Essay: Why The Future Needs You

Written by Scott McConnery, October 2008.

The case surrounding why the future doesn't need humankind is a very controversial subject encompassing many different ideas and concerns, put forth by just as many adversaries as there are advocates. The central idea of this subject is the advancement of technology that will one day surpass the skills and computing power we have as humans, rendering us (humankind) almost unnecessary and inutile. The advocates for this concern force the idea that we will one day bring about our own destruction, not by nuclear threats or chemical warfare, but by creating technology so advanced that by the time we realize its danger, it will be far too late to take any actions. These advocates want to raise caution about further research in specific fields (which I will mention shortly), demanding that governments and military place restrictions on what kind of research can be done and how far we can explore these new technologies. Failure to implement such rules and guidelines could bring about our own extinction as a species.

Ethical implications become a concern when discussing the use of dangerous new technologies. Without any rules or guidelines to prevent research from growing exponentially out of proportion, a person's own morals and ethics come into play to determine whether he will continue said research despite having doubts of its moral value. An interesting form of this behavior is called Compartmentalization, which is one of many forms of Dissociation. Dissociation "involves a separation of different parts of conscious knowledge" ("Why Good People Do Bad Things: The Case of Collective Violence": Craig Summers and Eric Markusen; Journal of Systems Software 1992). These are just two of many different forms of Collective Violence that can be found in any workplace involving new controversial ideas and technologies. Again I will touch more on this subject further into this essay.

For the purpose of this essay, I will take my stance alongside the adversaries of the notion that the future doesn't need humankind, and that research in all these fields will be beneficial in every way to the human race. My beliefs are that society will always require humans in order to function properly and more importantly to prosper. A society built solely of machines could very well function flawlessly, but I do not believe it could expand and grow. They might reproduce and increase their population, but as for intelligence and knowledge I do not believe they would ever go beyond what can be inputted into their systems: that is, once all known information has been learned, they cease to learn anymore and stay static at their current level. I will explain this in more detail further into this essay. I will begin by presenting the advocates view of our future and his arguments for restrictions on technological advancements and research. Afterwards I will then present my view of the opposite, showing that despite extremely technical systems, a human presence will always be necessary.

Many professionals and scientists in the field of computer science and research believe that the technologies we are currently discovering (genetics, nanotechnology and robotics - labeled GNR) will one day (if unheeded) become so complex and advanced that we as humans will have no control over their actions. The complex systems and machines will have algorithms and programs far beyond the capacity of a human mind to comprehend, that the only way to continue growth would be to surrender the advancement of those technologies to the machines themselves. Proponents of this case put forth ideas that eventual machines and nanotechnologies pose great risks to the survival of our race.

Robotics can bring about advanced machines and systems capable of performing all human tasks required to uphold and run society, eliminating virtually all jobs and rendering the population almost useless. In a world run completely by computers, a human presence is basically just a waste of air and room. Why would a society that is completely self-reliant require that humans still be kept around? There would be no need for us, the machines do everything themselves! They could fabricate a mimicked world based upon our own: a society with different classes of machine each programmed for their specific task. Maintenance robots would keep society running with minimal setbacks, reproductive robots would be involved in the fabrication of new machines to continue growth of society, and a hierarchy of elite robots to dictate and supervise its society, comparable to a one government system for the entire planet.

Design programs such as CAD ( example 1, example 2) can be used to create models of these advanced machines. They are not limited to designing robotics and machinery alone, they can also be used to help in the creation of nanotechnology as well by modeling a blown-up version of molecules and atom interactions. Without these programs the design of new technology and machinery would be very time consuming and costly. By using said devices one can increase productivity, while keeping the costs of design low.

However the ethical ramifications of using these devices when designing new technologies affects the designer himself, whether he is or isn't aware that what he is creating might potentially be a danger to our future. Different types of dissociation can explain the conflicts and resolutions that individuals in these situations must face. For example, someone designing a new type of rocket booster for a space shuttle can be faced with the dilemma that what he is creating might also be used in a war scenario in order to propel missiles at an enemy. In these situations a type of dissociation called Compartmentalization can readily be seen. It states that individuals involved in the production of possibly dangerous technologies feel that although they are taking part in its production, their part is so small or insignificant in comparison to the whole final product that there is no responsibility to the outcome that can fall back on them. In the case of nuclear physicists designing a nuclear warhead, they can use the excuse "I only design them, I don't launch the warheads." With this type of attitude it is easy for dangerous technology to grow out of control because no one will take action or responsibility towards what they are creating.

The possibilities for a self-inflicted apocalyptic future are virtually endless when examining these technologies. These ideas and theories of the future are very compelling and convincing, however I will now argue that despite advancements in GNR technologies, there will always been a need for the human race.

