Critical Thinking Blog Post # 6

For my research paper I will be writing about Philip K. Dick’s prospect of a future filled with androids who are almost indistinguishable from human beings. I will explore the merits of this cautionary tale and find an argument as to whether advancements in technology pose a threat to humanity and whether or not it should slow down or cease altogether.

I have two sources which will serve to help this discussion. The first is an article written by Ray Kurzweil for Newsweek in 2005. Mr. Kurzweil, an inventor and proponent of our continued advancement of technologies, gives an incredibly positive outlook on humanity’s future. He cites that artificial intelligence will match the computing power of the human brain by 2030 and is poised to surpass human capacity thereafter. This article, found on Lexis Nexis, also discusses the continued research being done on nanotechnologies. He feels that these tiny robots will have the ability to fight cancers, unclog arteries and work seamlessly with our body’s own natural defenses, thus introducing a stronger, healthier version of humanity. While messing with genetics and advancing intelligence that is foreign to the human mind might seem a bit terrifying to some, Kurzweil sees this as an opportunity for humanity to jump onto a new paradigm shift of existing on this world. I feel his attitude, although arguably over optimistic, has a quality that is often ignored in this world. Most often, I have witnessed either fear or ignorance when announcements have come of fantastic new breakthroughs in sciences once thought impossible to meddle in.

Another source I have found helpful is the book We, Robot by Mark Stephen Meadows. In this book, Mr. Meadows shows how advancements in robotics have assisted many people for decades, from replacing lost limbs to creating military robots that disarm bombs and provide soldiers with reserve rations and ammunition. In slight contrast to Mr. Kurzweil, he does go on to mention possible dangers with advancing these technologies too far, namely that if we are to create a race of robots to serve and help us, and we willingly upgrade these servants with AI capable of facilitating their functions by allowing them the use of what might be considered ‘human’ attributes such as emotion, self awareness and a desire to help, then we might find ourselves in the mix of slavery once again. The only thing that would be needed to spark a standoff would be a robot receiving an order and replying with a stern ‘No’. Mr. Meadows warns that to avoid what will be an undesirable conflict, we must define the limits to our advancement and ensure these limits are enforced.

Cloning, AI, eugenics are all too often labeled terrifying prospects, but the good that can come from understanding these must be examined in order to find a coherent answer to the question “How are far is too far in race for technology?”