4 ms·

What is most unfortunate about Kurzweil is he doesn't speak about possible social or culture improvements. Technology is his crutch and bandaid to what ails th

by jweir 13y ago

What is most unfortunate about Kurzweil is he doesn't speak about possible social or culture improvements. Technology is his crutch and bandaid to what ails the world, and technology drives Google's profits. Vilém Flusser's essay on the Object: 'Design: Obstacle for/to the Removal of Obstacles' > An 'object' is what gets in the way, a problem thrown in your path like a projectile(coming as it does from the Latin Obiectum, Greek problema). The world is objective, substantial, problematic as long as it obstructs. An 'object of use' is an object which one uses and needs to get other objects out the way. ... > I overturn some of the obstacles (transform them into objects of use, into culture) in order to continue, and the objects thus overturned prove to be obstacles themselves. – page 58 http://books.google.com/books?id=2vVGCdt0EAkC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q=object&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=2vVGCdt0EAkC&printsec=front... The bigger the techno solution, the bigger the side effect. Technology offers fast benefits, the side effects take a long time to be noticed or materialize. I am interested in folks looking at social, philosophic and non-objective improvements and solutions to our big problems, particularly those of a more conservative and less progressive nature.

angersock 13y ago
I'm much more interested in how we'll deal with Gibson's version of the future... "And, for an instant, she stared directly into those soft blue eyes and knew, with an instinctive mammalian certainty, that the exceedingly rich were no longer even remotely human." -Count Zero ...than with how we'll achieve flying cars, curing cancer, or immortality.
higherpurpose 13y ago
What might happen is what I heard recently being called the "morality apocalypse" [1], i.e. technology is improving so fast, but we're not going to use it properly, probably not unlike when US used the atomic bomb on Japan the first time. It was a time when discovering the atomic bomb surpassed our morality by a long shot, and it took quite a few decades for our morality to catch-up to the technology, and understand that countries must not use atomic bombs against each other. I fear the same will happen when we start using autonomous killer robots [2] (whether drones, or real Terminator-like robots), or when we learn how to make killer mosquito-sized drones that can assassinate anyone in the world anonymously, or when we learn how to use nanotechnology as a weapon. I think NSA doing mass surveillance of the whole planet "just because they can", also fits in this category. I welcome all such neutral technological progress since I'm not a Luddite, but I also fear our governments hungry for more power or protecting their power and influence will use these technologies nefariously, probably long before we find out about them, in secret. And even if they get public, I fear most people will be too complacent to it, and won't revolt too much against it (US still keeps Guantanamo open, for how many years now? It's not a matter of technology, but the same point applies). [1] - http://blog.joellehman.com/index.php/2014/01/morality-apocalypse-an-open-letter-to-bill-and-melinda-gates/ http://blog.joellehman.com/index.php/2014/01/morality-apocal... [2] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMYYx_im5QI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMYYx_im5QI http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/arms1112ForUpload_0_0.pdf http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/arms1112ForUp...
- eli_gottlieb 13y ago
  The entire notion of technology outpacing morality is itself a moral innovation.
UweSchmidt 13y ago
Agree with your first paragraph. This is highlighted most by the whacky idea to "Switch off our fat cells". It is perfectly possible to not get fat and enjoy delicious healthy food in a sustainable, affordable manner, but this appears to be quite outside the realm of possibility already. (Mr. Kurzweil aparently lives quite healthy and probably fully understand all of that, but still advocates a technological solution. I remember fondly the old Civilization game, in which you could research mathematics and gunpowder, but also democracy and women's suffrage - cultural improvements equally valued as technological improvements).
- Houshalter 13y ago
  That's debatable, but even so, what's wrong with that?

by jweir 13y ago

angersock 13y ago

I'm much more interested in how we'll deal with Gibson's version of the future... "And, for an instant, she stared directly into those soft blue eyes and knew, with an instinctive mammalian certainty, that the exceedingly rich were no longer even remotely human." -Count Zero ...than with how we'll achieve flying cars, curing cancer, or immortality.

higherpurpose 13y ago

What might happen is what I heard recently being called the "morality apocalypse" [1], i.e. technology is improving so fast, but we're not going to use it properly, probably not unlike when US used the atomic bomb on Japan the first time. It was a time when discovering the atomic bomb surpassed our morality by a long shot, and it took quite a few decades for our morality to catch-up to the technology, and understand that countries must not use atomic bombs against each other. I fear the same will happen when we start using autonomous killer robots [2] (whether drones, or real Terminator-like robots), or when we learn how to make killer mosquito-sized drones that can assassinate anyone in the world anonymously, or when we learn how to use nanotechnology as a weapon. I think NSA doing mass surveillance of the whole planet "just because they can", also fits in this category. I welcome all such neutral technological progress since I'm not a Luddite, but I also fear our governments hungry for more power or protecting their power and influence will use these technologies nefariously, probably long before we find out about them, in secret. And even if they get public, I fear most people will be too complacent to it, and won't revolt too much against it (US still keeps Guantanamo open, for how many years now? It's not a matter of technology, but the same point applies). [1] - http://blog.joellehman.com/index.php/2014/01/morality-apocalypse-an-open-letter-to-bill-and-melinda-gates/ http://blog.joellehman.com/index.php/2014/01/morality-apocal... [2] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMYYx_im5QI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMYYx_im5QI http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/arms1112ForUpload_0_0.pdf http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/arms1112ForUp...

eli_gottlieb 13y ago
The entire notion of technology outpacing morality is itself a moral innovation.

UweSchmidt 13y ago

Agree with your first paragraph. This is highlighted most by the whacky idea to "Switch off our fat cells". It is perfectly possible to not get fat and enjoy delicious healthy food in a sustainable, affordable manner, but this appears to be quite outside the realm of possibility already. (Mr. Kurzweil aparently lives quite healthy and probably fully understand all of that, but still advocates a technological solution. I remember fondly the old Civilization game, in which you could research mathematics and gunpowder, but also democracy and women's suffrage - cultural improvements equally valued as technological improvements).

Houshalter 13y ago
That's debatable, but even so, what's wrong with that?