Are We Becoming An Endangered Species? Technology and Ethics in the 21st Century

by	Washington National Cathedral

Are We Becoming an Endangered Species? Technology and Ethics in the 21st Century will bring together a panel of leading experts on November 19 at Washington National Cathedral in Washington, D.C. to explore the ethics of technological advances, especially as they relate to genetic engineering, nanotechnology and robotics. The panelists are Bill Joy, author, and co-founder and chief scientist of Sun Microsystems, Ray Kurzweil, author, inventor and president of Kurzweil Technologies, Anne Foerst, visiting professor for Theology and Computer Science at St. Bonaventure University and Bill McKibben, author, environmentalist and visiting scholar at Middlebury College.

Briefing paper published prior to conference on November 19, 2001. Published on KurzweilAI.net November 8, 2001. See Ray Kurzweil's responses to questions posed in this article.

Briefing Paper

PROGRESS OVER PIETY?

Technology and theology, science and ethics are often at odds. The struggle between an insatiable thirst for knowledge and an unwavering faith in God has existed since humans first tasted the forbidden fruit in Eden. From Galileo to Darwin, the tension between scientists and theists has persisted throughout history.

The debates over stem cell research, cloning and abortion are but a few examples of the recent conflicts between moral purpose and scientific progress. Far from being decided, the discourse over the meaning of life and the essence of humanity continues. And so, in the early dawn of the 21^st century, we find ourselves weighing the benefits and detriments of technological advances.

Are We Becoming an Endangered Species? Technology and Ethics in the 21st Century will bring together a panel of leading experts to explore the ethics of technological advances, especially as they relate to genetic engineering, nanotechnology and robotics. The panelists, Bill Joy, author, and co-founder and chief scientist of Sun Microsystems, Ray Kurzweil, author, inventor and president of Kurzweil Technologies, Anne Foerst, visiting professor for Theology and Computer Science at St. Bonaventure University and Bill McKibben, author, environmentalist and visiting scholar at Middlebury College, will discuss the moral, religious and environmental impact of technology on society and nature.

EXTINCTION OR EVOLUTION?

Bill Joy

As the cofounder and chief scientist of Sun Microsystems, and one of the architects of the Internet, Bill Joy is an unlikely crusader against the trappings of technology. Nonetheless, Joy spurred a heated debate when he published an article suggesting, "Our most powerful 21^st-century technologies -- robotics, genetic engineering, and nanotech -- are threatening to make humans an endangered species."¹ In this treatise, he describes a future worthy of science fiction where humans are rendered extinct by a far-superior robot species and the essence of nature is irrevocably altered, both victims of our unbridled technological and scientific advances.

As he describes an encounter with author and inventor Ray Kurzweil at an industry conference, Joy introduces us to the prospect of humans fusing with robots, conjuring images of the Borg -- the part-human, part-machine warrior race that threatens the universe--from an episode of Star Trek or, perhaps, "bionic" humans -- enhanced by nanotechnology and computer implants--as seen on the silver screen in The Terminator. The vision is at once seductive and frightening.

Joy asks us to imagine that the impossible is possible. The human mind can be downloaded into a machine. At last, humanity learns to cheat death, to achieve immortality. The life everlasting is here on earth, not in heaven. All as a result of advances in genetic engineering, nanotechnology and robotics -- which Joy groups together as "GNR."

Genetic engineering, which is any human manipulation of the genetic code in the attempt to effect biological improvement in a species of plant or animal, has produced rose bushes that resist disease and insects, which most gardeners welcome, as well as economically efficient genetically altered crops, which many consumers currently reject as "Frankenfoods."

Likewise, nanotechnology, which is the art of manipulating materials on an atomic or molecular scale--especially to build microscopic devices (such as robots), holds the promise of enabling deaf people to hear. Thanks to nanotechnology, soon you will be able to swallow a camera instead of undergoing a colonoscopy.

Robotics--the technology dealing with the design, construction, and operation of robots in automation--promises to make the futuristic fantasy of "servant" robots, which will clean the house, cook dinner and watch the kids, a reality.

Certainly, GNR technologies will have a socioeconomic impact. However, the benefits of these technologies appear to justify continued advancement -- or do they?

Joy theorizes that genetic engineering, nanotechnology and robotics (GNR) are so powerful that they surely will result in accidents and abuses that threaten both humanity and the very essence of life. "Most dangerously, for the first time, these accidents are widely within the reach of individuals or small groups. They will not require large facilities or rare raw materials. Knowledge alone will enable the use of them.

"Thus we have the possibility not just of weapons of mass destruction but of knowledge-enabled mass destruction (KMD), this destructiveness hugely amplified by the power of self-replication."² In other words, the intelligent machines will run amok, proving to be uncontrollable, or, as Joy states, "A bomb is blown up only once -- but one bot can become many, and quickly get out of control."³ (A bot is a robot or nanobot. That is, a machine or engineered entity.)

If Joy's prospect of self-replicating intelligent machines has not sufficiently scared you, then genetic engineering should finish the job. "Genetic engineering promises to revolutionize agriculture by increasing crop yields while reducing the use of pesticides; to create tens of thousands of novel species of bacteria, plants, viruses, and animals; to replace reproduction, or supplement it, with cloning; to create cures for many diseases, increasing our life span and our quality of life; and much, much more. We now know with certainty that these profound changes in the biological sciences are imminent and will challenge all our notions of what life is.

"Technologies such as human cloning have in particular raised our awareness of the profound ethical and moral issues we face. If, for example, we were to reengineer ourselves into several separate and unequal species using the power of genetic engineering, then we would threaten the notion of equality that is the very cornerstone of our democracy."⁴

Bioterrorism looms large in Joy's pessimistic view of unchecked technology. The same genetic technology that holds the promise of treating or even curing breast cancer, diabetes and Alzheimer's may be used to create biological weapons. The recent anthrax attacks and the threat of future attacks using the smallpox virus are the primitive beginnings of Joy's apocalyptic vision. Imagine an anthrax bacterium that self-replicates when exposed to air is secretly turned loose on a major city. The technologically enhanced anthrax would reproduce itself and infect an untold number of unsuspecting people before authorities realize they are under attack. Humans would not stand a chance against the super-bugs.

Joy warns, "Nanotechnology has clear military and terrorist uses, and you need not be suicidal to release a massively destructive nanotechnological device -- such devices can be built to be selectively destructive, affecting, for example, only a certain geographical area or a group of people who are genetically distinct."⁵

Plants do not fare any better than humans in the technologically advanced future. Joys sees a world where genetically altered plants throw the entire ecosystem out of balance. (Frankenfoods overrun the planet.) Inedible plants with technologically enhanced leaves would overtake real plants. The earth would collapse under the weight of technology. The world would cease to exist when the planet is finally destroyed by human inventions.

With reference to the experiences of the atomic scientists, Joy notes the need for today's scientists and technologists to take personal responsibility for the course of the future. He invites us to slow down and evaluate the consequences of new technologies and scientific progress. Joy demands that we ask hard questions about the impact of progress on humanity. He even suggests that, ultimately, we may need to halt the wheels of progress and stop the quest for scientific advances so that humanity and life itself may simply continue to exist.

Ray Kurzweil

It is ironic that author and inventor Ray Kurzweil launched Bill Joy on his crusade against the dangers of GNR technologies. From reading machines for the blind to music synthesizers, Kurzweil's inventions seem to exemplify the promise of intelligent machines to improve life and to serve humanity.

Kurzweil believes that the evolution of smart machines will run a natural course. "The emergence of machine intelligence that exceeds human intelligence in all of its broad diversity is inevitable."⁶ Rather than fear it, Kurzweil embraces the new technologies and their promise.

According to Kurzweil, there is an adjustment period to new technologies. "People often go through three stages in examining the impact of future technology: awe and wonderment at its potential to overcome age-old problems, a sense of dread at a new set of grave dangers that accompany these new technologies, followed, finally and hopefully, by the realization that the only viable and responsible path is to set a careful course that can realize the promise while managing the peril."⁷

Kurzweil and Joy apparently share a belief in the potential power of technology. Kurzweil even admits that Joy's concerns over abuses of technology are sound and reasonable. The two men differ on the remedy. While Joy suggests that we may need to abandon some technological pursuits for humanity's sake, Kurzweil argues that humanitarian concerns require the vigorous advancement of technologies.

"Human suffering continues and demands our steadfast attention. Should we tell the millions of people afflicted with cancer and other devastating conditions that we are canceling the development of all bioengineered treatments because there is a risk that these same technologies might one day be used for malevolent purposes? That should be a rhetorical question. Yet, there is a movement to do exactly that. Most people, I believe, would agree that such broad-based relinquishment of research and development is not the answer."⁸

The two men also share a concern over the relationship between terrorism and technology. While Joy focuses on the potential abuses of technological advances by terrorists, Kurzweil fears that the curtailment of technological research and development will create black market technology enterprises.

"Abandonment of broad areas of technology will only push these technologies underground where development would continue unimpeded by ethics or regulation. In such a situation, less stable, less responsible practitioners--for example, terrorists--would have a monopoly on deadly expertise."⁹ Furthermore, Kurzweil believes that it would be economic suicide to substantially slow or stop technological advancement.

Despite his enthusiasm for technological progress, Kurzweil supports what he calls "fine-grained relinquishments" like a moratorium on the development of physical entities that can self-replicate in a natural environment, a ban on self-replicating physical entities that contain their own codes for self-replication and a design called "Broadcast Architecture," which would require entities to obtain self-replicating codes from a centralized secure server that would guard against undesirable replication.

Noting that "nanobots" can be stronger and smarter than protein-based entities, Kurzweil points to Broadcast Architecture as one way in which nanotechnology can be made safer than biotechnology. Kurzweil foresees the combination of the two technologies with nanotechnology providing the codes within biological entities (replacing DNA), and utilizing Broadcast Architecture.

In his view, the benefits of new technologies far outweigh the risks. Kurzweil seems to have a relentless optimism about the ability of technologists and scientists to address any ill effects. He uses the example of computer viruses to demonstrate this point. "Although destructive, self-replicating software entities [computer viruses] do cause damage from time to time, the injury is but a small fraction--much less than one-tenth of 1 percent--of the benefit we receive from the computers and communication links that harbor them."¹⁰

At times, Kurzweil seems to be at odds with his own prophecy. While predicting that, by the year 2099, intelligent beings will no longer view life expectancy as a viable term, Kurzweil also questions what meaning life can have without death. "We make extraordinary efforts to delay [death,] and indeed often consider its intrusion a tragic event. Yet we would find it hard to live without it. Death gives meaning to our lives."¹¹

But Kurzweil quickly discards his doubts as he dreams of human immortality. "The human species, along with the computational technology it created, will be able to solve age-old problems of need, if not desire, and will be in a position to change the nature of mortality in a post-biological world."¹²

It seems both Kurzweil and Joy agree that, left unfettered, technologists and scientists will transform this planet into a world we can barely imagine, one in which the very essence of life and humanity will be redefined.

Anne Foerst

As a theologian, Lutheran minister and visiting professor for Theology and Computer Science at St. Bonaventure University, Anne Foerst is trying to foster a dialog between theologians and scientists and technologists, especially artificial intelligence (AI) researchers. She seeks to reconcile supporters and opponents of AI because of her certainty that both camps have unique contributions to make to the process of technological advancement.

"Theology cannot give any answer about how the brain might work and which mechanistic correlations there are in ourselves. AI, on the other hand, cannot give any answer about meaning of life and cannot support humans in their intuitive understanding of themselves and within their struggles with their ambiguous and fearful life.

"The Courage to Doubt of theologians, therefore, can lead both, people from the AI-camp and people from the theological camp to create all together, a common perspective on reality in which both sides play their own, important part!"¹³

Foerst recently served as the theological advisor for two artificial intelligence projects at M.I.T. When asked by a reporter why a theologian belonged in an AI laboratory, Foerst gave two reasons. First of all, she noted that theologians study cultural and spiritual dimensions of human beings -- information that should prove invaluable to those who construct humanoid machines.

Secondly, with the development of smart machines come ethical questions about how humans will treat such machines, and how those machines might one day treat humans. Foerst explains that, ultimately, humans will have to decide when and if the humanoid machines should be treated as intrinsically valuable.¹⁴

Foerst also has commented on the ethical issues surrounding human genetic engineering, especially as they relate to the human genome project. "The question of what makes an ideal human being arises--what would be the standards to measure a perfect human? That, of course, leads to the question of acceptance of a person... Will I be accepted only when I'm perfect, or can I be accepted if I have Trisomy 21 (Down syndrome) because my parents decided not to have a genetic test?

"These are the crucial questions of the whole genetic research. And, of course, as a consequence of that, who actually has the power to decide what it means to be 'normal'?"¹⁵

Perhaps most importantly, Foerst invites us to examine the ultimate goals of technological advancement. She asks if we really want to eradicate every human defect. And she ponders whether, in the end, society will be richer.

"When we think about certain mental impairments such as depression or bipolarity, which seem to have a genetic component, do we actually want to get rid of them, even if people with these illnesses are often enormously creative? For instance Mozart has been diagnosed to be very likely bipolar."¹⁶ Given that the thin line between genius and insanity has been long acknowledged, Foerst challenges us to assess the full impact of genetic engineering. When the genetic engineers decide what it means to be a perfect human, what will humanity have lost? And who will make those decisions?

As a theologian, Foerst also examines technological advances as they relate to God. She observes that humans, who were created in the image of God, have intrinsic values, regardless of our defects. And Foerst notes that, "[e]ven if we have decoded now, or mapped, 90 percent of the genome, it doesn't tell us anything about the dignity of human beings.¹⁷

Finally, Foerst encourages the public to be ever vigilant as technologists and scientists continue their work. She warns that if we place science over conscience, we may risk our own humanity. "The danger I see in some of the overstated claims is that people will say, 'Oh, humans are nothing but their genes,' and that they give science universal power over who they are and say that religion has no place. But I think that only we all together can come to an understanding of what it means to be a person."¹⁸

Bill McKibben

"In the blink of an eye, and with hardly a thought, our species has come to the verge of dominating everything that happens on the surface of the planet,"¹⁹ declared environmentalist and author Bill McKibben in his article "Humans Supplant God; Everything Changes." From global warming to genetic manipulation, McKibben warns that humanity is on a collision course with nature -- and this is the precise moment in time when humans can change the course.

McKibben compares this time in history to the Civil Rights movement of his parents' time, the Second World War of their parents and the Civil War of their parents. In other words this moment in time when "humans supplant God; everything changes" is big news -- but too few are talking about it. McKibben is critical of academics, bioethicists, the media and everyone who has failed to adequately take notice of stunning technological and scientific advances.

McKibben, who was among the first to warn of greenhouse gases and global warming in his book The End of Nature back in 1989, notes with great alarm that the oceans are rising as the glaciers melt, severe storms are increasing and animals are altering their migration patterns -- "all caused by the habits and appetites of one species."²⁰ He also warns that the growth of genetic manipulation, "from a small corner of the scientific enterprise to the very clear center of economic life,"²¹ may threaten the very essence of life, as we know it.

In 1989, McKibben also commented about the potential dangers of genetic engineering, a technology then in its infancy. "In the intervening years, this technology has spread like wildfire, to the point where 40 percent of our nation's fields grow genetically engineered crops, where animal after animal has been cloned; where everyone who thinks about it realizes it is only a matter of time, and likely a very short time, before we do likewise and more with human beings. As thresholds go, this is a large one-as different from conventional plant breeding, say, as global warming is from smog over Los Angeles."²²

Nanotechnology and robotics raise far-reaching concerns for McKibben. His dim view of unchecked technology includes a "post-human" world that McKibben imagines "might well be a world beyond religion, beyond delight, beyond morality or even communication beyond a set of coded rules and instructions."²³ McKibben predicts that life on an environmentally ravaged, technologically advanced earth in the not-so-distant-future may "be as spiritually and emotionally barren as that overheated world may be biologically barren."²⁴

Critical of what he labels "the frog-in-the-heating-pot" school of environmental philosophers and historians who chalk up human-induced changes in the environment as a natural byproduct of human progress, McKibben urges that it is time to take action. "My point is that we need to recognize the magnitude of the changes now under way. And if we are intellectually serious, morally serious, we need to engage in far more soul-searching than we've done so far about whether they make sense or not."²⁵

McKibben sounds a clarion call for the transformation of the environmental movement -- in his view, the necessary next step in the effort to save the earth. He warns the environmentalism must shift from its traditional "concern with preventing degradation to nature" to a new focus on preventing gratuitous technological and scientific improvements that threaten life, as we know it. "Whether we will still call it environmentalism, and whether it will draw its strength from the same places, is open to question. But the animating spirit will need to be a love for the world we were born into, both the physical world and the web of relationships, human and otherwise, that still survive here."²⁶

McKibben suggests some common sense limits on technological and scientific advances. For instance, he proposes that we might limit genetic manipulation to certain human health problems, respect the integrity of other species and lessen our impact on the earth's climate. But he does not stop there.

In what must amount to heresy in the tech world and scientific circles, McKibben exhorts "environmentalists must now grapple squarely with the idea of a world that has enough wealth and enough technological capability, and should not pursue more. Enough is a deeply subversive idea, but a deeply resonant one as well--it echoes the ideas to which we pay lip service weekly in a million churches and mosques and synagogues."²⁷

While McKibben marvels at how well the scientific process works, he points out that other disciplines have not kept pace. And he sounds a chill warning that our "domination may carry the seeds of our own diminution. The forces we unleash by raising the temperature -- and quite possibly the forces we unleash with what is essentially reckless genetic tinkering -- may be so strong that they may overwhelm us."²⁸

He also notes that our desire for unlimited life seems to be the ultimate goal fueling the drive for technological and scientific advances. McKibben characterizes technologists and scientists as intent upon cheating death. "[I]t is clear that these revolutionary technologies are being driven by people with immortality, or something very near it, on their minds."²⁹

"Hence, for those of us who believe the world to be a sweet place as presently constituted, this is a moment of enormous danger: we live on the brink of a great forgetting."³⁰

ARE WE BECOMING AN ENDANGERED SPECIES? TECHNOLOGY AND ETHICS IN THE 21^ST CENTURY: PROGRAM OUTLINE

Format:
7:00 PM	Welcome & Introduction Cathedral Representative to Moderator
7:05 PM	Introduction to Program, Topic Moderator & Panelists
7:15 PM	Panelist Interviews* Moderator & Panelists
8:00 PM	Cross-Panel Dialog* Moderator & Panelists
8:35 PM	Questions & Answers Audience, Panel & Moderator
9:00 PM	Adjourn, Book Signing

Topics:

It would be impossible to cover the ethics of technology in one panel discussion. So, we must limit the topics we cover. Hence, in keeping with the mission of Washington National Cathedral, we will focus our discussion on the following:

1) The dangers--moral, ethical and physical--of technological and scientific advances (specifically genetic engineering, nanotechnology and robotics) to humanity and the environment.

2) The prospective benefits and enhancements of technological and scientific progress.

3) The role of religion and theology in setting ethical and moral guidelines for technology and science.

4) The spiritual meaning behind these advances and the future they will create.

Panelists:

Bill Joy is the chief scientist and cofounder of Sun Microsystems. As a graduate student at U.C. Berkeley, Joy was the principal designer of Berkeley UNIX, the version of UNIX that became the standard in education and research. For his work on Berkeley UNIX, Joy received the ACM Grace Murray Hopper Award from the Association for Computing Machinery, which is given for outstanding work in Computer Science done when the recipient is under the age of thirty. In 1997, President Clinton appointed Joy as co-chair of the Presidential Information Technology Advisory Committee.

A leader in the "open source" movement of computer programming, Joy's most recent work is on the Jini distributed computing technology for networking computer devices using Java, and on the Sun Community Source Licensing (SCSL) model, designed to allow companies to share their intellectual property in source form, to facilitate cooperation with customers, partners, educators and researchers.

A member of the National Academy of Engineering and a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, Joy has 11 issued patents, with 12 others in progress.

