Future Society: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Politics and Law » Future Society » Future Society

Future Society
What sort of society will be able to meet the challenges of the future?

Page: 1 2

Future Society

thewatcher
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 19, 2009

Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 160

Posted 07/02/09 - 12:06 PM: Subject: Future Society	#1
http://www.nickbostrom.com/existential/risks.html This paper is one of my favorite products of Oxford's Future of Humanity Institute, an organization of futurists, philosophers and scientists devotes to speculating about the future of the human species. One of the issues associated with advanced technology is that is carries with it the twin risks of decentralization of technical power/know-how and the increased potential of technology to cause massive (perhaps even extinction level) damage. The proliferation of biotechnology, computer technology, nanotechnology and chemical engineering have the potential to allow small groups or, worse, individuals to create weapons capable of causing catastrophic harm. We are already seeing the first signs of this, with groups like Aum Shinrikyo developing their own chemical and biological arsenals with only the resources and know-how of private individuals at their disposal. How much society evolve in the face of these threats? Will a surveilance society in which privacy is a thing of the past and government authority is all-pervasive a necessary and inevitable reaction to these threats? Likewise, are individual nation states up to the task of dealing with this sort of catastrophic future terrorism or must they give way to global bodies or some other arrangement altogether? I am curious as to what perspectives people have on these matters. Please include an explanation of the sorts of social models you think might arise in response to these problems (if, indeed, you feel these problems are likely to worsen in the way that I have predicted here) and why you feel they will come about and how you think they will work.

litkey
Kant's retarded son

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2006
Location: Glasgow

Total Topics: 67
Total Posts: 1012

Posted 07/02/09 - 01:06 PM:	#2
One thing that initially jumps out is the concept of "decentralizing" technology(ies), and how this could be very dangerous for "future society"; however, I think what would be worse would be the centralizing of technology, what many feel we have to do, a group of technocrats, who control the technology, and do so for 2 main reasons: 1) Because they know what is best for society, and 2) so they can control society - and benefit thereof. It is true to say that there might not be an evil force behind the technology, but with a central control of technology, the possibility of it geting into the hands of a small elite, bent on their own evil design - to create a "world order" -this is something that is very real. Some are even arguing, in the field of science, that we need this world order - that "science" and new technologies will be something "beneficial" for a new world order - but what will this technology mean for those who don't want it, who must have it, say for example those that are chipped, and spyed on by CCTV cameras at all hourse, it certainly doesn't sound like a free society. However, and take the analogy of the internet, if everyone has access to the technology, then it can grow in an organic way, with no need for it to be centralised.
That's what tyrants get! - John Wilkes Booth “This is an impressive crowd: the Have's and Have-more's. Some people call you the elites. I call you my base.” -Bush Something cannot come from nothing.

thewatcher
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 19, 2009

Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 160

Posted 07/02/09 - 02:20 PM:	#3
litkey wrote: One thing that initially jumps out is the concept of "decentralizing" technology(ies), and how this could be very dangerous for "future society"; however, I think what would be worse would be the centralizing of technology, what many feel we have to do, a group of technocrats, who control the technology, and do so for 2 main reasons: 1) Because they know what is best for society, and 2) so they can control society - and benefit thereof. It is true to say that there might not be an evil force behind the technology, but with a central control of technology, the possibility of it geting into the hands of a small elite, bent on their own evil design - to create a "world order" -this is something that is very real. Some are even arguing, in the field of science, that we need this world order - that "science" and new technologies will be something "beneficial" for a new world order - but what will this technology mean for those who don't want it, who must have it, say for example those that are chipped, and spyed on by CCTV cameras at all hourse, it certainly doesn't sound like a free society. However, and take the analogy of the internet, if everyone has access to the technology, then it can grow in an organic way, with no need for it to be centralised. I certainly concede the possibility that the alternative to decentralized technologies would be the creation of a elite that would use these technologies to take total control of a society, if not humanity writ large. A part of what I am asking in my OP is whether or not this outcome is, in fact, a necessary and/or desirable means of preventing mass death at the hand of individuals employing high technology. Rule by a technocratic elite may or may not be pleasant, but the case can certainly be made that it is preferable to millions dying of a plague someone cooks up in his basement lab or being eaten by a self-replicating nanotech swarm and so on and so forth.

litkey
Kant's retarded son

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2006
Location: Glasgow

Total Topics: 67
Total Posts: 1012

Posted 07/02/09 - 02:43 PM:	#4
thewatcher wrote: I certainly concede the possibility that the alternative to decentralized technologies would be the creation of a elite that would use these technologies to take total control of a society, if not humanity writ large. A part of what I am asking in my OP is whether or not this outcome is, in fact, a necessary and/or desirable means of preventing mass death at the hand of individuals employing high technology. Rule by a technocratic elite may or may not be pleasant, but the case can certainly be made that it is preferable to millions dying of a plague someone cooks up in his basement lab or being eaten by a self-replicating nanotech swarm and so on and so forth. I'm interested as to the examples you can come up with, in illustrating that a centralised bureacratic technocracy could possibly save these poor millions from dying...? Right now, there is an argument to be made that we are already in the hands of an elite, and if this were true, then surely it would be true to say that they already control the technolgy.
That's what tyrants get! - John Wilkes Booth “This is an impressive crowd: the Have's and Have-more's. Some people call you the elites. I call you my base.” -Bush Something cannot come from nothing.

