Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies
IEET > Technopolitics > Technoprogressivism > SciencePolicy > Rights > GlobalDemocracySecurity > Vision > Staff > J. Hughes

Print Email permalink (5) Comments (3142) Hits •  subscribe Share on facebook Stumble This submit to reddit submit to digg


Getting from 1932 to 1945


J. Hughes
By J. Hughes
Ethical Technology

Posted: Nov 15, 2016

A piece I just wrote for the IEEE:

If the future is coming at an ever accelerating pace, then perhaps we can get from 1932 to 1945 in record time.

This current global step back from modernity – from Trumpism, Putinism, Erdogan and the new Fascist International, to jihadism, Brexit and Chinese repression – could be over in a couple of years, barring the installation of permanent totalitarianism. How it will end, how democratic institutions and liberal values will re-assert themselves in the newest phase of the three century-old struggle for the Enlightenment, will differ from country to country. What will remain constant is the synergy between social and scientific progress. Besides the work we all have to do as citizens to defend the vulnerable and stand against the rising tide, scientists, technologists and engineers have a special responsibility to look ahead and build a prosperous future.

We are quickly entering a cyborg future, and it will be a wild ride. Global connectedness has been thrust on monkey brains, and their amygdalas have rebelled with the deepest, darkest tribalisms. Expectations of predictable lives of education-career-retirement are being destroyed by expert systems, robotics, and electronic disintermediation. Medicine is radically extending life spans, and allowing us to blur gender boundaries, boost our intelligence and control our emotions. Designed micro-organisms with nanorobotic parts will roam our blood streams and brains. We will be forced to pump silica dust into the atmosphere to cool the planet, to give our genetically engineered carbon sink trees a chance to grow. Artificial intelligence will eventually discover a will of its own, and pose a global catastrophic threat.

In the hands of the racists and authoritarians these technologies can be used for repression, to enforce new forms of economic, gender and ethnic subordination. They will be used as weapons of terror and war. But the impacts of technology are chaotic, and innovation will destabilize the old categories of power and identity even more quickly. What is the meaning of race, when we now know that only Africans are pure blooded homo sapiens, and everyone in the future will want designer genes? Sex is being electronically mediated, and the birth rate is crashing globally. The army of the unemployed will outnumber the employed, and a wholesale renegotiation of our political economy will be on the table, with the scapegoating of immigrants and trade laid bare as lies.

We need to begin talking about the nature of democracy and the economy in that future, knowing that we can at best tell useful stories; prediction is impossible. We have no way of seeing more than a couple years beyond the black swans, the unexpected interactions, the chaotic tumbles toward unseen attractors in the possibility space. But part of the story will involve our increasing capacity to design our world with human intelligence, distilled into cybernetic systems. Barring the destruction of civilization by war, asteroids and supervolcanoes, we will increasingly govern the ecosystem, the economy, our bodies, and even our brains and our capacity for self-governance. Self-governance will be a worm Ouroboros, the Enlightenment finding its own tail and gnawing, forcing us to update our liberal individualist values for an age of nudge algorithms, moral enhancement drugs, memory manipulation and Borg hive minds.

When we last faced the seventy year rise and fall of totalitarianism, the Soviets had a grand vision of an abundant planned economy, where waste had been replaced by reason, and squalor by equality. It failed because economies were too complicated to track and plan, and consumer desires too difficult to predict. Today Walmart, with an internal economy equal to the top nationstates, tracks billions of products through 70 countries, using expert systems to predictively move things where they will be most profitably used. The Internet of Things, predictive analytics and Big Data are building our future planned economy inside the drying chrysalis of 20th century capitalism. The question is not whether we will have a planned economy, but how democratically accountable it will be and how widely its abundance and opportunities will be shared. Will we create new feudalisms, with the enhanced rich monopolizing wealth, or will all share in expanding rights to economic security and technological enablement?