Ray Kurzweil was the principal developer of the first omni-font optical character recognition (OCR) device, the first print-to-speech reading machine for the blind, the first CCD flat-bed scanner, the first text-to-speech synthesizer, the first music synthesizer capable of recreating the grand piano and other orchestral instruments, and the first commercially marketed large vocabulary speech recognition device. Ray has successfully founded, developed, and sold four artificial intelligence (AI) businesses in OCR, music synthesis, speech recognition, and reading technology.

Ray Kurzweil has received numerous awards and honors, including the $500,000 Lemelson-MIT Prize, the world's largest award in invention and innovation; the 1999 National Medal of Technology, the nation's highest honor in technology, from President Clinton; the 1994 Dickson Prize (Carnegie Mellon University's top science prize), Engineer of the Year from Design News, Inventor of the Year from M.I.T., and the Grace Murray Hopper Award from the Association for Computing Machinery.

Kurzweil's book, The Age of Intelligent Machines, was named Best Computer Science Book of 1990. His current best-selling book, The Age of Spiritual Machines, When Computers Exceed Human Intelligence, has been published in 9 languages and achieved the #1 best selling book on Amazon.com in the categories of "Science" and "Artificial Intelligence."

Anne Foerst is a visiting professor for Theology and Computer Science and will direct the new science and religion center at St. Bonaventure University. Foerst also is the former director of M.I.T.'s God and Computers project, and was a researcher in that university's Artificial Intelligence Library. Foerst is an ordained Lutheran minister who helped to support her studies by repairing computers. She has a Ph. D. in Systematic Theology from Ruhr-University of Bochum and undergraduate degrees in philosophy and computer science.

Foerst won the prestigious Templeton Award for the course proposal for "God and Computers" -- which Foerst teaches at M.I.T. Designed for engineers, the course was selected as one of the 100 best university course proposals on the study of religion and science worldwide. Foerst has spoken at science and religion conferences around the world. She also has conducted adult education workshops on issues, and to audiences, as diverse as "Meaningless Suffering" presented to kindergarten teachers, and "Religion and Sexuality" presented to conscientious objectors.

Foerst is known internationally as an expert on the relation between science and religion. As such, Foerst and her work have been featured on television and in newspapers, including CNN and The New York Times.

Bill McKibben, environmentalist, author and activist, spurred an international debate when he detailed the onset of the greenhouse effect in his 1989 bestseller, The End of Nature. Labeled an "environmental wacko" by Rush Limbaugh, McKibben's theory initially was dismissed by many. Today, his theory--that humans are irrevocably changing the climate and all life on the planet--is now widely accepted science.

McKibben was a fellow at the Harvard Divinity School's Center for the Study of Values in Public Life, where he investigated "what is means to be heirs to God's increasingly damaged creation and how people of faith can respond to the global warming crisis."³¹ McKibben believes that communities of faith must play a pivotal role in the debate around questions of human identity and human justice.³²

A former staff writer for The New Yorker magazine, McKibben's other books on the environment and ethical living include Hundred Dollar Holiday, Maybe One, The Age of Missing Information and Hope, Human and Wild.

Winner of the 2000 Lannan Prize for Nonfiction Writing, McKibben is a frequent contributor to a variety of publications, including The New York Review of Books, Atlantic Monthly, Rolling Stone and The New York Times. McKibben was honored with an award from the Ripton-based Spirit in Nature organization, and received a Bicentennial medal from Middlebury College in the fall of 2000. He currently is a visiting scholar at Middlebury College. While at Middlebury, he will work on a new book about the environmental implications of biotechnology.

McKibben lives with his wife and daughter in Middlebury, Vermont, and he is a Sunday school teacher at a Methodist church.

¹ Joy, Bill, "Why the Future Doesn't Need Us," Wired magazine, April 2000.

² Ibid.

³ Ibid.

⁴ Ibid.

⁵ Ibid.

⁶ Kurzweil, Ray, The Age of Spiritual Machines, Penguin Books, 1999, p. 253.

⁷ Kurzweil, Ray, "Promise And Peril," Interactive Week, October 23, 2000.

⁸ Ibid.

⁹ Ibid.

¹⁰ Ibid.

¹¹ Kurzweil, Ray, The Age of Spiritual Machines, Penguin Books, 1999, p. 2.

¹² Ibid., p. 2.

¹³ Foerst, Anne, "The Courage to Doubt: How to Build Android Robots As a Theologian," Talk, presented at Harvard Divinity School, November 27, 1995.

¹⁴ Dreifus, Claudia, "Do Androids Dream? M.I.T. Is Working on It," The New York Times, November 7, 2000.

¹⁵ Foerst, Anne, "Anne Foerst: implications of sequencing the human genome," CNN Health/News Chat,

¹⁶ Ibid.

¹⁷ Ibid.

¹⁸ Ibid.

¹⁹ McKibben, Bill, "Humans Supplant God; Everything Changes," Harvard Design Magazine, Winter/Spring 2000, Number 10.

²⁰ Ibid.

²¹ Ibid.

²² McKibben, Bill, "How Much Is enough? The Environmental Movement as a Pivot Point in Human History," Harvard Seminar on Environmental Values, October 18, 2000.

²³ Ibid.

²⁴ Ibid.

²⁵ McKibben, Bill, "Humans Supplant God; Everything Changes," Harvard Design Magazine, Winter/Spring 2000, Number 10.

²⁶ McKibben, Bill, "How Much Is enough? The Environmental Movement as a Pivot Point in Human History," Harvard Seminar on Environmental Values, October 18, 2000.

²⁷ Ibid.

²⁸ McKibben, Bill, "Humans Supplant God; Everything Changes," Harvard Design Magazine, Winter/Spring 2000, Number 10.

²⁹ McKibben, Bill, "How Much Is enough? The Environmental Movement as a Pivot Point in Human History," Harvard Seminar on Environmental Values, October 18, 2000.

³⁰ Ibid.

³¹ Author Unknown, Center for the Study of Values in Public Life, 2000-2001 Fellows, Harvard Divinity School, published online (http://www.hds.harvard.edu/csvpl/fellows.html)

³² Ibid.

Join the discussion about this article on Mind·X!

[Post New Comment]
Mind·X Discussion About This Article:


	Danger in Technological Advance? Hogwash! posted on 11/09/2001 12:18 PM by cdriscol@trucking.org	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
Bill Joy reminds me of the typical successful American who, once he has found riches for himself wants to do everything he can to turn around and shut the door to any more new-comers. How would he accomplish that? By closing the door to the kinds of technological advances that hold the possibility of making poverty a thing of the past, and bringing a humane life style to the masses of people, half of whom worldwide still live at the edge of civilization -- in abject poverty, a paycheck or harvest away from starvation. He represents the kind of immoral attitude that runs rampant in this, the richest country in the world, that also has the widest gap between the rich and everyone else. We should be dismissing his ideas out of hand, realizing that they are self-serving. Rich people rarely want to see real advances in the average and bottom-line standard of living, because they enjoy the contrast of being so rich, surrounded by so much poverty. After all, "what is the use of riches if they don't somehow set one apart from the common riff-raff," these types of callused people think to themselves. We live in a society of great contridictions: the contrast between the lifestyles of the Bill Joys of the world and the other half, the poor half, are just the tip of the iceberg. The one I find the most striking is the contrast between the good that our scientists and technologists do in advancing the general state of the people of the world, compared to the bad that the owners of capital, like Bill Joy, do with their economic system that thrives on poverty and abhors scientific advance, even as it is pushed into such advance by its own need for competition. Bill Joy, and all of his class of careless limo-liberals should really step out of the way and let progress continue! Sincerely, Christopher Alan Driscoll Wheaton, Maryland


	Re: Danger in Technological Advance? Hogwash! posted on 11/10/2001 3:22 PM by tomaz@techemail.com	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
> because they enjoy the contrast of being so rich, surrounded by so much poverty. This is fact the case! I can't say that for American billionaires, but I do observe this in a much lesser scale (lesser in money terms) in my country. Many doctors, judges merchants and others from the so called upper class advocates the freezing of everything in the name of environmental conservation - anything what could serve them in this 'contrast pursue'. To have a RELATIVELY better position than any other - to close the door behind - is a very important characteristic of many humans. What is very understandable from the evolutionary point of view, but to be despised by (trans)humanists. - Thomas Kristan


	Re: Danger in Technological Advance? Hogwash! posted on 11/10/2001 10:45 PM by hash123@hotmail.com	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
Tomas, I was beginning to think you really start to make sense lately :) Do you really believe in the evil rich - noble poor dichotomy? Also, can you explain why environmental conservation would benefit the rich?


	Re: Danger in Technological Advance? Hogwash! posted on 11/11/2001 5:37 AM by tomaz@techemail.com	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
> Tomas, I was beginning to think you really start to make sense lately :) You've begun to understand - that is! > Do you really believe in the evil rich - noble poor dichotomy? It's a silly theory! In fact - evil poor and noble rich is more likely. Due to the fact, rich is better informed. Could more often see broader. > Also, can you explain why environmental conservation would benefit the rich? I like the clean environment. I don't like greens however. Be cause they do just the opposite of what should be done. In your country (USA - isn't it?) they were quite successful in closing down the nuclear energy program. For example. Rich and the environment? If you mean the rich in my country - I have to explain. The richest one here (among 2 millions) has less than 10 million US dollars. (But on the other hand, 85% _owns_ (or their family member) house or flat - the highest rate in the whole world - and the quality is quite high). The average consumer spending is approximately the same as in Canada. So, those who are "rich" here generally tends to have very aristocratic conservative views. The narcissism of a small difference is manifested many ways. Environmentalism is popular just to freeze everything as is. Not to dynamic the society. To prevent the up down mobility, to have (at least small) contrast, to have a rank secured for thousands of years - if possible. The "poor"? They are even worse. Waiting to replace the elite in a communist revolution. Both in fact dislike what is coming. Too ignorant they are. The boring human's game - your grandchildren should be servants of mine - eclipses everything. The Billy Joy's "concerns" - is just a way to play it. Green's agenda to take cars from others - is another. Closing the door behind - is yet another. - Thomas Kristan