keda
Ijon Tichy

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 25, 2005
Location: Finland

Total Topics: 38
Total Posts: 3634

Posted 07/02/09 - 02:50 PM:	#5
The transhumanist society was set up by nazi eugenicists so its not so strange that you find orwellian ideas being sold by them. Its easy to model a society playing by ones rules by creating threats, real or imaginary.
All about making money Free Europe Now How to fix your country In thought, men distance themselves from nature in order thus imaginatively to present it to themselves--but only in order to determine how it is to be dominated - Adorno and Horkheimer

thewatcher
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 19, 2009

Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 160

Posted 07/02/09 - 02:51 PM:	#6
litkey wrote: I'm interested as to the examples you can come up with, in illustrating that a centralised bureacratic technocracy could possibly save these poor millions from dying...? Right now, there is an argument to be made that we are already in the hands of an elite, and if this were true, then surely it would be true to say that they already control the technolgy. To your first point, they would prevent said millions from doing either by keeping certain technologies from being developed at all or from entering the hands of the general public and/or by watching people so closely and controlling their lives so totally that they would not be able to do any harm (even with access to high technology). As for your second point, I couldnt tell you if our society is already in the hands of some sort of elite. All I see is the proliferation of what used to be military grade technologies (computing, communication, satelite guidance, synthetic fibers) and the first halting steps of a new kind of super-terrorism (see my earlier example).

thewatcher
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 19, 2009

Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 160

Posted 07/03/09 - 10:54 PM:	#7
keda wrote: The transhumanist society was set up by nazi eugenicists so its not so strange that you find orwellian ideas being sold by them. Its easy to model a society playing by ones rules by creating threats, real or imaginary. So tell me... Have I been taken in by transhumanist propaganda? What sort of future models would you propose would be capable of meeting the challenges I have mentioned? Or are you rather suggesting that the situation is not so dire as I might imagine?

Caldwell
Zuleiha's owner

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 18, 2006
Location: Crawl space

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 2215

Posted 07/04/09 - 02:21 AM:	#8
thewatcher wrote: The proliferation of biotechnology, computer technology, nanotechnology and chemical engineering have the potential to allow small groups or, worse, individuals to create weapons capable of causing catastrophic harm. We are already seeing the first signs of this, with groups like Aum Shinrikyo developing their own chemical and biological arsenals with only the resources and know-how of private individuals at their disposal. But then, isn't that stickler to this puzzle? The fact that these small groups of people must use all these technologies to carry out their evil deeds to humanity is why this kind of thing is almost impossible, if not impossible to pull off. Intelligence gathering is precisely to find out what these people are doing and why they are buying this or that supply, in this or that quantity, using this or that high powered computer, etc, etc.. You know the saying...'if you can't see them, then they can't see you'.. is a mistake. If you look at past attacks, which by the standards of the scenarios you envision were small, not only were they low-tech, but they seemed to be limited in the number of people they killed. These were not accidental. These are the parameters they must content themselves with.
Thank you for listening.

keda
Ijon Tichy

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 25, 2005
Location: Finland

Total Topics: 38
Total Posts: 3634

Posted 07/04/09 - 03:56 AM:	#9
thewatcher wrote: So tell me... Have I been taken in by transhumanist propaganda? What sort of future models would you propose would be capable of meeting the challenges I have mentioned? Or are you rather suggesting that the situation is not so dire as I might imagine? If you think centralisation of technology is a good thing, I suppose you might have been. Litkey is right in that decentralisation would be the less dangerous scenario, that is for us commoners, as opposed to a tiny elite trying to control technology. A free society is safer any day to a totalitarian one.
All about making money Free Europe Now How to fix your country In thought, men distance themselves from nature in order thus imaginatively to present it to themselves--but only in order to determine how it is to be dominated - Adorno and Horkheimer

thewatcher
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 19, 2009

Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 160

Posted 07/06/09 - 01:21 PM:	#10
keda wrote: If you think centralisation of technology is a good thing, I suppose you might have been. Litkey is right in that decentralisation would be the less dangerous scenario, that is for us commoners, as opposed to a tiny elite trying to control technology. A free society is safer any day to a totalitarian one. Even if that freedom entails the ability of any misanthropic loner to destroy the earth and/or wipe out the human species? I am not claiming that the centralization of technology will necessarily be pleasant... What concerns me is that it might be the only option if the species is to survive. If I am mistaken in this regard, I would be happy to hear why.

Page: 1 2

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.