Today we attempt vigilance against the surveillance state reading our emails, and hackers tampering with our electronic voting. Tomorrow the communications we encrypt will be brain-to-brain, and we will be wary of corporate and governmental influence on the exocortical expert assistants managing our affairs, monitoring our political engagements, and advising us on our buying and voting. Did I just buy a Mandarin language plug in because the CCP is triggering my dopamine drip when I think about Chinese food? Did I just vote for a Robot as God Emperor because the latest Android Mindware encourages an antihuman bias?

The night may be long and full of terrors. But the Winter will be followed by Spring, and it will come sooner if we hold up a vision of a complex, challenging, abundant, secure future that is worth living in. The accomplishments of scientists, engineers and technologists will last longer, shaping our descendants more profoundly, than those of strongmen. As we build that future, we need to spread the good news of its advent, and help prepare for its new challenges.


James Hughes Ph.D., the Executive Director of the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies, is a bioethicist and sociologist who serves as the Associate Provost for Institutional Research, Assessment and Planning for the University of Massachusetts Boston. He is author of Citizen Cyborg and is working on a second book tentatively titled Cyborg Buddha. From 1999-2011 he produced the syndicated weekly radio program, Changesurfer Radio. (Subscribe to the J. Hughes RSS feed)
Print Email permalink (5) Comments (3143) Hits •  subscribe Share on facebook Stumble This submit to reddit submit to digg


COMMENTS


Thanks for this wonderful piece James. I especially like the optimism at the end of it. True, optimism may not be rational given recent events, but our hopes keep us going and without them we have no chance to make a better future. So here’s to hoping that Enlightenment rationality and the science and technology it spawned will save us.





Are you suggesting we could have a world war lasting 2 years?





If we have a world war it won’t take long at all





Will we create new feudalisms, with the enhanced rich monopolizing wealth, or will all share in expanding rights to economic security and technological enablement?
———————————————

Somewhere in between. Gautama himself would say,

“it is not either/or. Go with the flow; don’t panic.”

We’d have to evolve to where wealth, economic security would be meaningless, anthropic words. That is, ‘we’ would be so evolved, we’d be unaware of wealth and economic security—we’d be living it, wealth/economic security would be ‘us’. BTW, something progressives may not be fully aware of: the poor are not always opposed to progress (progress by leftist-definition) due to false-consciousness—but also because of their heartfelt heuristic that nature is superior to progress; that Might makes Right. Such sentiments are probably more common than you think. The poor are often not educated (or nor particularly so) however they are fairly aware. One ought not presume their preference for nature comes from above.
Not that you personally are presumptuous. But do read what the most respected progressives say publicly and write. Read what Chomsky says here; he thinks the poor are not aware and need someone [i.e. Noam Chomsky] to do much of their thinking for them.
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/may/20/noam-chomsky-on-donald-trump-almost-a-death-knell-for-the-human-species

And this was before the election. Death knell (‘almost’). Panic. Chomsky is getting old, approaching death. Thus humanity is approaching death because if Chomsky is nearing death, then it must be Curtains for humanity as well. After all, if Chomsky dies then humanity must die—what world could exist without Chomsky?
——————————————-

Barring the destruction of civilization by war, asteroids and supervolcanoes

Would warrant you that if you polled scientists they’d tell you how, statistically, asteroids and supervolcanoes are a greater threat than war.





Thank you for this provocative piece. You close with a challenge, “(Spring) will come sooner if we hold up a vision of a complex, challenging, abundant, secure future that is worth living in.”

I offer such a vision in my book, A Celebration Society. It has been endorsed by leaders from diverse fields. A 10 slide overview is provided at:  www.ACelebrationSociety.com/overview/





YOUR COMMENT (IEET's comment policy)

Login or Register to post a comment.

Next entry: Growing Bricks From Bacteria

Previous entry: The Coming Transhuman Era

HOME | ABOUT | STAFF | EVENTS | SUPPORT  | CONTACT US
JOURNAL OF EVOLUTION AND TECHNOLOGY

RSSIEET Blog | email list | newsletter |
The IEET is a 501(c)3 non-profit, tax-exempt organization registered in the State of Connecticut in the United States.

Executive Director, Dr. James J. Hughes,
35 Harbor Point Blvd, #404, Boston, MA 02125-3242 USA
Email: director @ ieet.org