	Re: Danger in Technological Advance? Hogwash! posted on 11/11/2001 10:30 AM by grantc4@hotmail.com	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
This rich/poor dichotomy is mostly an illusion. We live in a mobile society where the poor have a chance to become rich and the rich are often in that position for a relatively short time. How is this great wealth held by most of these rich people? I think you'll find that their wealth is in the form of stocks and bonds and that wealth is illusory. Bill Gates, for example, lost half his wealth in one swoop this year when the stock market fell. Although he still had plenty left when it was over, there were hundreds of newly rich in silicon valley who lost everything they owned. Most of that so-called wealth is tied up in factories and businesses. When those businesses go out of business, the wealth evaporates. People whose wealth was placed in the air travel industry, for example, are going from rich to indebted at a rate never seen before. Nobody puts much of their money in a 2% bank account and just sits on it. You can't get or stay rich that way. You get rich by risking your money on things with a bigger payoff. Unfortunately, you lose your money the same way. So in times of change, the rich become poor again and the poor find ways to get rich. Which side of the line you're on fluctuates with the fortunes of the businesses you invested in. So, in reality, there is no class of rich people who are separate from the poor. People's places in those categories fluctuate daily and rise or fall depending on what is going on in the world. Last year, Hindus in India were coming to America and getting rich in the computer programming industry. This year, most of them are going home with empty pockets. China's poor are well on the way to becoming middle class. Due to their communist past, very few of them started out with money. A few have made it to the billionaire status. So, in my view of the world, this dichotomy of rich and poor is an illusion based on a lucky few who have found ways to hang on to what they or their parents or grandparents managed to build over a period of decades. They become household names while they have money, but nobody remembers them anymore when the money is gone. But the wealth of people like the Fords (of automobile fame) is tied up in building factories, paying workers, setting up sales forces and paying off politicians. Most of them own less than 5% of their company's stock. The vast majority of the stock is held by retirement funds for millions of workers and mutual funds held by millions of investors. All of those people are wealthy compared to people living in in countries that don't have these vehicles of upward mobility. So when we start talking about the few who own the vast majority of wealth in the world, we are talking about an illusion. The Fords don't really own Ford motor company. Bill and Melinda Gates only own a fraction of Microsoft. The Hewletts don't own enough of HP to keep management from selling out to Compaq. If everyone tried to turn their stocks or bonds into money tomorrow, the wealth would evaporate like smoke in a breeze. When everyone is selling, such value disappears. It was at risk in the first place. That's what risk means. There is a chance you will lose it all in a turn of the market. You might as well say there is a class of people who hit the lottery every week. So, what do you think makes them different from you?


	Re: Danger in Technological Advance? Hogwash! posted on 11/11/2001 10:52 AM by tomaz@techemail.com	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
Long post. Yet I can't find any single line with which I don't agree. - Thomas


	Re: Danger in Technological Advance? Hogwash! posted on 11/11/2001 2:17 PM by hash123@hotmail.com	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
Tomas, Excellent post, I have no question, and you continue to make sense. Grant, ditto. I would only correct you on one thing: people's wealth is a result of their thinking capacity. Those who inherit their wealth have to match it with their brain capacity to keep it, or else they lose it. Those who earn wealth, do it through hard work and thinking, not through playing lottery every week. When they lose it, however, it is largely through bad chance. Therefore, there are some who end up keeping their wealth for a long time: those did not get any bad luck, and continued to infuse their wealth with thinking and creativity. You made it seem like the rich were the compulsive gamblers of a country. Quite the opposite: the poor are. P.S. Tomas, where do you live? Scandinavia?


	Re: Danger in Technological Advance? Hogwash! posted on 11/11/2001 3:44 PM by tomaz@techemail.com	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
See CIA facts abot Slovenia. And some tourism propaganda! :)) http://www.burger.si/Bled/Bled.html - Thomas


	Re: Danger in Technological Advance? Hogwash! posted on 05/06/2007 7:25 AM by ANJ-42	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
Agreed. I simply don't believe in there being danger in technological progress. The world would be much better off if these people would just SHUT UP and let progress accelerate.


	Re: Are We Becoming An Endangered Species? Technology and Ethics in the 21st Century posted on 11/10/2001 2:50 PM by kindvzzang@hotmail.com	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
ninuko.............. thank you


	Re: Are We Becoming An Endangered Species? Technology and Ethics in the 21st Century posted on 11/19/2001 3:22 AM by normdoering@mad.scientist.com	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
One of the things said in the introduction was "technology and theology, science and ethics are often at odds..." I ask why. The examples given, Darwin and Galileo, were conflicts because Darwin and Galileo were right and religious people didn't want to admit that, it conflicted with their previous ideas. What else brings science and ethics into any conflict? Science tends to contradict religious views and that seems to be the only real problem. I tend to agree that the technologies coming on line, genetic engineering, nanotech and AI, are potentially dangerous and that there will be accidents, abuses and oversights. There always are, there always will be. I don't believe they'll destroy humanity -- change it yes, but change it for the better. Yes, we have to be careful about environmental impact, self-replication, and new weapons. We'll have to learn to anticipate the new problems and devise solutions. What I object to is the idea that religion has any worthwhile answers. The idea I get from some panelists is that their religion feels threatened by the new technologies. Several panelists made vague references (Anne Foerrest wasn't all that vague either) to religious concepts. "We'll supplant God." Even Joy said that the so-called "essence of life" is threatened. If what one feels is "the essence of life" feels threatened, maybe it's because you really haven't got a handle on what the "essence" is. Even Kurzweil questions what meaning life can have without death: "We make extraordinary efforts to delay death, and often consider its intrusion tragic. Yet we'd find it hard to live without it. Death gives meaning to our lives." I don't think death gives meaning to life, but it does light a fire under us and limit the time we have to solve our problems. What gives meaning to life is our experiences and what they mean about our world, the people in it, how we relate to them. We find meaning in those experiences. Forrest says "AI cannot give any answer about the meaning of life and cannot support humans in their intuitive understanding of themselves and within their struggles with their ambiguous and fearful life." Then she suggests religion does give this "meaning." Not for me. AI does have a certain amount of "meaning" to it, it says things about the so called "soul" and our ability to reason. For the rest, I prefer art to religion when it comes to find meaning in life. I might be willing to give Forrest's theologians a chance, but so far all I've heard from them is bullshit. Religion doesn't seem to be any, or have any, kind of answer to me, in fact, it seems to be a big part of the problem. When it comes to terrorism, well, the people who have resorted to it recently have been religious lunatics. The god of the Old Testament, the root of three religions, is himself a terrorist. Consider the way Moses dealt with Pharaoh -- Moses and God used terrorism. God's business in the Old Testament was terrorism. This is not a good base to start off with. I hope the new technologies do threaten religion -- it's a dangerous thing -- more dangerous than the technologies being discussed. -- Norman Doering


	Re: Are We Becoming An Endangered Species? Technology and Ethics in the 21st Century posted on 11/23/2001 10:04 PM by lifesaparty@home.com	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
>The god of the Old Testament, the root of three religions, is himself a terrorist. Consider the way Moses dealt with Pharaoh -- Moses and God used terrorism. God's business in the Old Testament was terrorism. This is not a good base to start off with. What an interesting point. I always thought it odd that God commanded that "Thou shalt not kill" and yet killed the first borns in Egyptian households to set the Jews free. Now, I think the Jews should have been free, but I fail to understand how God wasn't practicing what he was preaching. Couldn't he find another way to set the Jews free without killing innocent children? > I hope the new technologies do threaten religion -- it's a dangerous thing -- more dangerous than the technologies being discussed. I'm not sure if I agree there. Certainly, religion is the reason for much killing in the world, not to mention what I feel to be child abuse (I remember a mother in a Disney store getting into with me when she heard I was not supportive of her spanking her toddler, as she had just done in the store; I said, "I don't think you'd find it very fair if your boss said to you, "I don't like how you behaved a few minutes ago in the meeting, so if you could please bend over and let me spank you, we can get on with our day." She said, "It's not the same. The Bible said "Spare the rod and spoil the child.'" I said, "Yeah, well, 99+% of people in our prisons today weren't spared the rod as children, which I think a tad higher than the general population. I think I'd think I'd rather a spoiled child. Why don't you do some research and find out the percent of agnostics and atheists in prison today and get back to me?" She walked out of the store. Anyway, as much as I detest people using God as their excuse to kill, grab land and resources, etc., I also am not certain that it is more dangerous than technology (not saying I am certain it isn't - I'm just saying I'm clueless as to which is more dangerous; accidents can happen with technology that can potentially do a lot of damage now). People who believe in God do on average live longer and they also seem to be able to handle things that those of us who aren't religious could not handle as easily. For example, I remember seeing on TV the mother of one of the young children who died on the plane which crashed into the Pentagon...she wasn't mad or crying or anything other than calm, truly believing her daughter to be in heaven, a better place. I don't have a daughter, but if I did and she was killed (even if she died in some way other than terrorist activity), I'm pretty sure I'd be crying and screaming in agony and a total mess. If I felt I lost a daughter due to some other "human" hands, I would be ranting and raving and furious. I do not have answers, mind you, only questions.


	Re: Are We Becoming An Endangered Species? Technology and Ethics in the 21st Century posted on 11/26/2001 4:31 AM by normdoering@mad.scientist.com	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
>> The god of the Old Testament... is himself a >> terrorist... > What an interesting point. I always thought it odd > that God commanded that "Thou shalt not kill"... That's what it says in the King James version, other versions translate it as "thou shalt not murder." Apparently killing people isn't murder if you think God tells you to do it. >... and yet killed the first borns in Egyptian > households to set the Jews free. If it were a religion of peace, well, God wasn't as smart as Ghandi it seems when it comes to peaceful change and revolution. Like I said, the God of the Old Testament is a terrorist, and not just Moses out of Egypt, but Sodom, Babel etc., all terrorist actions. The New Testament doesn't have Jesus doing any terrorist actions, just threatening them for the future. > Now, I think the Jews should have been free, > but I fail to understand how God wasn't > practicing what he was preaching. Couldn't he > find another way to set the Jews free without > killing innocent children? Ghandi found a way, and I see no reason it wouldn't have worked for the Jews, or for Osama bin Laden. The Jews could have simply gone on strike from doing whatever it was they did for the Egyptians. Bin Laden could have had his followers lay down in the roads in front of those American bases he wanted out of Saudi Arabia... Yes, there are better ways. Unless you're God, terrorism usually doesn't work. It's a rather stupid thing to do. >> I hope the new technologies do threaten religion >> -- it's a dangerous thing -- more dangerous than >> the technologies being discussed. > > I'm not sure if I agree there. Certainly, religion > is the reason for much killing... She said, "It's > not the same. The Bible said "Spare the rod and > spoil the child.'"... Why don't you do some research > and find out the percent of agnostics and atheists > in prison today and get back to me?" Terroristic parenting? Does it make terrorists of the children? I wander how bin Laden was raised? > I'm just saying I'm clueless as to which is more > dangerous; accidents can happen with technology that > can potentially do a lot of damage now). Yea, accidents happen, but so do things insurance companies call "acts of God," like tornados and such. On the whole, it seems science and technology save more lives than they take because we get weather warnings as well as cures for diseases. > People who believe in God do on average live > longer... Illusions can protect us from facing reality head on. Facing reality head on does, apparently, take its toll on us. >... and they also seem to be able to handle things ... > mother of one of the young children who died ... > ...she wasn't mad or crying or anything other than > calm, truly believing her daughter to be in heaven,... >... If I felt I lost a daughter due to some other > "human" hands, I would be ranting and raving and > furious. I didn't even lose anyone and I was furious and raving a bit after I saw the news. > I do not have answers, mind you, only questions. I don't really have any complete answers myself, but some things just seem pretty damn obvious. That religion is a big problem in the modern world seems to be obvious to me. What I can't answer is why so few other people don't see it too. One of these days I will write a book about all the dangerous aspects of religion.


	Re: Are We Becoming An Endangered Species? Technology and Ethics in the 21st Century posted on 11/26/2001 9:55 PM by lifesaparty@home.com	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
> That's what it says in the King James version, other versions translate it as "thou shalt not murder." Apparently killing people isn't murder if you think God tells you to do it. I had no idea the other translations were different on this point. You can tell I am not a Bible afficianado (heck, I can't even spell the word!). > Ghandi found a way, and I see no reason it wouldn't have worked for the Jews, or for Osama bin Laden. The Jews could have simply gone on strike from doing whatever it was they did for the Egyptians. Bin Laden could have had his followers lay down in the roads in front of those American bases he wanted out of Saudi Arabia... Yes, there are better ways. Unless you're God, terrorism usually doesn't work. It's a rather stupid thing to do. Good points. The problem is some people literally get off by harming others, like someone (an Arab feeling he was fighting a holy war, I believe) I read was screaming in ecstasy while stabbing someone. That sort of sickness is not as rare as some might think. It could be why some opt for violent measures even when others could work even better. > Terroristic parenting? Does it make terrorists of the children? I wander how bin Laden was raised? I sort of thought bin Laden didn't get much attention, being one of oodles of children and not even close to a first born, but maybe he was getting attention from servants or something and it was not of a compassionate nature, who knows. Maybe he is just a bad seed, but one who feels he is doing what is right, which I confess I feel is better than those who harm others only to get something for themselves (and bin Laden might be that sort instead, I really don't know). > Yea, accidents happen, but so do things insurance companies call "acts of God," like tornados and such. On the whole, it seems science and technology save more lives than they take because we get weather warnings as well as cures for diseases. To date, I think technology has saved more lives that it has taken, but that doesn't mean such will always be the case. Things change. Even though the best predictor of the future is the past, it's not 100% by a long shot. > Illusions can protect us from facing reality head on. Facing reality head on does, apparently, take its toll on us. True. > I didn't even lose anyone and I was furious and raving a bit after I saw the news. I think many men were (perhaps many women, too, but not as many ratio wise, seemed to me). I was angry, no question, but not as much as I would have been had I known someone who died. Logically, it should be the same level of anger either way, but that logical I guess I am not. > I don't really have any complete answers myself, but some things just seem pretty damn obvious. That religion is a big problem in the modern world seems to be obvious to me. What I can't answer is why so few other people don't see it too. I see that religion is a big problem in the modern world. I'm just not as sure that it isn't also a solution for some, who might feel terribly hopeless otherwise and be worse off without having this faith that what is happening is somehow for the best and that their tale will be a happily ever after type. > One of these days I will write a book about all the dangerous aspects of religion. It's a great topic, and kudos to you for having the balls to go out on a limb and give your feelings here, as in general, it won't make you the mot popular guy at the party...BUT the world has rarely been bettered by people who care about being the most popular person at a party, but rather by people who search the truth and are willing to share what they find. Let me know if you ever get the book published. I'll buy a copy. In the meanwhile, good luck in writing in and finding a publisher.


	Re: Are We Becoming An Endangered Species? Technology and Ethics in the 21st Century posted on 11/29/2001 1:59 AM by normdoering@mad.scientist.com	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
> You can tell I am not a Bible afficianado > (heck, I can't even spell the word!). It's spelled: B-u-y--B-u-l-l >> Ghandi found a way, and I see no reason it >> wouldn't have worked for the Jews, or for >> Osama bin Laden. The Jews could have simply >> gone on strike from doing whatever it was >> they did for the Egyptians. Bin Laden could >> have had his followers lay down in the roads >> in front of those American bases he wanted >> out of Saudi Arabia... Yes, there are better >> ways. Unless you're God, terrorism usually >> doesn't work. It's a rather stupid thing to do. > > Good points. The problem is some people literally > get off by harming others, ... I think there's a little bit of that in everyone. Look at all the violent films and computer games. >... someone (an Arab feeling he was fighting > a holy war, I believe) I read was screaming in > ecstasy while stabbing someone. That sort of > sickness is not as rare as some might think. It > could be why some opt for violent measures even > when others could work even better. Maybe there's a "drug" for that sickness in the future? We might bomb our enemies with a "love and passisitivity gas." > ... one who feels he is doing what is right, which > I confess I feel is better than those who harm > others only to get something for themselves (and > bin Laden might be that sort instead, I really don't > know). All the evidence I've seen points to bin Laden being a "true believer." He believes he is doing God's will. He believes in an after-life and so death isn't as real for him as for us. It's one of the more dangerous ideas he's plugged into, spread by traditional Islam and Christianity and Judaism -- the idea that God has enemies and needs human help to defeat them. > To date, I think technology has saved more lives > that it has taken, but that doesn't mean such will > always be the case. Things change. Even though the > best predictor of the future is the past, it's not > 100% by a long shot. I may have to rethink that. How many people have cars killed? We do seem to accept a high death toll there for the sake of fast and easy travel. >> ... That religion is a big problem in the >> modern world seems to be obvious to me. What >> I can't answer is why so few other people don't >> see it too. > > I see that religion is a big problem in the modern > world. I'm just not as sure that it isn't also a > solution for some, who might feel terribly hopeless > otherwise and be worse off without having this faith > that what is happening is somehow for the best and > that their tale will be a happily ever after type. If religion were no more than comforting lies for people who can't face reality head on, it wouldn't be as big of a problem. The problem is that the three major western religions exploit that desire to deny apparent realities, like death, for their own ends. >> One of these days I will write a book about all >> the dangerous aspects of religion. > > It's a great topic, and kudos to you for having the > balls to go out on a limb and give your feelings here, > as in general, it won't make you the mot popular guy > at the party... Boy, do I know that. But being popular isn't the goal. > BUT the world has rarely been bettered by people who > care about being the most popular person at a party, > but rather by people who search the truth and are > willing to share what they find. > Let me know if you ever get the book published. I'll > buy a copy. In the meanwhile, good luck in writing in > and finding a publisher. Well, it could be a long time, the book is a back burner project. I want it to be as perfect as possible and I don't expect much in the way of financial pay-off. In the meantime -- I've got this websites stuff you can read: http://www.geocities.com/zarkoff33


	Re: Are We Becoming An Endangered Species? Technology and Ethics in the 21st Century posted on 11/29/2001 5:43 PM by lifesaparty@home.com	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
> > You can tell I am not a Bible afficianado (heck, I can't even spell the word!). > It's spelled: B-u-y--B-u-l-l I was talking about spelling afficianado, not Bible, but can see where the confusion there was as I should have used "that last word there" rather than "the word"! And I like the spelling there - surprised I've never seen that one before - you didn't come up with it on your own, did you? > I think there's a little bit of that in everyone. Look at all the violent films and computer games. Not everyone. I've never liked violent films or violent computer games, and I even know some males who don't, so it's not completely an XX/XY issue. > Maybe there's a "drug" for that sickness in the future? We might bomb our enemies with a "love and passisitivity gas." Interesting idea, but do you really want to get into that sort of "mind play"? I'm not saying you don't or shouldn't - just wondering how safe a road that is to be looking up on a map let alone charting a course to take. > All the evidence I've seen points to bin Laden being a "true believer." He believes he is doing God's will. He believes in an after-life and so death isn't as real for him as for us. Yes, that's been (bin?) my interpretation of the data I've seen to date, too. > It's one of the more dangerous ideas he's plugged into, spread by traditional Islam and Christianity and Judaism -- the idea that God has enemies and needs human help to defeat them. Actually, more Jews (I seriously surveyed this earlier this year, but it was a small sample and only of Jews I know rather than a large, unbiased sample) seem to believe there is NOT an afterlife than that there is one. They believe what you do in life on Earth matters no matter what sort of other Jewish beliefs they hold, I know that, and not just for a way into some sort of afterlife. If I were to practice a religion, I'm pretty sure it would be Judaism even though I was baptized as a baby in an Orthodox Christian faith. > I may have to rethink that. How many people have cars killed? A shockingly high (to me) number. According to ABC, roughly 160,000 automobile deaths during the years 1995 to 1998 were due to faulty tires (not sure what the grand total of automobile deaths during those years was, but I know a lot were due to other things like falling asleep at the wheel, being drunk, using a car phone and not paying attention, and who knows what other causes that likely aren't in the books like "lost control of car while getting a blow job" or whatever). > We do seem to accept a high death toll there for the sake of fast and easy travel. At least cars do seem to have a strong positive side. I can't understand how the chemist who came up with LSD ever let that out of his lab (he was trying to come up with a cure for headaches and it seems to me he just helped give the world a bunch of headaches instead). > If religion were no more than comforting lies for people who can't face reality head on, it wouldn't be as big of a problem. The problem is that the three major western religions exploit that desire to deny apparent realities, like death, for their own ends. Again, I think there are a number of Jewish faiths (perhaps not the Orthodox, I really can't recall which here) which do NOT preach that death on this planet is not your final ending place. > Boy, do I know that. But being popular isn't the goal. Obviously it's not your goal. It's tough to travel the road you are traveling, though, as nobody likes to be disliked, especially for their beliefs. You may as well use your guts here, though, because if not here, where?! :) > Well, it could be a long time, the book is a back burner project. Is that to make the book as hot as Hell? :) I can see the reviews now, "This book is so hot, it has received rave reviews from none other than the devil himself!" > I want it to be as perfect as possible and I don't expect much in the way of financial pay-off. Ah, perfection...something I stopped seeking many years ago. > In the meantime -- I've got this websites stuff you can read: http://www.geocities.com/zarkoff33 Thanks. Not sure when I'll get to it as I have tons of things to do and little motivation to get to them, which makes them drag. Not being a perfectionist has its downsides like most things do.


