HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
June 8, 2006 Fred asserts but does not prove the claim, "Technology is the only hope for mankind." I agree that sci-tech needs to be respected, and those asteroids need to be harnessed or kept at bay! I think that Fred didn't really get my point, however, and so I need to present it again. I wasn't really trying to prove anything per se, but I think the answer is rather obvious. What else besides high technology, based on powerful science, could harness or deter a large asteroid? I implied that John, who favors metaphysical solutions, would fare worse than those using solutions based on physics. We all know enough about basic physics to imagine deterrents for asteroids. We go up there and do something to the darn thing – attach engines of some sort, blow it up, blow it off track, etc. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction – simple physics. Even with such a simple frame, however, the specifics would require very advanced technology. I'm not sure how I can “prove” it any better than that. My question stands – what other mechanism could we possibly use to deter a mountain of doom headed our way? In any case, much of John's piece makes associations that are not related to each other and any answer I could provide would simply be my personal opinion on human nature. Whatever humans have, be it empathy, the desire to kill, and so forth, could be copied into a computer eventually. We could “therefore” teach a machine to both hate and love, if we wished it. John asked me to somehow demonstrate how a computer could think without feeling empathy, I think I've shown that as well as can be expected, given that we haven't actually done anything like this yet. I also showed that part of the reason that man is intelligent is because of our violent, hunter, natures. Don't blame me – I didn't evolve us ;) Yeah, I agree it is a catch-22. I surely don't agree with John that humans are worse today then they have been in the past – we've always been like this and I think the current global institutions make today better. Two nearby tribes used stone tipped spears to kill each other yesterday, and today we can do it with nukes from opposite sides of the planet. It's not as if the people in the 20th century were somehow more evil, however. History is LOADED with ethnic cleansing and other evil examples. Imagine if the Catholic church had had modern technology during the Inquisition! It's a problem. If we stop now and say, “that's enough, this technology has crossed a line, we have to live simply again!”, then we close the window of time that we have to escape extinction. If we continue progressing, we risk future wars being that much more deadly. Personally, I think the survival of the species itself trumps any wars we may have along the way. My ultimate hope is that humans will leave this rock and settle all over, hopefully being so spread apart from each other, that even if we make killing each other super-efficient, no single case of human evil will endanger us all. Isn't that the safest bet? Technology also offers the hope that we can change ourselves for the better – we could “program” empathy into our future selves. Personally, I'm not so sure this would be a good thing, as evil does some unpredictable good sometimes by replacing apathy and getting people united against a common foe - bloody revolutions, for example. I'd be careful about changing human nature itself. Another possible solution is to remove all tradition and culture – to raise children in some sort of utterly neutral way, rather than raising them with the prejudices we all grow up with. Of course, I wouldn't want my children to be taken away, so this rather impractical, I think. Unlike John, I think that anyone is capable of doing evil if they are caught in the right circumstances. I also think that most people are good most of the time. I don't think intelligence has anything to do with it, and I do not believe in saints. Sometimes, folks are in a position to do great good, and they do so. Schindler might be a good example – certainly no saint, taking advantage of a bad situation, but when it really counted, he did the right thing. Mother Theresa, on the other hand, was no saint, and she should quit being considered one! She was a religious loon who encouraged people to revel in being filthy-poor and she was opposed to pain relief medicines and the like (if I were suffering, I'd probably rather die than be in her care)... So for me, a better solution is to simply allow humans to spread beyond easy reach of each other – put our eggs into many baskets. If two close space colonies blow each other to smithereens, others may survive to see another day. I'm really not THAT pessimistic, I just think the survival of the species trumps the continuation of one culture/nation/religion/philosophy. Naturally, it is my humanistic hope that humans will get along better – surely, many colonies, much of the time, will trade and work together, just as nations do today. I believe in the idea that modern democracies are much less likely to attack each other – it does seem to be the case so far, and there are more democracies than ever. I also believe that trading blocks, competing but interdependent, would risk too much if they attacked each other. Would China not be foolish to attack us in the foreseeable future? Their economy would tank! Today is better than yesterday - there is real hope. But my skeptical nature about humans suggests other prudent actions just in case... As for Singularity-specific technology, I don't think it's any better or worse than any other technology. Humans ought to die in their early 30s. Now, many live to be in their 90s – that's a three fold increase. If “hardware implants” allow us to live three times longer yet, how is that significantly different? If I had to summarize my opinion about all of this, I'd have to say that science is necessary and despite the progress which scares many people, I do think the world of man is getting better. John seems to want to know if science can save the soul of man – who knows? But I do know that it is required to save the species of man. ------------ About the author Frederick Smith: I enjoy writing about the positive virtues of humanism - humanists are the good guys. I now have a blog that I will start to increasingly maintain and update. Here is the link: fredsuberview.blogspot.com/ About my personal background and life: I was born, I got some education, worked, ate, and had some kids. It seems I like to write � something that was unknown to me until relatively recently...How's that for detail? ;) Hate mail is welcome unless you are from the Army Of God. Please! It's not that I mind seeing pictures of aborted fetuses in my inbox, but once you've seen one you've pretty much seen them all... Email: dahlek65@gmail.com Comment on this article here! ------------ All articles are EXCLUSIVE to Useless-Knowledge.com. Please link to this article rather than copying and pasting it onto your site (which would be unauthorized and illegal). |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
