published: January 9, 2007 10:06 AM
This is a great article.
Anyway, I agree that increasing technology and instant worldwide communications will continually improve our lives. Sure, that's nothing new. But the thing for libertarians is that perhaps this is what will contain and reduce the state, because it will literally be unable to control what's going on, unable to monitor it all, keep track of transactions. Government simply does not scale the way that massive market decentralization can.
Technology, in my opinion, is the one thing that could make anarchy happen "naturally" (let's put aside revolutions and such things, which at best are temporary).
Published: January 9, 2007 10:18 AM
I'd be interested in the author's thoughts on the technological "Singularly -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity -- and quote Dr. Albert Bartlett in this regard: "The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function."
Moreover, since Bartlett's statement is the lead-in to Chris Martenson's compelling piece "The End of Money" --http://www.financialsense.com/fsu/editorials/martenson/2007/0108.html -- I'd be interested in the author's thoughts on how the specter of global financial collapse stands to impact the future he envisions.
I say this not just because it is the one disaster scenario he leaves out, but because it is the only one that is so quantifiable as to be inevitable, so much so that it could happen at virtually any moment. For what Martenson is talking about, after all, isn't the end of money but what happens when money is utterly corrupted.
And for what it's worth, while I agree with Manuel Lora that technology will untimately empower the individual enough to render the state null and void, what the state has wrought financially means that humanity has hell to pay in the near term, as this truly man-made disaster unfolds.
Published: January 9, 2007 10:35 AM
Good article! One doomsday scenario you left out is the grey goo. Nanotech replicators gone awry eating all carbon based life in the planet, although if that were to happen it would be an honest accident, or a terrorist attack by religious fanatics. Another one that worries me is a super virus capable of wiping out a large percentage of the population emerging from the parallel processing genetic algorithm of 6 billion people with millions of viruses in their bodies, any of which can mutate at any moment. So we will need nanotech to stop that virus if and when it does emerge.
On a more positive note, there is the whole cyborg scenario, merging of humans with machines, and enhancement of bodies and minds to the point that we are way beyond humans in our capabilities.
Published: January 9, 2007 11:05 AM
What, no flying cars?? Love the futuristic city picture.
However, I don't think it's doomsday-ish to say that with this new technology, government, terrorist and criminal enterprises will also be able to do more harm. Yes, we can probably figure out how to effectively deal with it, but it will initially be more than just an inconvenience.
Published: January 9, 2007 11:55 AM
I disagree about the prominence of "intellectual property" in the future. As replication and information become ubiquitous, that will force the market to center around the service value instead of the control value of invention and discovery. You can see that in Linux vs Microsoft, the Internet vs TV and so on.
Also, it is very important for innovations in liberty to keep up with innovations in technology. Europe's failure to adjust their freedom infrastructure to match their technology infrastructure cost them two world wars and 10's of millions of dead people. While technology in the US has exploded, freedom has actually decreased in many areas. That creates man made instability, which leads to man made disasters such as financial collapse, or war. The US is probably pre destined to suffer a financial disaster as markets can move trillions of dollars per day out of an over-leveraged dollar, and as the death of copyrights kills much of the established US content and software industry.
Notice how the system was working by controlling (financial) information and content in a way that restricted peoples liberties. Then new technology like the Internet comes along and is positioned to blow it all to hell. We have not let our freedom infrastructure keep pace with our technology infrastructure, that has created instability which has set us up for disaster.
Published: January 9, 2007 12:01 PM
David C:
"We have not let our freedom infrastructure keep pace with our technology infrastructure, that has created instability which has set us up for disaster."
I fully agree, as "The End of Money" article that I referenced above makes clear.
On a brighter note, however, the OpenCourseWare movement -- http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0104/p13s02-legn.html -- is revolutionizing college education and stands to one day put an end to our otherwise socialized education system.
Published: January 9, 2007 12:23 PM
I'm afraid that the most accurate prognostication will be a description of Philip K Dick's work such as "Blade Runner", "Minority Report", "Total Recall","A Scanner Darkly" "
Paranoid Fantasy plus 30 years = Reality
Published: January 9, 2007 2:48 PM
The technological Singularity is the greatest threat to human survival. Technology may nullify the state, but (according to Ray Kurzweil) it will also nullify our humanity.
To quote Joseph Campbell in "The Power of Myth:" . . . technology is not going to save us. Our computers, our tools, our machines are not enough. We have to rely on our intuition, our true being."
Better to be a Jew in Hitler's Germany than to not be human in Kurzweil's techno-utopia.
Published: January 9, 2007 4:44 PM
I am an advocate of AI development (weak and strong) and subscribe Ray Kurzweil's ideas. I would have mentioned it in the article, but it's too radical of an idea (a paradigm shift, really) and requires a lot of context and technical background to understand its causes and consequences.