	Re: Are We Becoming An Endangered Species? Technology and Ethics in the 21st Century posted on 12/03/2001 5:51 AM by normdoering@mad.scientist.com	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
>> It's spelled: B-u-y--B-u-l-l > I like the spelling there - surprised I've never > seen that one before - you didn't come up with it > on your own, did you? No, not exactly, I'm not sure where it originated, but I think it was George Carlin. >> I think there's a little bit of that in everyone. >> Look at all the violent films and computer games. > > Not everyone. I've never liked violent films or > violent computer games, and I even know some males > who don't, so it's not completely an XX/XY issue. I like both, but I keep it to fantasy. It's not a game I want to play in reality. I'd rather be the coward who dies a thousand deaths playing Doom, than die for real. >> Maybe there's a "drug" for that sickness in the >> future? We might bomb our enemies with a "love >> and passisitivity gas." > > Interesting idea, but do you really want to get into > that sort of "mind play"? Once the other side starts killing my people, they lose all rights -- not just to life, but their mind as well. Use of death (and fear of it) are a form of mind control themselves. I don't advocate dumping drugs on mere potential enemies, that should be a crime. However, if I had to be attacked, I'd rather be left alive. > I'm not saying you don't or shouldn't - just > wondering how safe a road that is to be looking > up on a map let alone charting a course to take. I think it would be safer than blowing them up. I could think of worse things I'd like to do to Islamic terrorists. For example, there is suppose to be a "god spot" in the temporal lobes of the brain. What if one used a "gamma knife" to remove it? >> It's one of the more dangerous ideas he's plugged >> into, spread by traditional Islam and Christianity >> and Judaism -- the idea that God has enemies and >> needs human help to defeat them. > > Actually, more Jews (I seriously surveyed this > earlier this year, but it was a small sample and > only of Jews I know rather than a large, unbiased > sample) seem to believe there is NOT an afterlife > than that there is one. They believe what you do in > life on Earth matters no matter what sort of other > Jewish beliefs they hold, I know that, and not just > for a way into some sort of afterlife. Modern Judaism isn't the same as the Judaism that created the zealots that warred against Rome. > If I were to practice a religion, I'm pretty sure > it would be Judaism even though I was baptized as a > baby in an Orthodox Christian faith. How does one "practice" a religion? Do you actually get better at being religious? Is that something you want to get better at? I could never accept either testament as being anything but an unhealthy fantasy. When I was younger, wondering what the truth might be, I looked into religion, but these days I don't look for any truth there, I look for the human condition, human insanity. I don't quite get modern interpretations of the Bible or Torah -- seems the interpreters and theologians have re-invented the religion... Re-invented to the point where the book no longer means the same thing the original authors intended, except to fundamentalists. >> I may have to rethink that. How many people have >> cars killed? > > A shockingly high (to me) number. According to ABC, > roughly 160,000 automobile deaths during the years > 1995 to 1998 were due to faulty tires (not sure what > the grand total of automobile deaths during those > years was, but I know a lot were due to other things > like falling asleep at the wheel, being drunk, using > a car phone and not paying attention, and who knows > what other causes that likely aren't in the books > like "lost control of car while getting a blow job" > or whatever). Driving is risker than many people treat it. We, as a society, have chosen to let some die in random accidents, we could have safer cars (they have to pass laws to make them safer cause people won't pay for safety given a cheap risky option, many won't even buckle their seat belts (must think God will protect them)). In the end, technology has that kind of cost and power of that sort in mere human hands is always dangerous. However, nanotech and biotech and AI, they have the power to change the human condition in totally new ways -- hopefully improving it. >> We do seem to accept a high death toll there for >> the sake of fast and easy travel. > > At least cars do seem to have a strong positive side. > I can't understand how the chemist who came up with > LSD ever let that out of his lab (he was trying to > come up with a cure for headaches and it seems to me > he just helped give the world a bunch of headaches > instead). If you really want to know, the inventor was Albert Hoffman and he wrote a book called "LSD, My Problem Child." > Obviously it's not your goal. It's tough to travel > the road you are traveling, though, as nobody likes > to be disliked, especially for their beliefs. You may > as well use your guts here, though, because if not > here, where?! :) I know what happened to Thomas Paine for writing "The Age of Reason." However, these days we have Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett. Neither is particularly kind to religion and I don't think their road seems so hard. >>... the book is a back burner project. > > Is that to make the book as hot as Hell? :) I can > see the reviews now, "This book is so hot, it has > received rave reviews from none other than the devil > himself!" The reader I imagine is a religious person I argue into atheism by the sheer envitable logic of my position. But I haven't been able to do that in chat rooms or usenet yet.


	Re: Are We Becoming An Endangered Species? Technology and Ethics in the 21st Century posted on 12/04/2001 4:44 PM by lifesaparty@home.com	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
> No, not exactly, I'm not sure where it originated, but I think it was George Carlin. How timely. > I like both, but I keep it to fantasy. It's not a game I want to play in reality. I'd rather be the coward who dies a thousand deaths playing Doom, than die for real. But would you rather kill for real if you'd not get caught than play like you are killing on a computer? My guess would be no. > Once the other side starts killing my people, they lose all rights -- not just to life, but their mind as well. But how can you pick the "they" behind the killing from the "they" who is not? 4000+ people died 9-11 because some people felt they were responsible for things decided by other Americans (though they rationalize it by saying all Americans are responsible for who gets elected, but even that's nuts as many Americans vote for people who do not get elected). I don't think it quite right to think (as I know some people do) that because a "country" is seem as behind something, that gives us a right to kill, take over the minds, etc. of every person living (or visiting) that spot. > I could think of worse things I'd like to do to Islamic terrorists. For example, there is suppose to be a "god spot" in the temporal lobes of the brain. What if one used a "gamma knife" to remove it? Do you propose to use a knife to cut out the G spot from prostitutes, too? Just curious. Of course, your proposal makes more sense as I suspect most prostitutes aren't really enjoying their work (or is "job" a better word choice here!?) and so removing a G spot wouldn't do much. > How does one "practice" a religion? I would guess the same as one practices an instrument - with regular lessons (given weekly in the Christian faith it seems, but 5 times daily in some Muslim areas) and then pray daily and think about God quite often, etc. > Do you actually get better at being religious? Well, not from those I've seen practice, as a number seem to get less moral rather than more moral (using the excuse that God forgives all sins so long as forgiveness is requested, etc.). > Is that something you want to get better at? No, which is one reason I don't practice it. I said, "If I ever were to practice religion" (or I said something like that), not that I planned on doing it. >I don't quite get modern interpretations of the Bible or Torah -- seems the interpreters and theologians have re-invented the religion... Re-invented to the point where the book no longer means the same thing the original authors intended, except to fundamentalists. Shakespeare might feel the same has happened with his works. > many won't even buckle their seat belts (must think God will protect them)). Others might call that survival of the fittest. > If you really want to know, the inventor was Albert Hoffman and he wrote a book called "LSD, My Problem Child." Have you read it? > I know what happened to Thomas Paine for writing "The Age of Reason." However, these days we have Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett. Neither is particularly kind to religion and I don't think their road seems so hard. In America today, it seems like a somewhat paved road to actually make use of one's freedom of speech, but there are still some potholes. > The reader I imagine is a religious person I argue into atheism by the sheer envitable logic of my position. But I haven't been able to do that in chat rooms or usenet yet. No, I've never changed a religious person into one who isn't (not that I honestly have tried because as I've said, I do think faith in God actually helps some people and would not want to take away anything which might increase lifespan, etc.). You, however, do feel strongly that religion is dangerous and I'm sure are fighting tooth and nail, but still with no success in chat rooms (have you had any success anywhere in changing someone from having faith to lacking it?). I'm wondering if a book can be more effective.


	Re: Are We Becoming An Endangered Species? Technology and Ethics in the 21st Century posted on 07/01/2003 2:44 PM by Monkey Man	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
In atheistic circles I often observe a lot of hostility toward believers, large amounts of citation re Bible fallacies, etc. Not sure why. The mistake of treading on someone's choices and denigrating their beliefs is an error regardless of which side the volly is directed at. Many refer to a handful of Islamic fundamentalists/extremists and point to them as examples of the harm done by religion. Likewise, to bloody crusades which happened centuries ago. Those who point to Christians and count them as idiots make an unfair and incorrect representation of this group. Why the hostile attitude toward those who have made a choice to believe? Are there not more important issues to direct one's attention toward than pointing and saying this one or that one is wrong, and I am right? Such an attitude is a vibrant example of the very behavior it claims to attack. What of the millions of everyday people who believe and band together to feed the hungry, to help the downtrodden, to have mercy and give aid to those who are need? It is all good and well to rationalize those poverty stricken as having opportunities to be upwardly mobile, yet it is often easier said than done. Those folks are grateful to receive some measure of altruism from the religious community, especially when they are often forgotten by those who have long since attained comfort and affluence, and the system in which they exist, and there are far greater numbers of believers who exhibit help and altruism toward others than who explode bombs. The statistics leave no question. Further, the theological issue in fact has nothing to do with the Bible or with Christianity. Those who reference Bible fallacy or the old testamnet representations of a tribal God show themselves to be just as chained to the Western Protestant context as a southern baptist. What of the Buddhist, the Hindu, the Taoist, the Jew? The question of God is not a question that deserves to be limited to one culture or belief system. The question is simply, "Does God exist?" No philosophical argument provides ample ground to disprove God. The same is true of those who would try to prove God. God simply cannot be disproven, any more than he can be proven. Belief is simply a matter of choice, and the freedom of choice should not be tread upon. It is unbelievable error, methinks, to denigrate someone's views and point to something like terrorism as a reason believing in God is wrong. Such issues have far more to do with a myriad of socio-economic factors, political and cultural factors, etc. etc. than they do with theological viewpoints. Given the amount of positive social impact religion of all sorts have, it seems erroneous to try and provide empirical argument for the nonexistence of God. Likewise for his existence. It is simply a choice, to believe or not to believe, that all should be free to make. The result of this choice carries implications which are poignant and pertinent, and far from being obsolete as we glide into the twenty-first century.


