Too Much Too Soon

Today I'm going to do some shameless borrowing.

Phil Bowermaster of The Speculist put up such a good entry yesterday that I want to repost it here in its entirety, as well as encourage you to read the original along with all of the other great stuff on Phil's blog.

Too Much Too Soon

David M. Ewalt, writing in Forbes about a recent talk given by Ray Kurzweil:

By the year 2029, says Kurzweil, $1000 will buy you computation power equivalent to 1,000 times that of the human brain. We'll have reverse engineered the human brain, entirely understanding how it works. Computers will have passed the Turing test. And humans will begin to combine with non-biological intelligence –in other words, we'll be fusing with artificial intelligence, becoming both man and machine.

It's compelling stuff, but… pretty crazy. I want to believe his relentless futurism, but it seems like too much too soon.

An interesting way of putting it, to say the least. Note that although this piece appeared in Forbes, Ewalt is not just some money guy out of his depth with all this technology talk. Technology is his beat; he's got some pretty respectable geek chops. Maybe it’s for that reason that he phrases his resistance the way he does: “I want to believe, but…”

I imagine there’s something similar going on in the limits to life-extension funding that Stephen wrote about the other day. Funding agencies are getting with the program up to a point, but only up to a point. Talking about developing a cure for aging is described as the “third rail” for funding. It’s too much, too soon.

Of course, this is classic Future Shock. As Alvin Toffler himself put it, “The future arrives too soon and in the wrong order.” We, human beings, can only take so much change. I think we’re probably been recalibrating ourselves over the past few generations to be less resistant to change than we were in the past, but there is bound to be a lag. Is the resistance shown be Ewalt or the life-extension funding agencies reflective of this lag, or is it the natural difference one would expect between the establishment (Forbes, funding agencies) and folks on the cutting edge (Kurzweil, life-extension researchers?)

There’s probably a little of both at work. The trouble with this future-shock lag is that resistance to change makes us more vulnerable to the threats that change represents as well as less capable of taking advantage of the opportunities. On the other hand, maybe we need that resistance as part of the essential caution and skepticism that will prevent us from doing something truly stupid.

At least, I want to believe that’s the case…

Mike Treder

Tags: nanotechnology nanotech nano science technology ethics weblog blog

Comments

[Phil Bowermaster]

Mike --

Thanks for the plug!