As far as the threat from gray goo and runaway technology in general is concerned - well, it's certainly a potential existential threat, just like nuclear weapons, though perhaps even more so. However like nuclear weapons, high-technology is inevitable in the long term - the only question is who develops it first. Rather that futile attempts at stopping progress, we should act to make sure that the "good guys" are the forefront of progress. I'm not sure who the "good guys" are, but I sure as hell hope it's not the Chinese government, or any totalitarian state that takes advantage of Western "safety" measures meant to delay the inevitable.
>>"Our computers, our tools, our machines are not enough. We have to rely on our intuition, our true being."
Our "true" being is just our rational facility, which technology has the potential to greatly enhance, just as it has already expanded our lives and minds.
If *you* want to survive by your "intuition" you'd better find yourself a cave or tree and learn how to survive on grubs.
Published: January 9, 2007 5:55 PM
Matt Robare:
But what is it to be human? According to the ancient apothgem -- "There is nothing greater in nature than man, and there is nothing greater in man than mind" -- the Singularity would put man on the threshold of his release from biological bondage, freeing him to realize his enormous potential.
In other words, why wouldn't technology save us, as it's nothing other than applied mind?
Published: January 9, 2007 5:56 PM
David Veksler:
Yes, it's "too radical," but as fast as we are moving toward it (just look at Apple's new iPhone -- http://blog.wired.com/wiredphotos16), I firmaly believe that it's time the libertarian community confronted the idea head-on. And I thank you for voicing your opinion accordingly.
Published: January 9, 2007 6:04 PM
David
Of course there'll be flying cars! They'll be Hondas! Whadya mean there won't be?
Enjoyed the article. Looks like we'll have a difficult time in the short term but then there'll be improvements after that.
Talofa!
Sione
Published: January 9, 2007 6:39 PM
Robare - I'd sign on becoming post-human any time. The life is way too short for everything I'd like to see, to learn, and to do.
Published: January 9, 2007 10:02 PM
As a male human, I don't think robots could ever replace women. So I would look for ever increasingly sophisticated ways to date women.
And since sexes will still be seperate there will be divorce lawyers, wedding chapples, honey moon vacation places, etc. So there is no need to worry about robots replacing humans. That is unless you watch the new Battlestar Galactica show. Then maybe we should worry...
Published: January 9, 2007 11:08 PM
banker, I suggest you visit Ray Kurzweil's site and perhaps sign up for his daily email updates, as it'll give you a better feel for the extraorindary research that's going on as we speak and what it portends for the future:
http://www.kurzweilai.net/index.html?flash=1
Published: January 10, 2007 7:26 AM
David Veksler:
Where do you buy your optimism vitamins? They would make a good supplement to my daily ration of grubs.
PJ
Published: January 10, 2007 9:59 AM
Who would want a complete truthful record of his entire life saved for replay?! In Jewish tradition, that's what's supposed to happen when you die and get to the Hereafter. There, you get to have all of your life laid out in front of you for judgment.
One the great European rabbis of the last century, the Hafes Hayyim, said that among the reasons G-d allows us to discover and invent all these neat gadgets in an age of growing atheism is to give doubters a little glimpse of how G-d works. He used the movie camera as an example of how man's actions could be recorded and played back for judgment in the World To Some. He said that in previous generations people could scoff at such a "fairytale" and couldn't imagine that actions could be faithfully recorded and played back. The invention of the movie camera thus gave these scoffers a real-life example.
But, for my taste, this new technology is just too much. I'll wait to have my entire life scrupulously reviewed by the Heavenly Tribunal, not before, thank you.
In the meanwhile, what about my FLYING CAR??
Published: January 10, 2007 11:21 PM
Who would want a complete truthful record of his entire life saved for replay?!
Me!
Of course, I'd want it encrypted and protected so that only I could play it back, but it'd be great to have everything reviewable on demand!
Published: January 11, 2007 12:54 AM
I would speak to a Holocaust survivor before you make claims like that, Matt Robare. I Googled a bit about Kurzweil's utopian future and I couldn't find anything malevolent in it - a few dangers, but nothing approaching genocide. I did find a range of intelligent people exploring how computers and robots can and should shape our actual future.
Published: January 11, 2007 2:12 AM
Inspiring read that asks more questions that it answers.
Published: January 11, 2007 6:13 AM
I'm with Craig. Me want FLYING CAR! The closest I get to one is flying my Microlite Trike on Microsoft Flight Simulator X, but if the future don't hold no FLYING CARS, Kemosabe, then you can keep it. If even desert bums on Tatooine, thousands of years ago, in a galaxy far far away can get one, then where's mine? I reckon it's yet another capitalist market failure that ought to get fixed by intelligent government intervention! ;-)
Published: January 11, 2007 5:13 PM
> global civilization tied together by trade began to arise, and despite the best attempts of governments, is closer than ever today.