	Re: Are We Becoming An Endangered Species? Technology and Ethics in the 21st Century posted on 11/23/2001 11:16 PM by grantc4@hotmail.com	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
>Forrest says "AI cannot give any answer about the meaning of life and cannot support humans in their intuitive understanding of themselves and within their struggles with their ambiguous and fearful life." Then she suggests religion does give this "meaning It seems to me we would be as likely to find the meaning of life in Monty Python as we would in AI. I feel that meaning is something we must give to our lives before we can find it in them. Outside ourselves, I doubt we can find any at all.


	Re: Are We Becoming An Endangered Species? Technology and Ethics in the 21st Century posted on 11/24/2001 12:15 PM by cutitupwiz@netscape.net	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
It appears to me gentlehumans that we are engaging in that age old art of "chewing the fat". If no other result came from technology than that, we would not be so bad off. As to the question of danger in technological advance, I have to say the question is a bit moot isn't it. The fact is technology has advanced, like it or not. Our path then becomes clear. Researchers will not discontinue their research. Manufacturers will not discontinue their manufacturing. Full blown nanotechnology will arrive and the other concerns are already very far along into the "dangerous zone". Instead of posturing and pontifying I would like to hear some suggestions as to how to reconcile these concerns with the fact that our threatening tchnologies are becoming actual more each day. What we need to do is to formulate and follow guidelines to the implimentation of these disciplines like the Foresight Institutes quidelines on nanotechnology. Thank you for your patience, concern and insights. Durk Barton., nanoresearcher and artist.


	Re: Are We Becoming An Endangered Species? Technology and Ethics in the 21st Century posted on 11/26/2001 4:36 AM by normdoering@mad.scientist.com	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
> I have to say the question is a bit moot > isn't it. No, I don't think so. They are in danger of making laws against certain forms of research. Just today someone announced an advance in human cloning and CNN put on its anti-cloning preachers. > Instead of posturing and pontifying I would > like to hear some suggestions as to how to > reconcile these concerns with the fact that our > threatening tchnologies are becoming actual more > each day. What we need to do is to formulate and > follow guidelines to the implimentation of these > disciplines like the Foresight Institutes > quidelines on nanotechnology. Sounds like a good idea to me. And as you say, Foresight is doing that. However, what good are guidelines if some researchers are driven by other dreams? Some researchers who want the weapons. One of the scarriest things about bin Laden's network and the war news was when they found that biolab that had been gearing up for germ warfare. A bin Laden with nanoweapons is a horrifying concept. How can we prevent that from happening? -- Norm Doering


	Re: Are We Becoming An Endangered Species? Technology and Ethics in the 21st Century posted on 11/26/2001 4:34 AM by normdoering@mad.scientist.com	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
> It seems to me we would be as likely to find > the meaning of life in Monty Python as we would > in AI. Well, Maybe Python's film "The Meaning of Life" does have more meaning than Speilberg's "A.I." > I feel that meaning is something we must give > to our lives before we can find it in them. Outside > ourselves, I doubt we can find any at all. I agree, of course. -- Norm Doering


	Re: Are We Becoming An Endangered Species? Technology and Ethics in the 21st Century posted on 11/26/2001 4:06 PM by cutitupwiz@netscape.net	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
Appearently we're missing the point here. We are to develope guidelines to the development of possibly dangerous technologies. In doing, we must approach every aspect of the arena, every one who possesses the ability to create/develope these technologies. Disciplines of this nature do not occur in a vacuum;someone must fund this research, someone must carry it out. Are these individuals unapproachable? If our fear is so great, then shall we storm the walls of the "Frankenstein castles" at the Dupont labs, at MIT, the Bell Labs. If I seem a bit mellow dramatic, I have a reason; If we are to insure that the development of sciences that hold both promise and threat are developed safely, then our question is clear:Why haven't we shown greater concern after the horror of Nagasaki, incidents like the Times beach toxic contamination? Is it not now time to build a different society than the one we have had? One in which we take responsibility for the areas of society that are of greatest concern. Thank you for your patience.


	Re: Are We Becoming An Endangered Species? Technology and Ethics in the 21st Century posted on 11/26/2001 8:45 PM by normdoering@mad.scientist.com	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
> We are to develope guidelines to the development > of possibly dangerous technologies. But guidelines are only followed by those who choose to do so. > In doing, we must approach every aspect of the > arena, every one who possesses the ability to > create/develope these technologies. "Everyone" who has the ability is a broad spectrum of people with very different beliefs, dreams and short term goals. It's the differences in our beliefs, dreams and goals that are the problem. > ...not occur in a vacuum; someone must fund this > research, someone must carry it out. Are these > individuals unapproachable? In some ways, yes. For example, if one is a fundamentalist complaining about genetic scientists "playing god" with human life via cloning, then one won't have much chance of making anything but an unfavorable impression on an atheistic scientist who merely wants to save lives. The religionists have to resort to force of law and threats to prevent those kind of scientists from doing their research. In the end, the research will just get done somewhere else -- where there are fewer fundamentalists. On the reverse side of the coin, there's not much chance of me getting an Islamic fundamentalist researcher from developing a genetically modified disease to attack me and mine. > If our fear is so great, then shall we storm > the walls of the "Frankenstein castles" at the > Dupont labs, at MIT, the Bell Labs. I hope not -- I'll fight on MIT's side. > If I seem a bit mellow dramatic, I have a reason; > If we are to insure that the development of sciences > that hold both promise and threat are developed > safely, then our question is clear:Why haven't we > shown greater concern after the horror of Nagasaki, ... Because we owned the bomb? > incidents like the Times beach toxic contamination? > Is it not now time to build a different society than > the one we have had? How does one build a society? All you can do is mildly influence its course. > One in which we take responsibility for the areas of > society that are of greatest concern. Thank you for > your patience. In the end, the bad things are going to have to happen before we take the threats seriously. -- Norm Doering


	Re: Are We Becoming An Endangered Species? Technology and Ethics in the 21st Century posted on 11/25/2001 5:57 PM by darwinshaylor@hotmail.com	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
Has anyone noticed that fewer people are killed as technology becomes more complex? Millions of people have been slaughtered by the ancient technologies of sticks and knives. Millions more have been killed by primitive projectile weapons and explosives. High-tech weapons have killed a few thousand people. Last year a much smaller proportion of the human population died a gruesome death than 50, 100 or 1000 years ago. <br> <br> Joe S. <br>


	Re: Are We Becoming An Endangered Species? Technology and Ethics in the 21st Century posted on 11/25/2001 8:06 PM by dhart@sftower.com	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
Is 'proportion [not] killed' really an accurate measure of civility, or technological progress? What about mass murder? Is the definition of mass murder on a sliding scale along with human population? Why, in 2050 terms, the murder of 6 million of 10 billion people may no longer qualify for the term 'holocaust'. I do believe that humanity is progressing. Our basal instincts aren't changing -- people interact and react in roughly the same way people did 10,000 years ago. Our knowledge and access to information drives our progress. Our brains wild evolve or otherwise improve, receiving more higher thought capability, and hopefully a progressively larger proportion of humanity will act rationally. I am concerned with the arguments used to demonstrate human progress. I think "NEW & IMPROVED! 10% less killed this century!" is not a good one.


	Re: Are We Becoming An Endangered Species? Technology and Ethics in the 21st Century posted on 11/18/2002 4:51 PM by Vincenzo Pasquantonio	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
An examination of this article seems to reveal several inconsistencies in the arguments towards the use of new and emerging technologies for the advancement of human life. To begin, it is mentioned near the beginning of the article that some sort of technological advance was responsible for abortion and thus has thrust us into a theological vs. scientific debate over the morality of such. Abortion is far from a scientific discovery and can hardly be considered technology. Irrespective of my personal beliefs on abortion, it is a rather simple procedure of injection poison into the pregnant woman's womb to terminate life and then removing the fetus and other contents. Some of the earliest abortions have been documented well before the appearance of anything we today consider as technology - even electricity to that matter. The statement made by the article diminishes, from the beginning, its credibility and interpretation of technology. A second comment in the article by Kurtzweil seems to take an altruistic approach stating that we need to develop certain technologies such as cloning, genetic mutations etc. for the good of those suffering from debilitating diseases such as cancer. What were not highlighted are the causes of many of the cancers we see today. Technological advances such as the development of pesticides, toxic chemicals, nuclear applications in industry and artificial foods and preservatives have all led to the increase of cancer in the human population through various forms of pollution. Cancer is a modern disease with respect to human history and not a day goes by where some form of technology is found to be a contributory factor to cancer in humans. The use of further technology to combat these diseases essentially make technology a self supporting medium for industry in general who both give the disease and sell you the cure. A vicious circle of disease and its cures is created. Many technological articles, such as this, who seem to treat disease as 100% genetic, are incorrect in that most diseases are instigated by both environmental and biological components, as is taught in any first year biology course. I both agree and support arguments put forth by Anne Forest. The focus on the physical aspects of this world has superseded any notion of the meaning of life and its purpose. Ask any human whether they have a soul or not and a majority will answer yes. How we nurture our soul and ourselves has taken a backseat to technological development. Life is a matter of balance and our blurry view of ourselves as people with a purpose to advance for the greater good and maintain the equality of all is causing us to loose touch with our spirituality. We are thrust into a greedy mentality where we pursue most good for the few. This is not equality for all. How can we, in good conscious, continue technological development at such a pace and at such cost when we still haven't solved the problem of famine, poverty and disease in third world countries?


