Misleading Perceptions of Improving “The Human Condition”

It is time to take a step back and examine how we view “technology” and “progress” and the potential creation of a utopian future society.

Article is written with a level of bias and cynicism that puts me off while reading it.  I’d also be more inclined to take such an article seriously had it’s writer taken the time to properly research upcoming technology and the relevance of Moore’s Law (which the writer should know has a cap [because of the physical barriers of the substances currently used] far before technology/artificial intelligence actually reaches the point of self-awareness).  Have a good one.

Thank you Dr. Manoj. I agree with much of what you say.
Perhpas what is needed is a shift in the way we look at market-driven such that profit alone is not the driver. Perhaps this shift is already underway with BOP design but we have a long, long way to go. As you said: “Isolated instances of technological democratization cannot outweigh the prevailing backlogs of its accessibility around the world.”
I don’t think we get to choose the quantity vs. quality of technology; I think it is a both/and thing. It is a function of exponential change.  Your call for a democratization of technology is an important one.

This also reminded me of the TEDtalk on cell phones. At the very end is a reference to biomass generators, but I don’t know how that prgressed since 2006
http://blog.ted.com/2006/10/10/iqbal_quadir_on/

Hmmmm….article is highly suspect in my eyes.

Therefore, I will only point out one thing:

Genetic/biological tampering/modification, as cool as it is, will be a fairly short lived phenomenon due to the fact that we will shortly be transcending biology.

Dor, what do u mean when u say, “Perhaps this shift is already underway with BOP design?” What does BOP stand for?

@Trevis Thirdgill

Sorry, didn’t mean to use jargon. BOP stands for Bottom of the Pyramid. It refers to the vast majority of people around the globe who are living poverty, the 2.5 billion people who live on $2.50 a day or less.
Design in this area includes everything from reduced smoke and solar cook stoves, to biomass generators, to nanofilters for drinking water, etc. I think most of the design is very low tech. Negroponte’s “one laptop per child” program would be an example.
I’m only tangentially familiar as most BOP design projects don’t use US-based research. The best designs come from collaborations with the local people who will use the products.

I find this article more confusing than anything else. What’s the main message finally? It seems to be on the one hand a critique of immortalist and other technoenthusiast fantasies and on the other hand a plea for a fairer distribution of technology. Both fair points: the idealism and enthusiasm of the iPans of the world needs to be accompanied by a bit of pessimism and “grounding”, but beyond that it’s not really clear to me what this adds.

I think you’ve given equal weightage for both technology and equality in tech-distribution, thats convincing for me. And good take against Tech-Utopians… But i differ at only one issue, i.e at the importance of religion. I think fundamental ethics can prevail even without religion. What do you say???

Thank you all for your kind comments. They are a valuable critique of my views on the subject and would go a long way in shaping the manner in which I present such issues in the future also. On the Whole, I would want the future to be more quantifiable and democratic. The dreams and fantasies can be pursued but not obsessed over with.

Add your comment here: