Here is another one of my essays written for a technology & society class. This essay is a short analysis of Bill Joy’s famous article, “Why the Future Doesn’t Need Us”. The doom-and-gloom article created quite the stir in the tech community mainly because Joy is a very well-respected member of the tech elite. I personally am not really convinced by the article, although it does raise some valid concerns about the advancement of technology. If you want to read what I thought of the article then feel free to read on.
—————————
Bill Joy’s “Why the Future Doesn’t Need Us” caused a stir among the information technology community because of its dystopian vision of the future and also the fact that Joy is a well-respected leader of the technology industry. The main purpose of Bill Joy’s “Why the Future Doesn’t Need Us” is to highlight the possible threat of genetic engineering, nanotechnology, and robotics (GNR) pose to the future of humanity. Throughout the article, Joy explains that the GNR technologies should be treated differently because of the possibility that these technologies can create something that can self-replicate. He argues that because of this ability, products coming from the GNR technologies can and probably will become out of control and threaten the existence of the human race. Therefore, the author suggests that humans should limit or even outright abandon their endeavors in these technologies in order to prevent the possibility of a catastrophe.
Judging by the author’s writing style, this article is written to persuade people who do not already share the author’s point of view, and the author realizes that his opinion is of the minority. To establish his argument, Joy uses the knowledge he has accumulated over the years along with numerous passages from the works of other influential/famous people. Near the beginning of the article, Joy quotes a passage from Theodore Kaczynski, who is well-known for his opposition of technology and his terrorist tactics. The author then moves on to quotes from much more respected people, including contemporary leaders in technology such as Hans Moravec and well known science fiction writers such as Arthur C. Clarke. By using a carefully chosen set of passages and leveraging his own reputation, Joy manages to present his vision of the end of humanity due to GNR technologies as a real and valid scenario that other reasonable and well-respected people are also thinking about. This is very important because otherwise people may dismiss the article as somebody’s overactive imagination.
After establishing his point of view, the author tries to build on his argument by comparing the GNR technologies to the NBC technologies (nuclear, biological, chemical). In particular, the author focuses on the development of nuclear weapons and how the nuclear arms race between the US and Soviet Union came perilously close to ending the world. Joy argues that if a military-focused technology such as nuclear came so close to endangering human existence, then the GNR technologies, which have the ability to self-replicate and can be applied outside of military purposes, will be nearly impossible to stop once they start to stray. To prevent a GNR-caused catastrophe from happening, the author suggests that the world should abandon the pursuit in certain areas of these technologies and set up a “verification regime similar to that for biological weapons, but on an unprecedented scale”. Joy develops his argument in a methodical and logical manner, and all his points come together into an elegant conclusion. However, Joy’s entire article relies on the assumption that everything that could go wrong will go wrong, and that the worst case scenario will always present itself if people don’t actively try to prevent it. The author seems to take his assumption as a fact and doesn’t really make an effort to justify it, even though whether or not the GNR technologies can even progress to a stage that can threaten humanity is still debatable. The author also fails to present other competing points of views, such as the fact that society may automatically adjust and assert its influence on the GNR technologies to prevent catastrophe. By not spending the time to justify his assumptions or mentioning other points of view, the author is able to find a simple and elegant path to reach his conclusion, but this also means that his argument is less effective.
In conclusion, the article does an admirable job in presenting a set of compelling imagery that appeals to the emotions, especially people’s fear of the unknown and the future. However, due to the lack of hard evidence and the author’s tendency to jump to doomsday scenarios without carefully the current state of GNR technologies and factors that influences these technologies, this article may have a hard time convincing someone who doesn’t already share the author’s opinion. Overall, “Why the Future Doesn’t Need Us” manages to present its topic in an interesting and attention-grabbing way, but the persuasiveness of the article remains questionable.