Right now, #3 seems to be winning the race, by a long way. And even if #1 can begin to pick up the pace, the poor showing of #2 will impede #1 while at the same time bettering the chances of #3.
Effective progressive governance can heighten the chances for beneficial implementation of emerging technologies. Less progressive governance -- a laissez faire approach to research and development -- might, in the opinion of some, lead to more rapid development of transformative technologies. But it also means far less emphasis on safety and on equal access. Plus, with reduced government support for basic research, the exciting new technologies that many transhumanists crave could actually come slower instead of faster.
So, #2, better governance, is essential if we want the full benefits of #1, which in turn could, we hope, help to forestall or mitigate the impacts of #3, systemic ecological and economic breakdowns.
Conversely, less progressive methods of governance will make devastating breakdowns in either the global ecosystem or the world economy, or both, far more likely, while also increasing the possibility of wide-scale conflict.
The present inability of nation-states to agree on, and to apply, aggressive reductions in greenhouse gas emissions; the ongoing overfishing of the world’s oceans; the continued destruction of tropical rainforests and thousands of species within; increased ocean acidification and loss of coral reef habitats; etc. -- all these are the result of inadequate global governance, and together they amount to a deadly combination that risks a truly catastrophic eco-collapse.
The lack of healthy progressive governance also impedes the finding of solutions to avert growing inequality between rich and poor nations, and between rich and poor within nations. It prevents the implementation of effective systems to manage financial transactions, potentially making us vulnerable to another out-of-control investment bubble and burst, costing taxpayers billions or even trillions. It places less emphasis on diplomacy and mediation to resolve conflicts, and more emphasis on military action, thus favoring nations who channel money to arms and armies ahead of other priorities, such as education, infrastructure, or clean energy.
In the race for the future, the narrow odds of seeing a near-term evolution of better governance (#2) means we face both a greater chance of disastrous systemic breakdowns (#3) and have less hope of seeing emerging technologies (#1) zoom to the rescue in time.
Even in a best case scenario, featuring the most significant plausible breakthroughs in nanotech, bio-engineering, artificial intelligence, robotics, or other potentially transformative technologies, and even with unexpected dramatic improvements in our models of global governance, the pressures of overpopulation and the inertia of climate change -- positive feedback loops -- could prove to be too much to overcome.
No matter what happens with #1 and #2, it still seems that by the year 2100 we are destined to see far higher global average temperatures, vanishing glaciers and ice caps, and a huge number of species lost, with serious consequences for human health, prosperity, and social stability.
Are we doomed, then? Shall we just give up?
Certainly not, because the sooner that these powerful new technologies can be developed, and the better they are implemented, the fewer people will suffer. Our choice, realistically, is between a bad outcome in the 21st century -- thanks to our many decades of oil, gas, and coal-fueled gluttony -- and a far worse outcome.
Is all this too pessimistic? Do you still believe that emerging technologies will transform the world so much that global warming will be cured and abundance will be ensured? That the advance of technology is so sure and so inevitable that a post-scarcity future is just ahead of us? Or is the above analysis on the mark?
We’ve opened a new poll for IEET readers so you can have your say.
The present inability of nation-states to agree on, and to apply, aggressive reductions in greenhouse gas emissions; the ongoing overfishing of the world’s oceans; the continued destruction of tropical rainforests and thousands of species within; increased ocean acidification and loss of coral reef habitats; etc. -- all these are the result of inadequate global governance, and together they amount to a deadly combination that risks a truly catastrophic eco-collapse.