The global industrial society libertarians love 'peaked' in 1850. After that time, there's been a steady stream of bad news. Anybody reading the papers should be aware of this fact.
Right now the US government and the majority of its morally deficient subjects are the biggest threat to liberty - they have the resources to blow up a good part of the globe - and the will to do it.
>The coming of the information age expands the possibilities for the production of goods and services. Because ideas can be communicated worldwide in an instant, design teams can be separated from manufacturing facilities...etc...etc.
This is pure 'marxist' materialism. The key question is not whether the telegraph or the internet works. The key question is whether The Law, i.e. self-ownership, exists or not.
Socialism is not dead. As a matter of fact it's more powerful than ever. And its HQ are located in Washington DC.
The basic identity of socialism and militarism was common knowledge for libertarians. Who's the biggest military organization on earth ?
Published: January 11, 2007 7:26 PM
Ayn Trotsky:
"The key question is not whether the telegraph or the internet works. The key question is whether The Law, i.e. self-ownership, exists or not."
No, the key question is whether the liberty that is concomitant with self-ownership will be sufficiently upheld by the law that is derived from them to overcome the forces that oppose our individual aspirations, no matter that we don't know where those aspirations will lead us or what form we will take along the way.
(Nice name, by the way. How'd you come by it?)
Published: January 11, 2007 8:24 PM
>(Nice name, by the way. How'd you come by it?)
Oh, I don't know. Both Ms. Ayn and Mr. Leon were russian and both seemed to get along with the military...
It mas a sort of poetic license, hopping to stress my point that socialism is alive and well.
Published: January 11, 2007 10:41 PM
"Must-know terms for the 21st Century intellectual":
http://sentientdevelopments.blogspot.com/2007/01/must-know-terms-for-21st-century_11.html
Published: January 12, 2007 12:23 PM
Allow me to clarify: the Singularity is not melevolent, it is among the most benevolent forces ever conceived. But it is malign--it's one of the good intentions the road to Hell is paved with. To have your thinking done by a machine ultimately means that you become unable to think for yourself anymore. That is the evil of the Singularity.
It also gives false promises of immortality and power--it increases attachment to this world.
I have noticed that Mises's theories can be generalized to any living thing. Consequently, controling life in the manner advocated by Singulatarians is as doomed to failure as a socialist state.
Technolgy cannot save us because it's solely material. We need God.
I find that "transcending of biology" has its roots in the Manicheaian/Gnostic heresies that stipulated that the world was so evil that it had to be escaped; but now, it is biology that is evil. It also seems that Kurzweil has a phobic fear of death.
The universe is temporary and humanity has not reached its biological limits--if it has any--by far. We haven't even tried.
Published: January 13, 2007 11:04 PM
Matt Robare:
Let me try to understand you:
Central planning is impossible to computers - so we need a central planner in God? What happened to free will?
"To have your thinking done by a machine ultimately means that you become unable to think for yourself anymore."
We are able to get by without thinking about lots of things in an industrial society. Some things, like the division of labor are necessary, other things, like blindly accepting a moral or political code are wrong. Computers don't change that - they free us to work on things we consider more important.
"It also gives false promises of immortality and power--it increases attachment to this world."
Hell yes, I want to live forever - or at least as long as biology/technology will allow. But I don't spend my time obsessing about a technological salvation any more than mystical fantasies of the hereafter. I'm working to create the future one day at a time - which is more than can be said of mystics blindly clutching their crosses and praying to make horses out of wishes.
Published: January 14, 2007 3:57 AM
What an interesting article... It is compelling even to a cynic. However, I don't think you really touched on two possible scenarios which I think are very possible, and in fact which have historical precedents: natural calamities such as an asteroid impact or supervolcano, and pandemics. Though, with the right technology, even these threats could ultimately be controlled. In general, the future you seem to aspire to has a very Roddenberry-esque feel to it, though you seem not to be concerned with one element that was crucial to the Roddenberry timeline, which was a massive reduction in population due to global warfare. The article seems to dismiss the notion that that population will become an issue, although most people I know, including myself, think it already is (perhaps this comes from growing up in a small town?)
I think humans will evolve as our lifestyles evolve, as technology changes what we are able to do and what we have need to do. Certainly, at some point down the road, the human of tomorrow will not resemble the human of today much at all. As a sentimental type who is particularly fond of the current homo sapien form-factor, I can't help but reach for the salt whenever I encounter full-on, lip-smacking enthusiasm for Mother Technology. At the same time, the possibilities are fascinating.
Published: January 19, 2007 3:40 PM