When should we consider the long-term ramifications of technological developments?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/12/science/12ethics.html?8dpc=&pagewanted=all

by robg • 18 years ago

8 12 18 years ago

stcredzero3• 18 years ago

Always, but we should also be realistic. We're going to be wrong about this stuff again and again.

Technology itself is something of an exponential process. Basically, we're fuel in a kind of conflagration. If we care about the survival of our species, we need to get off this planet. Right now, we're all in the same basket. The biosphere links us all together in ways that are way too complex for a human being to comprehend. The only sensible engineering solution involves decoupling and redundancy.

cousin_it• 18 years ago

How about colonizing the north of Russia or Canada, the ice caps, the deserts, the oceans? All those are much easier than space, and more useful.

Humanity hasn't had an outward frontier since the initial spread. The real frontier is technological and faces inward (Moore's law). The engineering solution is refactoring away the bloat of our bodies, when all we need is the minds. Become smaller, become faster, amplify intelligence, virtualize. This universe is cold, lifeless and slow - let's find a new universe in every atom, that's much more interesting.

</wild-speculation>

stcredzero3• 18 years ago

We've already seen how the ice caps are coupled to the rest of the world.

Femtotech is a dandy idea, but still speculation. We know colonizing space is technically feasible. Once we're there, we know there can be a self sustaining economy. The problem is getting there with one.

jackchristopher• 18 years ago

Now.

It's too easy to write this off. And you're called a nutter if you argue that anything bigger could happen soon.

And technology seems to be accelerating, but whether it is, or not, we should at least err on the side of caution, and have some formal way we integrate new things into society.

Whether it will be a force for good, or ill depends on man.

pongle2• 18 years ago

I have yet to see a viable business model for any geoengineering company, but when one does come along it will definitely be Interesting Times.

MaysonL• 18 years ago

Government subsidy.

pongle2• 18 years ago

Governments probably aren't going to get their act together for a while, and when they do they are at least reasonably accountable to the populous.

Perhaps if the geoengineering is part of a miltiary, farming or energy offering, but otherwise I doubt they will get long-term subsidy...

EDIT: add "in my opinion" to all of the above :)

gaius• 18 years ago

Engineers, scientists, philosophers, ethicists and lawyers are taking up the issue

Seriously, what? Are the lawyers planning to sue the climate for changing? Are the philosophers planning to convince the planet otherwise through pure rhetoric? Non-practitioners have nothing to contribute to this discussion.

baz• 18 years ago

I think our technologicies are advancing at a much faster rate than our collective inner wisdom and interpersonal relationships. Without much greater attention paid to this aspect of our lives, it appears evident that our technologies (however wonderful) will become truly awe-full and unfortunately be used to place great portions (if not all) of our species at significant risk for survival.

anamax• 18 years ago

> And technology seems to be accelerating, but whether it is, or not, we should at least err on the side of caution, and have some formal way we integrate new things into society.

How big an error is acceptable?

It's unclear why the arguments in favor are any stronger today than they were, say, 1000 years ago. If we'd "err'd on the side of caution" then, where would we be?

What is the actual track record of folks who think that they should have a veto?

When should we consider the long-term ramifications of technological developments?

Related Stories