	Re: Are We Becoming An Endangered Species? Technology and Ethics in the 21st Century posted on 11/05/2003 12:13 AM by buturab	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
Technology has improved our lives in many ways. It is because of technology that we are able to decrease the amount of risk that we face everyday. It has made our lives easier and luxurious. Although the panel has distinct opinions regarding the future of technology, they all acknowledge the possible dangers that could accompany them. Alongside with the panel, I also agree with the possible risks that come along with improvements in technology. It is evident that Bill Joy gave the most negative interpretation of the future. His vision of the future seemed to be very biased, in the sense that according to him nothing good can come out of the direction we are leading technology to. A lot of research is being done in the field of nanotechnology and robotics. Is Bill Joy trying to close the door of opportunity for those people who are working hard in achieving success, like he has? It is very unlikely for a person who is the co-founder and the chief scientist of one of the worlds leading technological companies to give such a negative interpretation of what the technology might do to us one day. He claims that nanotechnology and robotics are a �threat to humanity and the very essence of life�. His claims are true if technology falls in the wrong hands. Even in the current moderate technological period, a person who wishes to cause damage to the so called �hi-tech� infrastructure can merely do so, as we have seen in the news lately. Does this mean that we must shut down our computers and live the way we did 20 years ago? I like the argument made by Kurzweil in regards to this matter when he talks about the damage caused by computer crime and how little it is compared to the benefit we receive from them. Technology came into existence and has improved for the benefit of society. If there is a stage when we see that technology getting out of our hands, I�m sure people will be smart enough to pull the plug. Nanotechnology and robotics both have a positive and a negative side. It can improve our health care, provide more luxury, decrease poverty, and improve our standard of living among many other things. On the other hand, if this falls in the wrong hands it can cause catastrophe, just like weapons of mass destruction (WMD). A lot of nations are armed with weapons that can cause serious damage. Even after the advent of nuclear weapons, we have advanced to biological and chemical weapons. Even though we are aware that these weapons can bring no good, we still continue to build more horrible arms. Just like WMD, it is impossible to put a halt to the growth of technology, but atleast there is a positive side to it. One has to understand the dangers that might follow with the inevitable growth of technology, but I do believe that technology does more good than harm. If abused, it can cause serious damage, but it is up to us to improve security as it is vital for our safety. Regardless of what rich scientist such as Bill Joy say, technology should expand and we have to learn to be more careful, otherwise the growth could lead to the extinction of human species � although I feel this is highly unlikely. While Joy mentions the negative impact that technology will have, he fails to mention the benefits that it promises to bring. The insertion of cameras into the human body to observe real time problems, hearing aid for deaf people, support for blind people to name a few. I particularly liked Ray Kurzweil views on the use of technology. His visions of the future made clear the possibilities that can come into existence with the expansion of technology. It is with technology that people with dreadful diseases, such as Cancer, can find some hope. I believe that if technology improves then, death by Cancer, Aids, and many other diseases will become history. Nevertheless, Joy�s view of immortality does not convince me because I don�t see how ones mind on a machine could be of any use. From where we stand, we have a long time before we can even start thinking of ways to �cheat death�. In the future, technology does not seem to be a great danger to us. We have to learn to be smart and come up with defensive tools that would, if necessary, protect us from the misuse of technology.


	Re: Are We Becoming An Endangered Species? Technology and Ethics in the 21st Century posted on 05/03/2007 3:13 PM by equsnarnd	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
Bill Joy has a good role to play: to point out where the pitfalls are in the path taken but he sometimes takes himself to be more than that and thinks he can close doors to knowledge. This is worse than silly and futile; its dangerous. Ray has a wonderful role to play as an unabashed advocate for technological advance though he can sound like someone trying to sell real estate at time in truth I think he's quite an honest man and very necessary as some sage once said, "Mankind without a vision is dead." What I totally fail to grasp is the line the article took on identifying religion with morality. Ain't so. What religion is to morality is what government is to justice. They may be associated in our minds but they are not one and the same or causative. Though anyone who is identified as being religious can certainly raise moral questions but being religious gives them no authority to do so. All in all, its a stimulating debate.


	Re: Are We Becoming An Endangered Species? Technology and Ethics in the 21st Century posted on 05/06/2007 4:12 AM by BeAfraid	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
I saw Bill Joy give this safe speil at the Sigularity Summit, and had a chance to have a brief conversation with Ray Kurzweil the following day about it. I made the observation "It seems to me that Bill Joy has had something happened that has just scared him, and rather than have the courage to see the bright new future; he would rather hide like a coward with his head buried in the sand. It seems to be all about luddite fears" Ray's reponse "Yes, I think so too." There have been people like Bill Joy since way before Iron replaced Bronze as the material of choice for weapons. I can just see some Phoenician Trader discussing it with an Egyptian "This new stuff 'Iron' is just going to make it that much easier for the human race to kill itself off, blah, blah, blah... It is just too dangerous and we should not be messing around with it." The same things were said about Atomic Bombs... People were worried that the atmosphere would burn off, that it would create a chain reaction in the earth's core, etc" Bill Joy seems to only want to look at some pretty extreme situations. While it is true that the GNR (Genetic Nanotech, Robotic) technologies of the coming age CAN be used to create dreadful catatrophies... There are VERY few people who would be both silling to do so and have the capabilities to do so (at least in the short term). In the long term, I am pretty confident that we will find a way to control these technologies and create counter-measures for any dastardly plans laid by those with ill intentions. Plus, I am going into the GNR field (Mostly the N and R parts of it), and I WILL BE DAMNED if ANYONE is going to tell me that I cannot continue to advance the sceince of Robotics or Nanotech, and will defend my right to do so to the death. As the US's policy on illicit drugs has proven.. You cannot prohibit something that people demand (Remember supply and demand??? If there IS a Demand, a supply WILL be met for it). People are going to want technologies that keep them younger for longer. They are going to want things that keep them young and beautiful. They are going to want things that make their sports more exciting, that make their actors and movies more realistic and believable, that make the real events of life that much more riveting and far-reaching... I have seen the look in Bill Joy's eyes before... He had the look of desparation born of a nightmare that he is helpless to prevent. The only thing is... It is only his nightmare, and he needs to wake up to the reality of a world where nightmares are the exception, and the shining dream more often the case.


	Re: Are We Becoming An Endangered Species? Technology and Ethics in the 21st Century posted on 05/06/2007 10:23 AM by doojie	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
On glancing through the varous posts, I see that terrorism and the bible seem to be the main features. First, terrorism is a part of our biological adaptation. The organism is "terrorized" by the threat of virus or bacteria, identifies it, then destroys it. However, in this interplay between two forces of evolution, the virus has become part of the reproductive processes of the cells, and the immune system has increased "intelligence" because it now has a "library" of greater defenses for future reference. Much of what we once called junk DNA is similar to the DNA of viruses, and may well be a kind of library of defenses waiting for new forms of invasion, with this DNA neing spliced and re-arranged for defense. Before Marx twisted the idea, class struggle used to be the historical process that resembled the viral invasion. A culture overcomes another, then absorbs that culture. But the absorbed culture reproduces and introduces its own codes and beliefs, which eventually influence and enlarge the awareness of the conquering culture. Israel, being a wandering culture, acts as a type of virus on other cultures such as Egypt, Babylon, Persia, Greece, and Romwe, not to mention christianity and islam. That is, Israel has served to "inform" cultures in such a way that their empires were broken apart into more adaptive systems, as an organism increases adaptivity when attacked by a virus. So, the God of the Old Testament, of Israel, represented a culture that had not yet established its identity among nations, born of wandering in a desert where no wealth was evident, and developing a kind of adaptive cultural DNA called "God's law" that allowed them to spread to differing environments and cultures. The parallel to what occurs in a biological organism is striking. The present conflict between the US and Iraq is merely a variation of the same conflict that occurs in both cultures and biological systems. Wars, however, always employ the latest technologies, and spread those technologies rapidly until the warring countries achieve some level of equality. The war between Iraq and the US is an information war, one in which neither country has the advantage, but Iraq, folowing examples from Vietnam and the Far East, is employing its advantage of information over the US, which is still dependent on the mechanical technologies of collective, army fought war. England and the US, as represetatives of this outdated method of warfare, are "peas in a pod", not realizing that they will have to adapt to the de-centralist technologies in this war. There are a great number of misconceptions regarding both Jesus and the bible, but it should be noted that Jesus himself foretold of the necessity of war, of religions deceiving nations, and of our need to avoid ideological conflict in the name of God, all processes that occur naturally in our evolution.


	Re: Are We Becoming An Endangered Species? Technology and Ethics in the 21st Century posted on 05/06/2007 11:54 PM by BeAfraid	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
It is my current belief that the world is currently in that act of exercising the religious extremism from itself. That the contemporary religious fanaticism is the result of a realization by those fanatics that their beliefs are loosing popular favor. That people are waking up to a reality that does not contain such specious subjective beliefs as part of its objective point of view. That such beliefs are really nothing more than the fairy tales of a bygone age. This is a process that is VERY frightening. It is the SAME process that has caused Bill Joy to react with such fanaticism at the advancing of technology, only in his case, he does not have religion to fall back upon (I would not be surprised if in another few years he has a religious conversion episode). Fear can cause all kinds of rash and unreasonable behavior in people. As communication becomes more and more widespread and people begin to see that what they are being taught in many areas (The US is evil, that communism is evil, that N. Korea is evil, etc...) is in fact not the case (that it is in fact only a few people in this world that make it dangerous for the many others) they will begin, more and more, to reject extremism. Another thing that is necessary for this to happen is the alleviation of poverty, disease and hunger... People who have their basic needs met are much less likely to go to extremes. lastly, I do think that Humanity as it now exists is an endangered species, but probably not for the same reasons as others... It is just a matter of natural evolution making changes to the world and us along with it.

Briefing Paper

PROGRESS OVER PIETY?

EXTINCTION OR EVOLUTION?

Bill Joy

Ray Kurzweil

Anne Foerst

Bill McKibben

Topics:

Suggested Questions:

To Bill Joy:

To Ray Kurzweil:

To Anne Foerst:

To Bill McKibben:

Panelists: