Emerging Technology: Creator of Worlds

W. Michael Guillot

Are artificial intelligence, genetic modification, and human enhancement taboo? Our adversaries may not think so. Should we let imagination lead the way into the future or be stymied by our fears?

Read/Download Article



Leave Comment

Lawrence Neelis 8/30/2016 11:41:20 AM

Bravo. We have our imagination ability. To think creatively,therefore visualization of what could be and the ability to create the vision into a real material object,method or system for a particular use,good or bad ,ugly or beautiful. This ability allows our society to evolve into a natural improved being capable of controlling its own environment to suit improved existence for each and every single living organism on our Earth,without harm as a shortcut to achieve the vision into reality. In my opinion, this is a tool to prevent our own extinction and should not be haltered by fear of the unknown consequences after complete research of negative possibilities. Natural sequence of development to the next form of such would be a mutation to survive that could take millenniums. Environments all around us are rapidly changing, we must keep up or become extinct like so many other species in the past. We have the ability to foster what is and what could be because of applied developement of thought applied to improve,preserve,and protect our planet as its stewards. Therefore every living thing and our earth is a living thing made up of dead things, are interconnected. Our ability to think prevents early extinction. We must proceed with what is newly discovered without fear or excuses. The use of our already acquired enhancements allow us to choose how to evolve in order to prevent extinction. Our physical bodies are not able to keep up with our mental capabilities right now. Push forward calmly using what we know or hesitate and we accept sufferage extinction in my opinion.

Jerry Gantt 8/30/2016 3:01:46 PM

Where is George Orwell when you need him? The issues raised in this commentary are mind-boggling, at least for my mind. I am reminded of an interview with board of trustee members at a private liberal arts university where I worked in the latter days of the Cold War. One trustee remarked, "Let the scientists and engineers make the bombs, but let a liberal arts major have the finger on the button." The potentialities we face through and from emerging technologies today are no less ominous than the threat of nuclear annihilation nor less promising than the breakthroughs afforded by nuclear medicine. May you live in interesting times.

Michael Howard 8/30/2016 3:05:44 PM

Gandhi popularized a list known as The Seven Social Sins. Three of the seven sound a dire warning with respect to the pursuit and deployment of emerging technologies: * Knowledge without character. * Commerce without morality. * Science without humanity. Do not misunderstand the warning. It is not about obstructing the pursuit of knowledge, commerce, or science. Rather, it is a clarion call to keep balance, to strengthen character as one gains knowledge, to deepen morality as one profits in commerce, and to enliven and uplift humanity as one advances the boundaries of science. If the balance is lost, civilization is threatened. It is hollowed out, weakened, decorated prettily like an Easter egg but fragile and empty. Confusion sets in, where the pursuit of knowledge, commerce, and science becomes not the means toward an end (such as the betterment of humanity and our common home), but ends in and of themselves, without greater purpose. We must remember, technology itself is amoral. Capabilities, in isolation, are amoral. Knowledge, in statis, is amoral. The crux of the issue is how humans employ technology and exploit knowledge. That is what reveals character, morality, and humanity. Good intentions count for nothing. Outcomes and consequences are all that matter. Unintended consequences have as much or more impact than intended outcomes. Just because a thing can be done does not mean it should be done. I would add, just because an enemy can do a thing does not mean America should do it (or do it first). From the enemy's perspective, such behavior drives a dangerous rationale: If we don't do it first, the Americans surely will. This line of thinking threatens to eclipse all moral judgment and thrust everyone headlong into a disaster amplified by unbridled technological power. Therefore, if advancements in knowledge, commerce, and science outstrip or overwhelm our ability to direct them toward moral outcomes, we are headed for complete loss of our civilization. Gandhi's list will indeed be aptly labeled the "Seven Blunders of the World," as it is also known. So I say in conclusion, discussions of any particular advancement should include debate on the morality of any application of it. By what moral code or ethic shall it be judged? What standard of behavior or cultural or religious tradition can be applied? What does its employment say about what it means to be human? Does that reflect the best of humanity, the best character of a human being? And finally, in the hands of an enemy, what can this capability do, and how can we counter (nullify) the capability to prevent evil outcomes? Endnote: the other four social sins are * Wealth without work. * Pleasure without conscience. * Worship without sacrifice. * Politics without principle.

Kirby G. Logan 8/31/2016 2:13:10 PM

Article title is aptly labeled and is congruous with, The Rise of the Creative Class, by Richard Florida.

John Brence 9/3/2016 10:12:48 PM

It all boils down to a discussion of morality and ethics, a circumstance which I find very troubling. I believe that morality is absolute. Just because one can do something doesn't mean that one should. Further research and enhancements should be pursued only as long as it is done morally. The question is going to be who determines what is moral, and against what standard. If morality is seen as relative and subject to change depending on circumstance, pursuing such research may lead to great evil. This is not a problem for the future. It is a problem we face today. Currently, our own National Institutes of Health Office of Science Policy proposes the authorization of federally funded human/animal chimera research even though it is prohibited by federal statute. What will the result of this research be? Will it be moral? Should we pursue it?

Marcelo Rinesi 10/11/2016 11:04:43 AM

As CTO for the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies, as well as a freelance data scientist, I found a lot of overlap between the themes in the latest issue of SSQ and my recently published book, TACTICAL AWARENESS (http://rinesi.com/tactical_awareness.pdf). This is a free collection of science fiction short stories of exactly a hundred words each, dealing mostly with the impact of emerging technologies on security, psychology, and politics. The collection might be of some interest to SSQ readers. I would also appreciate feedback on how the scenarios look to people with professional knowledge of security issues, rather than somebody coming purely from the mathematics/IT side of things.