The only danger I foresee in humanity's future is the threat we pose to ourselves. This threat has always been present since the beginning of our race. Differences of opinion, political views, racial background and probably the most controversial, religious backgrounds, have been the basis behind just about every war in our history. The threat has nothing to do with free-thinking robots or the possibility or bio-mechanical cyborgs replacing our organic race. While these ideas could play a part in such fantasies, they would not be the cause of such a catastrophe. It would come down to, as it always does, humanity's greed and want for power and control.

With advanced robotics, it is easy to imagine a future where machines and robots become sentient and start terrorizing human kind and posing serious threats to our existence. It has been a major theme in many science fiction novels and movies, so much so that some people think it inevitable that fiction will become reality with continued advancement in processor speeds, machinery and robotics. It could be very feasible that in our future the use of robotics will bring about unimaginable wars and destruction, ultimately annihilating the majority if not all of our population. However, I cannot see it being a war of man versus robot. Instead, it would remain a war of man versus man, only with robots and high-tech machinery at their disposal. A human intelligence will still be required to program said robots and control them to do the human's bidding, otherwise they would just be giant machines waiting indefinitely for a command input.

What differs us from robots and machinery at a fundamental level is the fact that we humans are sentient (that is, something/someone that is conscious) and above all we have imagination. At first glance this does not seem all that important, but without imagination the very machines we are discussing would not exist, nor would any or the buildings we live in, the cars we drive, the planes we travel in, the cell phones we communicate with, the televisions we enjoy, or anything else we see around us that isn't born from the Earth. It takes consciousness, not only intelligence and processing power in order to evolve and grow.

A machine, no matter how advanced, is still bound by its mechanical composition, its wired brain; it is unable to think such as we humans do. In order for it to learn anything we must input the information into its memory banks, and it can also read information by having access to it, memorizing the info and storing it. This process can be viewed as learning new things, but it still does not mean the machine can think like we do. Granted it can be programmed to respond a certain way when a conflict occurs in its sensors, taking into account many different variables, but if something which it has not been programmed to comprehend occurs, it will be virtually useless. A critical error might occur, or it might jump into an infinite recurring loop where it tries to find an explanation for what it does not know, or even worse it may label said event impossible and ignore it completely, possibly causing grave harm to any further events. A very simple example of this would be if a certain robot were programmed to accept that all swans are black (for the sake of this argument). When it comes across a bird with a physical description matching exactly that of a swan, yet its colour is white, the robot would malfunction. Because it cannot accept new ideas without being programmed, the appearance of a white swan contradicts all of its programming and the robot essentially dies or possibly ignores the bird as a malfunction in its program and explains it solely as "something that cannot be true."

Now if a human were brought up to believe that all swans are black, and further along in his life he discovers a white swan, he might not immediately accept it as a swan. Rather he might think it a new species of bird, maybe even a cousin to the swan. After some close examination he might come to the conclusion that not all swans are black, and therefore accept this white swan for what it is. His imagination and acceptance of new ideas enabled him to overlook what he was once told and accept new possibilities. This is what defines humanity and our capability of growing, thinking outside the box and expanding our knowledge of what is around us. If it were not for that we would not be any different than any other animal, relying on basic animal instincts for survival and reproduction, and nothing else.

Proponents of the idea that computer systems and robots could be programmed to learn and adapt as we do might say that the robot in question could have programming capable of accepting things that seem unreal or conflicting with known data. This would enable to system to avoid critical failure and possibly accept that not all swans are black, that some are possibly of different colours. But this type of programming would be very complex (even for swans alone), and taking into account all possibilities in the universe, the code required for programming a system of this type would be nearly infinite, since there are limitless possibilities abound in the universe. This might seem abstract and unnecessary at first, however take for example human civilization 3000 years ago. Never could they have foreseen flying machines landing on the Moon, or high-frequency lasers reading information off an almost mirror like plastic disc (CDs), or for that matter the destructive power created by nuclear bombs. A great recent example of this was the Y2K scare nearly a decade ago. Most computer systems created prior to 1995 had no notion of 4 digit years, and this could have caused grave consequences the world over, affecting stock markets, planes in mid-flight, traffic signs, hospitals, the list is endless. When these programs were first created no programmer had thought of the problem the systems would encounter on midnight of December 31st 1999. If the machines were left to fend for themselves, it is very likely that they would have all malfunctioned, or at least thought the proceeding year to be 1900 instead of 2000. This shows that without a human interaction the machines would have been helpless and lost.

My point is no matter what we may think of the future, it is impossible to predict all possibilities, therefore impossible to program computers to know all unforeseen circumstances that just may or may not happen. This would inevitably at some point cause faults in their programming, unless there is a human presence that can update the system's memory banks with current knowledge. This alone requires that humans stay present for the evolution of computer systems and robotics, not only for their advancement but for their own intelligence. For these reasons it should be evident that regardless of the advancement of technology, a human mind will still be required to oversee the systems and ensure that nothing unpredicted happens, and update them with any new information discovered or theorized. Essentially, it should be evident that the future does need us.