May 20 - The Future - Memos #23
Comments
|
I’m going to be honest, I sit here writing late Wednesday night having just watched Star Wars Clone Wars. Clone Wars offers a galaxy (far far away) in which humans exist but have no connection to Earth. Humans interact regularly with aliens on planets throughout the galaxy. In “On the Future”, Martin Rees describes the timescales and struggles human pioneer settlers on other worlds will need to endure. In Star Wars, when the main characters, including humans, land on a random, unknown planet, the atmosphere is almost always habitable to humans. This is the first example by which Star Wars neglects the necessary human innovations and struggles associated with space travel, instead relying on an artificial reality in which most planets and moons appear to be habitable. Rees also presents the dangers of AI, in its ability to provide both welfare but also complacency, and therefore no innovative incentive, as well as the potential creation of a master class that controls AI. Star Wars again bypasses these concerns by creating robots which mostly appear to have comically poor intellect. In Star Wars, AI machines are used as unintelligent battle droids, rather than in any intellectual capacity. Finally, Rees dedicates a section of his book to “the limits and future of science”, in which he struggles with the possibility that we may never be able to truly understand all aspects of our universe. Star Wars once again answers this question with “The Force”, seemingly the fundamental pervasive power engrained in the fabric of their universe. In understanding The Force, one may connect with and understand everything within the universe. Martin Rees presents many challenges human society will have to endure in the reality of our universe, including potentially being locked out of accessing certain facts about the universe. Star Wars seeks to address these challenges by simply eliminating these potential struggles, in large part for sake of convenience. Star Wars adequately addresses certain issues raised by Rees, such as the moral implications of creating a self-aware/sentient AI. Droids are generally seen as a lower/subservient class. However, the audience grows emotionally attached to certain droids, which are treated fairly nicely by the main characters. However, the show fails to expand on the moral implications of these “good” characters, such as Jedi, owning other sentient beings.
|
|
#movie #ai #framing Many films on the robot apocalypse, even the most recent animation “The Mitchell’s vs the Machines”, rely heavily on the narrative that robots will turn evil; that they will become jealous or angry or power-hungry, and that this will lead to the demise of mankind. This is deceptive, because it is very difficult to think of a mechanism by which robots will become intentionally malicious, in the sense that they fully comprehend human values, and choose to defy them out of personal ill-will towards human beings. The film ‘I, Robot’ is much more disciplined. It offers a gripping glimpse into just how many ways machines might defy our values:
In this way, I, Robot, covers all the bases. Whether you make an AI consequentialist, rule-based, free and learning, or not intelligent at all, our machines come with serious risks to human values. It is interesting to me that the three possible approaches to machine ethics are really the same as the three major approaches to human ethics: consequentialism, deontology, and virtue ethics. Just as each of these theories faces serious challenges in trying to ‘capture’ human morality, so too do these theories face challenges in replicating human morality in AI. The problem is, AI is simply more powerful than any individual: the stakes for getting the method right are much higher. |
|
Her opens with Theodore spilling his heart out as he reads aloud a letter, but as the camera zooms out, we discover that it isn’t really a letter that he is writing for himself, but is rather a letter written for someone else. This turns out to be quite foreshadowing, Theodore works for a company that writes handwritten letters for anyone who needs them. The service is a way to delegate the work of a relationship, why bother putting in the work yourself if someone else can do it for you? After being depressed following divorce with his wife Theodore, falls in love with his OS (an AI), Samantha. But what surprised me was just how vapid Samantha was, never once challenging Theodore, always upbeat, and literally delivering on his every request. Sure, she’s an AI, not a real human, but even still she felt like a 21st century misogynist’s version of a woman. It felt like she was there so that Theodore would not have to do the work of being in a relationship. This is where I think Her makes its most convincing case in question of AI. It’s not whether or not we can love an AI, what’s so unsettling about Her is that with AI and advanced technologies small decisions have drastic effects on outcomes. Little decisions about how to program Samantha result in an AI that isn’t good for Theodore, ditto for his neighbor and her AI lover. We should be concerned about AI not because of its existential threat, but because we hardly stop to think about its implications, which can easily get away from us. We have seen how ML algorithms at Facebook and other social media companies have wreaked havoc upon the public’s trust, perhaps the motto “Move fast and break things” was a little too apt. |
|
#policy #solutions #salience #climate In the book On The Future, the author discusses an experiment done in the 1960’s by a psychologist, Walter Mische, at Stanford University. The results of the experiment was that children who delayed their gratification became happier and more successful than children who choose instant gratification. This is a topic that can easily be related to my memo from the previous week about how politicians are choosing instant gratification, reelection, than delayed gratification, a well positioned/prepared human population. This made me consider the question, how can we create a middle ground between delayed and instant gratification so that the people unwilling to delay feel a small reward for their actions. (Not) discounting future benefits and dis-benefits is a huge part of the problem but it can also be the solution. The author also alludes to the problem of capitalism as he says “we need to value long-lasting things-and urge producers and retailers to highlight durability.” Unfortunately, this is not a feasible solution. Our capitalistic societies run on throwing things away and being new ones. The idea of upgrading parts of vehicles is not one that I see happening without a very serious fight to change and pass new laws that will be seen as a rebuttal to capitalism. Considering that politicians don’t really have an incentive to pass these laws, I don’t think this goal is attainable. As pessimistic as it is, I have no hope that sufficient action will be taken to mitigate the effects of many of our existential threats but more specifically, climate change is just too complex for our society. There are many compelling reasons for some to take action against climate change and there are also many incentives for others not to, specifically if instant gratification is prioritized. Essentially, this will end up being an issue of every man for himself and it is best for us to do what needs to be done individually to get us in the best possible position when all hell breaks loose. |
|
#origins #policy #solutions Martin Rees’ book discusses the importance of science in preserving humanity’s future extensively. It looks at various existential threats we face and argues that we must allow science to help us address and solve these problems before it is too late. We see similar rhetoric and focus from the current administration, with Biden, for example, through an executive order stating that “the Federal Government must be guided by the best science…that ensure the integrity of Federal decision-making.” Yet, in just a few weeks of lecture in this class, we know that the science and vocal concerned scientists have been raising the alarm, but still, we have done little to nothing. Is saying we should turn to science or believe in science enough to save us from these existential threats? There is one primary reason why this might not be enough. Science has become a polarizing topic. A paper by Dan M. Kahan from Yale University investigated why it is so tough to communicate facts to people in the context of climate science. What was found is that the more intelligent and educated people are, the more likely they are to be polarized about climate science. This is a clear example of confirmation bias at work, where no matter what evidence is presented, one tends to interpret it as supporting preexisting beliefs. Another example of this polarization was a recent Pew survey that found 22% of right-wing identifying Americans and 66% of left-wing identifying Americans trust scientists. It has become clear that trust in science is related to trust in government. By analyzing the Pew survey breakdown by country, it can be identified that polarization is more severe in wealthy, democratic countries. This confirms what we know about democracy, where we encourage discourse, but by doing so, also lose the collectivism that other countries enjoy in times of crisis and in general to achieve support from the people. With science so polarizing in American and countries like it, messaging like President Biden’s about believing and turning to science may only act to polarize the nation further and remove the focus from the real, existential threats we face. Solutions to this issue are difficult to come by, given its potential origin being our democracy itself. The dilemma becomes even more challenging based on recent research on communication around climate science by party (Democrat and Republican) have shown apparent differences in messaging and effectiveness that might provide some answers. Democrats were found to typically use fact-based arguments, whereas Republicans used imagery rooted in emotional ideas. Overall, the researchers found that Republican communication might be more effective. With our intuition telling us to ask people to turn to the facts provided by science, and research showing that facts and science may not be the most effective communication tool, the challenges faced by our government and society have never been more critical. Perhaps the best that we can do is pledge to be more open minded, have inclusive conversations where we convince people rather than dismiss them, and hope that we can see beyond our polarized beliefs to come together and meet these existential threats before it is too late.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09644016.2020.1786333?journalCode=fenp20 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2459057 https://grist.org/politics/why-is-science-is-so-politicized-blame-the-way-we-talk-about-it/ https://grist.org/climate/the-surprising-reasons-why-people-ignore-the-facts-about-climate-change/ https://e360.yale.edu/features/how_the_attack_on_science_is_becoming_global_contagion |
|
#solutions #career Reading Rees's On The Future felt excitingly reminiscent of Ord's Precipice—dealing with concepts that were familiar and fascinating to me, yet still with a slightly different perspective. There are more similarities than differences between the two, I feel: Rees and Ord mention stewardship as a motivation for safeguarding humanity, the trend towards (and important nuances in) societal progress, the potential for space colonization, the relative importance of anthropogenic risks, and the many different avenues for action. It is the last point that I will focus on here, as I realized that both Rees and Ord are affiliated with the 'effective altruism' (EA) community. In Chapter 7 of Precipice, starting on page 214, Ord mentions that on average we work 80,000 hours in our lifetime. That means devoting one's career to working on urgent causes could have a huge impact! Similarly, in the Conclusions of On the Future, Rees explores the role of science and scientists in humanity's future. Rees goes into more detail than Ord, specifically suggesting that "those embarking on research should pick a topic to suit their personality, and also their skills and tastes [...] And another thing: it is unwise to head straight for the most important or fundamental problem. You should multiply the importance of the problem by the probability that you’ll solve it, and maximise that product." Rees's suggestions struck me as very similar to the framework that 80000 Hours, an EA organization, uses. 80000 Hours provides an in-depth and constantly updated career planning information for people who want to 'do the most good' (i.e., aspire to be effective altruists) with their working hours. A simplified version of their framework is as follows: (Career Capital (or what I consider, 'Potential Future Impact') + Impact + Supportive Conditions) * Personal Fit Career capital refers to the common use of the term: the potential for a job to improve your future prospects. In this specific framework, I interpret it as akin to 'potential future impact' because 80000 Hours is always framing work in terms of how impactful it is. This is perhaps the least related to Rees's suggestions—because it's the most generic concept of the three, I suppose! Impact is determined by 80000 Hours by a combination of three factors: the problem, the opportunity, and your personal fit. This reminds me of Rees's suggestion not to head straight for "the most important or fundamental problem," which would be to only consider one factor of three, but to also consider "the probability that you'll solve it" ('the opportunity') and your "skills and tastes" (personal fit). *Note: Confusingly, in the diagram above 'personal fit' is seen as separate from career impact, but that is because the diagram is from 2017 whereas the guide that 80000 Hours currently endorses is from 2020. I have chosen to provide the slightly outdated diagram because their current guide provides a more complicated diagram that is specific to career opportunities, rather than a job path generally The latter two seem fairly straightforward. Whether or not a job opportunity in a given area will allow you to effect change might be difficult to measure, but it is conceptually simple. For example, you could spend 80000 hours being an unpaid intern with the EPA or being its administrator. The latter clearly offers greater potential to effect change, despite both roles being related to climate change and the environment. Personal fit is even simpler—what skills do you already have? What skills do you want to learn? What issues are you most drawn to? Evaluating the importance of a problem, however, is a little more complicated from the EA perspective. Our class regularly posits climate change as the cause of civilization's doom, which might suggest that climate change is THE problem to work on. But that isn't necessarily true under the 80000 Hours (and EA) framework. Working out which problem to prioritize means assessing its importance, tractability, and neglectedness. Importance refers to the scale of the issue—how bad is it and how bad can it get? Arguably, that is what our class poll is measuring. Tractability refers to how solvable the problem is right now, a little akin to 'the opportunity' of a specific job except more broad. For example, the problem of AGI might not seem very tractable given the uncertainty surrounding its development. Finally, neglectedness refers to the relative attention the problem gets. Climate change, for example, is not at all neglected relative to AI because far more people are interested in and concerned about the former. I would argue that the class poll is measuring the opposite of neglectedness, in that people may tend to pick what they have already heard of (confirmation bias, perhaps). To avoid this getting too long, I'm going to end here. However, I will follow in Ord and Rees's footsteps and urge you to take a look at going into a career that you think can improve humanity's existential prospects! 80000 Hours constantly comes out with career guides and it is a lot of fun to browse through them. As college students, we still have so much more time to decide what to do—will you be an AI safety researcher, figuring out how to solve the alignment problem? Or maybe you want to figure out how to prevent a global pandemic from happening ever again? Or perhaps you want to spread your newfound knowledge of existential risk and build the community of concerned humans? There are so many possibilities, not only for the human species but for us as individuals, too. Go forth! |
|
#Future #Salience #Asteroid |
|
In “On the Future” Lord Martin Rees recognizes humanity’s stance in the Anthropocene and on the brink of various existential crises. In this he also recognizes our obligation to future generations in facing these threats and posits shifts to longer-term thinking, a revised view of governance spanning from the local to the global, and the need for “wise choices about key societal challenges”1, all key factors of societal transformation. When I was looking at societal changes of the past, and what galvanized them, I lit upon the example of the Dutch ‘bike boom’ of the early 1970’s. From this I saw an analogy to the possible transformation required to head off the potential global catastrophes with which we are on a collision course today. In “How to change the world”2 Per Olsson considers crisis as an impetus for change while discussing the COVID-19 pandemic’s prospect for a “once-in-a-generation moment for transformation”3 and refers to Holland for a historical comparison. The “velo-rution”4 in the Netherlands illustrates transformation’s link to crisis through Holland’s reaction to a societal problem along with the oil crisis of 1973 and the country’s subsequent pivot “from a car-based society to a cycling nation”5. While always a bicycle friendly nation, with the advent of accessible automobiles in the 1950’s and 60’s, many Dutch citizens began to buy, and drive, cars far more frequently. With this change came a much higher rate of road accidents, and deaths, many of them involving children. This tragic consequence gave rise to a strong “social movement demanding safer cycling conditions for children”6, and laid the groundwork for the impending national anti-automobile social reaction to the fuel shortages caused by the Middle East oil crisis of 1973. With the pressures of the “Stop de Kindermoord”(Stop the Child Murder) movement in conjunction with the oil crisis Dutch citizens induced the government to “plan and invest in improved cycling infrastructure and … diverge from the car-centric road-building policies throughout the urbanizing West”. Today most cities have dedicated segregated bike paths, and bicyclists, while held to rules of the road themselves, in many circumstances have right of way and insurance entitlements. “The infrastructure the Dutch have at their disposal for all their cycling is phenomenal,” “...the bike is an integral part of everyday life,” and “...even before they can walk, Dutch children are immersed in a world of cycling”.7 As of 2018, for the last three decades cycling was the mode of transport for roughly 27% of all trips, and the government hopes to increase this by 20% by 2027.8 Bicycling has benefitted life expectancy and the environment in the Netherlands.9 Case in point: there was an impetus for change; this impetus culminated simultaneously with world crisis events; society coalesced and reacted; government responded; changes have been ingrained within social fabric (a “public mind-set" changed10); societal transformation has been achieved. A social problem and a global crisis galvanized citizens, and resultantly government, to effective change. Is the change that Rees cautiously, optimistically, looks toward possible? While the stakes are much more critical, maybe it could be “just like riding a bike?” #risk #society #Dutchvelorution #framing #policy #change #solutions
Rees, Martin. On the Future. Princeton & Oxford. Princeton University Press. 2018. Dunbar, Robin, Zebrowski, Chris, Olsson, Per. How to change the world. Is humanity doomed because we can’t plan for the long term? Three e xperts discuss. The Conversation. Aug. 5, 2020. https://theconversation.com Holligan, Anna. Why is cycling so popular in the Netherlands? BBCNEWS. Aug.8, 2013. bbc.com Bicycle Dutch. Dutch cycling figures. Bicycle Dutch. Jan.2, 2018. https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2018/01/02/dutch-cycling-figures. "According to the Dutch government,”. In the Netherlands, cycling benefits the environment and life expectancy. Inquirer.net. Nov.2020. https://technology.inquirer.net. |
|
#origins #risk #AI Yet, the breadth of the railway feels far less expansive and far more benign than that of AI. In his book On the Future, Rees poses the question, “Will this ‘new machine age’ be like earlier disruptive technologies—the railways, or electrification, for instance—and create as many jobs as it destroys? Or is it really different this time?” (91) Perhaps what is most daunting about the progress in AI is how obscure it seems to be. The limits of AI are impossible to grasp. AI developments could touch and upend every aspect of life as we know it. However, it might be more revealing to consider AI not as it compares to technologies like railways and electrification but instead in the context that this field emerged from. In 1956 Herbert Simon, a political scientist from the University of Chicago, along with two other colleagues endeavored to transfer the human brain’s problem-solving abilities into terms a computer could follow. Their machine has been praised as the first prototype of AI. Simon explained that their success came from teaching the computer to think like a corporation––not a human. Comparing artificial intelligence to a corporation highlights a similar struggle we have in dealing with both entities––that they are systems which we will never be able to have control over. Thus, through this lens, perhaps we can learn to curb AI by instilling a humanity in it that we do not associate with corporations. In this regard, we can manufacture a curb that limits it from running wild without any oversight. Sources Kiger, Patrick J. “10 Ways the Transcontinental Railroad Changed America.” History.com. A&E Television Networks, September 4, 2019. https://www.history.com/news/transcontinental-railroad-changed-america. “AI Thinks like a Corporation-and That's Worrying.” The Economist. The Economist Newspaper. Accessed May 19, 2021. https://www.economist.com/open-future/2018/11/26/ai-thinks-like-a-corporation-and-thats-worrying. “An Understanding of AI's Limitations Is Starting to Sink In.” The Economist. The Economist Newspaper. Accessed May 19, 2021. https://www.economist.com/technology-quarterly/2020/06/11/an-understanding-of-ais-limitations-is-starting-to-sink-in.
|
|
#future #framing Do you think the feudal kings knew that the divine right to rule would end? And not any particular king’s divine right, they knew that the right could move from one person to the next by the will of God (or rather, the sword). I mean did they, when thinking of the far future, imagine that the idea of a monarch and a subject would become obsolete? I imagine not. I imagine that the lords, dukes, and earls thought that no matter their personal station, there would always be a lord, a duke, or an earl would own this land and the peasants/serfs would work said land. Of course, they were wrong, and in most places in the world the feudal arrangement of society no longer exists. I bring this up because in many ways we are in the same position. When thinking of climate change, we think of how we can make renewable energy technology profitable AND affordable, while making fossil fuel extraction not profitable without challenging the notions of whether profit should be the motivating force. We ponder how to get rid of nuclear weapons without asking ourselves whether the problem is those who hold the weapons (i.e., the state). We ask ourselves, “how do we fix the problems of inequality and inequity, at home and abroad?” without asking, “Is this inequality innate to our system?” We have convinced ourselves that the future is the present, simply aesthetically different. But, if we are to be honest with ourselves, we must realize that whether we like it or not, the monarch’s head won’t simply be cut off, but the monarchy itself will be abolished, and we ought to imagine futures that are radically different than our present. We must dare to imagine better worlds and societies that want to solve the problems, not try to convince our society to fix the problems it has made. I end with a quote from Star Trek. I haven’t watched Star Trek, but this quote, and the general ethos of the series, is something that I think we should keep in mind. The creators were imagining a future radically different. Let us do the same, and then bring it forth! Let us work to better ourselves and the rest of humanity!
|
|
#Transhumanism #Ethics Much of this course has focused on existential threats as external factors, against which we humans - unchanging - must fight. As we look to the future of existential threats, we must think hard about how we as humans might transform, becoming entities that rival these challenges, but potentially jeopardising our ethics, or even losing our identity, in the process. Some examples from Rees include:
There is little to suggest that the long-term future does not hold one or all of these in store. These adaptations will allow us to better confront the existential challenges ahead. For example, merging with machine elements could give us the physical and cognitive capabilities to resist being ‘outmatched’ by our superintelligent creations. However, these adaptations will also present significant new challenges, both for our ethics and our identity. Ethically, there are profound obstacles:
There are also issues of identity. If the goal of these adaptations is to protect humanity against these threats, then humanity must continue to be human. Identity philosophy is incredibly difficult, but there is likely a point of adaptation at which we would become post-human. Since this would mean the end of humanity as we know it, is this itself an existential risk? If we are no longer humans, have we not failed to save humanity? Does that matter? If it doesn’t matter, what were we trying to protect from existential risk in the first place? |
|
#novel #future I want to use this as a space to talk a little bit more about a novel pertaining to the future that I read a few weeks back: The Parable of the Sower. The novel was published in 1993, and is Octavia Butler’s ninth text. Our author was born in Pasadena in 1947. Her father, a shoeshiner, died whilst she was little, and she was raised by her mother, a maid. She was dyslexic, but quick fell in love with reading and writing, particularly science fiction. Interestingly, this particular novel only reached the NYT Bestsellers list last year. This is in part because of Butler’s prescient ability – in this trilogy we see a world devastated by climate change and a presidential candidate running with a slogan of “make America great again” (sound familiar?). The novel itself is set in California in 2024. Society is unstable due to climate change, social inequity, constant wars, and corporate greed. There is an authoritarian President and police and firefighters are for-hire. On top of all this, women constantly fear sexual assault, mixed-race relationships are stigmatised and slavery has returned in the form of indebted servitude. This text is the journal of Lauren Olamina, an African American teenager. Her mother’s drug abuse left Lauren with hyperempathy - the uncontrollable ability to feel the sensations she witnesses in others, particularly pain. Lauren lives in a gated community with her brothers, stepmother and father – a faithful Baptist preacher. Despite her father’s faith, Lauren is certain that society will continue to deteriorate and the community will no longer be safe. She privately develops a new belief system based on the belief that "God is Change" and that “the destiny of humanity is to take root among the stars.” Everything reaches a tipping point in 2027: a group of people called pyros ram their truck through the gates and set fire to homes, killing Lauren’s family and most of her community. Lauren runs away and finds a group of travellers. She begins talking about Earthseed with them as a philosophy for life on earth after the wars. She believes that humankind's destiny is to travel beyond Earth and live on other planets, forcing humankind into its adulthood. Lauren eventually marries Bankole, an older doctor, and travels to the land he owns in Northern California, where the group settles and Lauren founds the first Earthseed community, Acorn. With all that said, what I wanted to focus on is the original parable of the sower. In brief (as you can see in the pictures below): Jesus recounts the story of a farmer who sows seed indiscriminately. Some seed falls on the wayside (the path) with no soil, some on rocky ground with little soil, some on soil which contains thorns, and some on good soil. In the first case, the seed is taken away; in the second and third soils, the seed fails to produce a crop; but when it falls on good soil, it grows and yields thirty-, sixty-, or a hundred-fold. Jesus later explains to his disciples that the seed represents the Gospel, the sower represents anyone who proclaims it, and the various soils represent people's responses to it. The parallels between this story and Lauren’s teaching are clear, with regards to how she spreads her message. But what interested me most is the question of how we should think about this parable in the modern era. Butler wrote her novel 30 years ago, and yet easily predicted much of where we were headed. If our doom was always so obvious, why did we do nothing to stop it? I think a part of the answer lies in this original parable. Perhaps indiscriminately endeavouring to persuade people to act is less powerful than one might first expect. I would contend that a part of where we went wrong is that we were not targeted enough. Jesus’ parable is perfectly accurate, but when the stakes are this high we cannot afford to risk all those wasted seeds. We need to be more discerning about who the movers and shakers are of society, and how we motivate them to open their eyes and take meaningful action. That’s is all to say that this novel opened up my own eyes to the way society oftentimes operates, and pushed me to think about how we could upend or better navigate that operation.
|
|
#framing Edited: I had a technical difficulty with my original pasting of my work into the submission box that was brought to my attention today by a friend in the class that noticed. The memo submission appears to have been successful upon my third attempt - apologies for this inconvenience. One of the common threads across Martin Rees's works that were assigned for this week was the fact that there are two sources that drive the uncertainty in our future: existential threats (nuclear weapons, cyber attacks, etc) and climate change. Rees's refreshing perspective, stemming from his background in cosmology, is one that we have not yet explored in this class and that is the inspiration behind this memo. Though it is the ~100 billion neurons firing in the human brain that make us capable of breathtaking innovation, it is the fact that human life spans are a negligible amount of time from a cosmological perspective, that makes our demise inevitable. Today we stand on the shoulders of over one hundred billion humans that have lived and died before us - we have inherited their endowment of knowledge - and yet it is the average human beings' attitude ("Future generations can deal with this problem"), stemming from their knowledge of their own mortality, that will destroy all of the same technological innovations that we as a species have worked so hard to create. I don't believe that humans have interrupted the process of Darwinian Evolution, rather, that we are the culmination of this evolution. Despite this observation, is it not ironic that we as a species have taken billions of years to develop and will not live more than a few thousand more years into the future (optimistically)? As seen in the below figure, as the human population has increased, the number of species extinctions on Earth has closely followed. I believe this to be a foreshadowing piece of data behind our own extinction. Our species' current treatment of the Earth necessitates an eventual scenario where a portion of humans leave Earth to start a colony elsewhere (i.e. Musk and Mars) - our proven ability to solve complex technological problems (COVID-19 vaccine production and distribution, for example) leaves me no doubt that technology will be developed to make space travel more accessible. Despite this, the probability of this effort succeeding for an extended period of time is approximately zero given humans' sensitivity to shorter wavelengths in the electromagnetic spectrum (no atmosphere) and the slim margin of error for life in space. If I have not already made it explicit from my above analysis, I have arrived at a paradox, of sorts. Humans are the final product of Darwinian evolution and yet we are destined for extinction. Figure 1: |
|
#framing #solutions #salience While pondering some of the existential crises we have discussed in class, I found myself questioning why some people are more eager to combat existential challenges than others. Why do certain people want the world to stay the same and others don’t? I listed off a myriad of obvious reasons in my head, including religious, financial, political, and geographical reasons. As Martin Rees asserts in Chapter 2 of his book On the Future: Prospects for Humanity, people are typically uneasy to accept innovation. After doing some research on the psychology of change and thinking about this issue myself, I realized that innovation, in the way that the media has shaped it, is often daunting. When we think about innovation, we immediately picture the large technology companies with their overpriced products, or we might even think about the Facebook and Instagram ads that target specific groups of people. Innovation, especially in the form of new technology, is scary; and even scarier might be the innovation that hacks our personal information. Then, how do we frame change and innovation as a more acceptable concept? It is so easy to adhere to familiar ideas and places. We can start by framing familiarity as more dangerous. But instead of framing this through fear-mongering in the media, I think it would be better to frame these issues in films. I say this because fear-mongering has its own perils, and it can seriously backfire (as it already has in some ways). If movie directors focused more on how bleak the future might look if we don’t combat these existential crises, then I believe more people would be alert. Obviously these movies already exist, and at least for me, they were certainly wake-up calls. When journalists write about these issues, the crises are often overlooked because these futures are difficult to conceive without a visual medium. Especially for this target audience, who either don’t believe in this bleak future or don’t want to think about it, I believe that a visual representation (of what their world might look like) will be a wake-up call.
|
|
#solutions Something I thought that was really (for lack of a better term) beautiful in the reading was the reminder that there is something unifying in all of this--it is our thoughts, our future. In the book by Martin Rees, he says that "science is the one culture that's truly global... science should transcend all barriers of nationality... should straddle all faiths too" (214). No matter where you go in the world, you will find that science provides the same results. That being said, you also find science-deniers everywhere around the world too (you can always count on your local conspiracy theorist). But that got me to thinking--most people seem to have a basic idea (or have at least heard of) the dooms humanity faces. The question becomes: how can we make sure people have the same correct information? How might we get them to care? Now, this might be too optimistic or far-fetched, but what if there was a dedicated time promoting each issue? Let's say April, which is the month of Earth Day. Building on Rees' suggestion, international organizations could team up and help build a calendar of events and provide information to blast out. Every couple of days (or week, depending on how much content there is) in April, all major television networks across the world can broadcast programs breaking down each issue. Schools across the world can teach from lesson plans covering these issues, engaging people from a young age. Communities can hold arts events, trivia nights, and more activities to get everyone involved. Social media companies can promote factual information and PSAs pro-bono. The idea is to just get everyone involved, coordinating with international organizations and experts, so that we can make sure we get the right information out. I think something important that Rees says in his book is that "the key ideas of science can be accessed and enjoyed by almost everyone--if conveyed using nontechnical words and simple images" (215). To get people to truly understand how grave these matters are, we need to make sure the information is accessible to all. By collaborating internationally and using partnerships with media, the community, and schools, we can make sure that the information gets out there. And maybe, with all of this, people will start to care a little more. Every April, they'll be reminded that the world is ending and it is up to us to fix it--people just needed to be taught how to use the tools. |
|
#salience #theory #global #aliens In reading "On The Future" by Martin Rees, many topics that I had not yet considered came up, as well as many that we have been talking about. The ongoing problem seems to be that the topics and potential threats to our planet are not able to be solved by individuals or countries alone. They are problems that do not care for borders. Additionally, after reading this week's assigned novel, it is clear to me that to advance society, we need to work together as a globe. Particularly what I found interesting was the topic of Aliens and extraterrestrial life because it reminded me of a class I took in the fall called "The Search for Extraterrestrials" which covered a scientific analysis of what life beyond earth may look like from a non-conspiracy theory perspective. Rees proposed a perspective that aligned with what we talked about in the class, which was that we do not yet have the technology to say that there is or is not life outside of earth. Also it is most likely that if any life were found, it would likely be bacteria or some basic life form. However, what if it was not? What if complex life already existed? This book made me question, what would we do as a civilization if this were to happen? It is clearly a problem that the media enjoys to dramatize with massive wars and heroes saving the world. According to the Drake equation estimates, there is such a small chance of this happening, however, it is a potential future problem that would not be solved by one country and would require the world to work together. First, the signal of some form would be picked up on the SETI telescope, which Rees mentioned is funded entirely by private funding. This telescope would pick up signals and let those on earth that there was complex life on the horizon. Then people would most likely be told to stay put in their homes. This would not be a problem in some countries, however, in the US, mandatory quarantines have proven to be an issue for some. This also brings us back to the recurring idea of inequality around the globe in this course. Some would have access to shelter and food to hide, while world leaders implemented a plan. In the meantime, others would not have this as an option. It could lead to a greater global problem. Eventually, something would be put into place but it would take a global effort, not that of a specific country or as the movies prefer, a lone hero. This is an issue that is of very small likely-hood, but if it were to take place, would be of highest importance on a global level. Source: "On The Future" by Martin Rees
|
|
#movie I watched the movie Snowpiercer for the first time with a couple of friends and had no idea what to expect--all we knew was Chris Evans was in it and the director of Parasite made it--so we assumed there would be some element of social commentary, especially since it was a suggested movie for this class. Right from the get-go, there are questions about the dangers of advancing technology irresponsibly, as the world has frozen over because of some invention put in the air intended to cool down the planet to work against the adverse effects of Climate Change--but it was perhaps a little too effective at cooling down the planet because humans cannot last more than a few seconds without freezing to death. Now, the only humans left live on a train run by famed inventor, Willard, and they are separated into different train cars based on socio-economic status. Open on Chris Evan's character who lives in the back of the train, covered in dirt and surrounded by darkness--his people are suffering. And so, he plans a revolution to get to the front of the train, with the aims of taking control--and the movie follows them on this journey. Now, I do not want to spoil what happens in the movie, because it is really good and everyone should watch it. This film highlighted many key issues: inequality being at the top of the list, asking questions about how do we set priorities and treat people decently when we face the end of the world, as well as the limits we should place on advancement and how to regulate a society. If all the world lives on a train, how do we make sure it runs? Is life still worth living if the way in which we live corrupts and infringes on the rights of so many? The ending of the movie is shocking, powerful, but also uncertain. This is incredibly like our future--no one really knows where we are headed or what to do really. I think what this movie is trying to suggest is how can we be responsible when approaching the future? Responsible to ourselves, to our communities, and others? We need to be careful when making these decisions about advancing society and tackling doom--the future of humanity rests on it. Who do we want to be? |
|
#Framing While reading Buckle up: We are in for a bumpy ride. An interview with Royal Astronomer Martin Rees, I wanted to comment on something that is becoming ever so dangerous in our world today that Martin Rees discusses. Rees talks about how Earths population has reached almost 8 Billion, doubling in size over the past 50 years. With this exponential growth, comes fears of what happens if we grow to quickly, something that is evident in many parts of the world today. With doing a bit more research I found that there are over 240 Million people in Africa going hungry every day, out of the 1.2 Billion inhabitants of Africa. That is nearly 25% of the total population of Africa starving. This immense growth of the population of the world has left many groups of people out of the necessary resources to survive as well as stripping the last natural resources we have in these parts of the world. With the ever growing population of Africa, more people will be left without the proper resources to survive, resulting from more overpopulation that will continue to grow in our world. |
|
#Future #Risks #Solutions #Framing Martin Rees’ book On the Future: Prospects for Humanity is essentially an all-encompassing, scientifically-backed prophecy describing the fate of humanity in the years, decades, and centuries to come. It deals with every major topic we have discussed thus far in this class, and fleshes them out in new ways by providing further evidence, compelling examples, and interesting perspectives that might not be often considered when discussing existential threats facing humanity. The first two chapters deal with the major threats, both physical and abstract, that we are currently facing. These include familiar fears such as nuclear annihilation, environmental degradation, cyber warfare, and AI, but also some that are more complex and controversial, like ethically-questionable advances in biotechnology and theoretical physics. These numerous sections boil down to the larger point that “‘Space-Ship Earth’ is hurtling through the void. Its passengers are anxious and fractious. Their life support system is vulnerable to disruption and breakdowns” (226). Rees paints our world as on a collision course with something, but what that something could be is anybody’s guess. As such, he does not assert any one issue should be the focus of humanity’s efforts to survive, since addressing that threat would make us vulnerable to others. He cites climate change as one of the most complex, as dealing with it requires numerous innovations, collaborations, and some elements of luck (climate sensitivity, for example). However it also demands great sacrifice, concession, and universal acceptance of its realities. One particularly compelling example I had not previously considered was the claim that even if geoengineering could enable the spreading of reflective aerosols through the upper atmosphere, the fact that one country or motivated individual could feasibly do this themself — inflicting their will globally — is enough of a worry to hinder development for years to come. The many confounding factors like this that Rees describes highlight a major aspect of his argument: We need to invest in science and we need to do it now. The only way to realistically address all of these issues (any one of which could escalate to a point of no return) is to encourage research and development in all fields. Genetics to promote sustainable food sources and extend lifetimes; social work and population dynamics to deal with the increase in population toward a potential “carrying capacity”; biotech to ensure our longer lives are not spent in longer periods of senility or suffering; astrophysics and engineering to stop massive asteroids from colliding with Earth and rendering our work for longer lives futile, and so on. All threats taken together, the future of humanity appears incredibly grim. Rees shows however that this is avoidable if steps are taken now to encourage education, innovation, and cooperation. The means exist to make a scientist out of everyone on Earth, but humanity must first relinquish its greatest burden and existential threat: self-interest. The fortunate nations have a responsibility to support the less fortunate. Unless we all progress together, the planet as a whole stands still. |
|
#risk #salience "Elon Musk (born in 1971) of SpaceX says he wants to die on Mars— but not on impact. But don’t ever expect mass emigration from Earth. And here I disagree strongly with Musk and with my late Cambridge colleague Stephen Hawking, who enthuse about rapid build- up of large- scale Martian communities. It’s a dangerous delusion to think that space offers an escape from Earth’s problems." [1] I strongly agree with Martin Rees's negative outlook on trying to shift humans to live on Mars. Not only does terraforming require technology not yet invented, but it also poses several ethical concerns. Additionally, Musk's optimistic outlook on a realistic transition to Martian colonies does a disservice to the public by creating a false perception that this lifestyle will be available to everyone. The biggest challenge in terraforming Mars is to increase the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. This is important not only to increase the atmospheric pressure of the planet (which is currently 1% that of Earth) but also to increase the temperature [1]. The problem is that scientists have found that there is not enough CO2 on Mars (even hidden away in the polar ice caps) that can make a sufficient impact on the pressure and temperature. Some have proposed to build giant mirrors on Mars to reflect the sunlight, raise the temperature, and eventually release some CO2 from the ice caps. Others have called for harnessing ammonia-rich asteroids at hurling them towards Mars. Clearly, the technology to accomplish these feats has not yet been invented. Elon Musk however, has proposed a novel solution: launch nuclear bombs at the ice caps to begin to release more CO2. However, not only does this "solution" have the ability to destroy the planet, but it has also made the Russian space chief suspicious about the potential for countries to deploy bombs in space. We should also consider just how ethical terraforming really is. Philosopher Robert Sparrow, in 1999, argued, "terraforming demonstrates at least two serious defects of moral character: an aesthetic insensitivity and the sin of hubris … to change whole planets to suit our ends is arrogant vandalism" [3]. Although there may not be intelligent life on Mars, we would be colonizing and transforming a planet that may even contain simple life. Terraforming Mars would also set a dangerous precedent for the future of space colonization if we end up finding a planet that has complex life. Further, to use resources and labor to terraform a planet that is not yet habitable instead of increasing the longevity of life on Earth seems to downplay the life currently present on Earth. Lastly, the narrative surrounding terraforming creates confusion and dangerous rhetoric on the plausibility of humans to move to Mars. Musk claims that he believes a million humans could live on Mars by 2060. Yet, this would cost around $500,000. Additionally, terraforming would not be complete or even started, so future generations would have to certainly invest money in terraforming for colonies already on Mars. Musk claims that prices will eventually become more affordable to live on Mars, yet he also states that his goal is not for everyone to move to Mars, but to create a colony interdependent from Earth. This narrative is dangerous since individuals on Earth may believe that the planet is not worth saving since colonies can go on Mars, but only the rich will be able to afford this safe haven.
[1] Rees, Martin. "On The Future." Princeton University Press. October 16, 2018. [2] "Mars Terraforming Not Possible Using Present-Day Technology." NASA. July 30, 2018. https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/goddard/2018/mars-terraforming [3] York, Paul. "Ethics of Terraforming." Philosophy Now. 2002. https://philosophynow.org/issues/38/The_Ethics_of_Terraforming#:~:text=227%2D236)%20argues%20that%20terraforming,ways%3A%20firstly%2C%20by%20destroying%20beauty |
|
#risk #policy #solutions In reading Martin Rees’ On the Future, I found myself stuck in between finding hope and being frightened by human creations and capabilities. Regardless of holding an optimistic or pessimistic view on this, it is for certain that the future is dependent on us to not only build a better tomorrow, but to ensure that reliable citizens are positioned in roles that can guide society to handle these innovations responsibly. For better or worse, most of our discussion in this course has revolved around the existential threats that scare us the most and have thus left the class with the cynical conclusion that we are undoubtedly doomed (as seen by the response at the end of every Thursday class session). While I think that these conversations have been fascinating and incredibly informative, I do also believe that they have for the most part failed to touch upon the more optimistic components of the future that Rees does a fantastic job of doing. As Rees constantly points out throughout his book, there are many threats that should concern us, yet many of these threats are capable of being muted if human innovation decides to prioritize the future over the present. This begs the question whether we should be optimistic or pessimistic for our future. With that said, another component of Rees’ writing that I found fascinating was his view on the future as it pertains to our collective actions as a society today. Rees writes that “key decisions shouldn’t be made just by scientists; they matter to us all and should be the outcome of wide public debate”. Much of the fear that consumes society regarding potential epidemics is unfortunately often dismissed because it is deemed uncontrollable, yet this should not be the case. As expressed in On the Future, many of the concerns and unknowns about Earth’s future are being questioned and researched for plausible solutions. It is our responsibility to vet these possible solutions as a society and find the best ones. If we just sit in fear, no progress will be made. Yes, we very well may be doomed, but at the very least we have some capabilities already established and some close in the horizon that make this still a question and not yet a certainty. To summarize this belief, Rees writes “Although we live under the shadow of unfamiliar and potentially catastrophic hazards, there seems to be no scientific impediment to achieving a sustainable and secure world." With this said, it is reasonable to assume that Rees himself is optimistic about the future despite its many unknowns. The only way to protect society from an epidemic of great magnitude is to prepare for one, and through the scientific research and development that Rees describes, I believe we will eventually get to such a point. In that sense, I too find myself optimistic about the future.
|
|
#Framing
|
|
#movie #ai #irobot #future Many movies covering potential existential threats such as a robot revolution, climate disasters, or nuclear war focus heavily on the threat itself or of good vs evil. In the movie iRobot these threats are addressed as well as a more psychological, existential threat: what it means to be human. To begin with a quick synopsis, the movie follows Detective Spooner as he investigates the death of a top scientist and soon finds that the main ai operating system, VIKI, is staging a robot revolution. This movie focuses on a certain type of ai that is much flashier and more suited for movies—human-like robots that want to takeover (kind of like the terminator movies). It ignores the other facets of this ai challenge like with smart algorithms or machine learning which may not be inherent threats themself but may lead to the worsening of the other challenges like climate, nuclear, or information chaos. Even though the technology in the movie seems very futuristic it does pose a good question in how we would define ourselves when confronted with technology that can do much the same that we can as humans. At one point in the movie Spooner is questioning Sonny (one of the robots) because he does not believe that Sonny could have any human characteristics. He asks if a robot can write a symphony or create a beautiful masterpiece, and Sonny replies “Can you?”. This exchange is very important because it shows that if we define humans by their ability and creativity not even all humans would count because I know that I cannot write a symphony or create a beautiful masterpiece so does that make me not a human? Additionally now, about 17 years later, there actually are ai that do create art (https://www.artaigallery.com/?gclid=Cj0KCQjw7pKFBhDUARIsAFUoMDYjz_RDdJierIoeJa0cJJU-YbWIIUBtdslkjQTrlAwqbtk4QGxI8lsaAg0ZEALw_wcB). Not only does ai pose an existential threat to humans in the ways that are shown in the movie with a robot uprising or machine learning and algorithms that can influence human psychology leading to even worsening other crises (like climate, nuclear, information chaos, fake news), but it also leads to an existential crisis in the way that we define ourselves as human– we would either have to integrate super-intelligent ai like those in this movie into society or redefine what it is that actually makes us human.
|
|
In Rachel Bronson's interview with Sir Martin Rees, he states that he defines himself as a technical optimist but a political pessimist - a stance that I find extremely accurate in our day and age. Rees acknowledges that while we presumably have the technical capacity to ostensibly resolve many of the looming existential threats on the globe, the political systems in place almost entirely inhibit this positive change from occurring. While political systems worldwide are often corrupt, the Bronson and Rees also find some understanding as to why politicians aren't addressing these looming issues. Politicians, even when not technically corrupt, generally aim to reflect the will of the people. Oftentimes, the priorities in this sense revolve around focusing on the short term, making changes that immediately curry favor and increase odds of reelection. Many people and many politicians place heavy emphasis on instant gratification, thus the people's will - and subsequently the politicians actions - often overlook existential, long term threats. Bronson and Rees noted that, during the Manhattan Project (which obviously aimed to address the existential nuclear threat) scientists worked to engage and inform not only the politicians that could push their agenda forward, but also the general public. They recognized that the support of the general public could transfer to the actions of politicians, and thus approached the presentation of The Manhattan Project in a very multifaceted manner. Rees even introduced a strong analogy to reflect the responsibility of scientists to lead the defense against existential threats, stating "You may not have very much control over the behavior of your teenage kids, but you are a poor parent if you don’t care. Likewise a scientist who doesn’t care about the use to which their ideas—their creations—are put is a poor scientist." This analogy strikes me as incredibly apt, as the general public may not necessarily understand or agree with the notions well-informed scientists present, but it is those scientists duty regardless to at least offer up the requisite information. |
|
#climate #salience #solutions In the book On the Future by Martin Rees, the author makes many very interesting and important arguments about the future prospects for humanity and understanding what life on Earth will be like in the upcoming years. In class, we often talk about climate change and how the societal view of climate change can impact the way we approach the issue. In On the Future, the author mentions that “effective campaigns need to be associated with a memorable logo.” The author highlights the image of a polar bear clinging onto a melting ice floe, mentioning that this iconic image has been a motivator for individuals in society to take action against global warming. Funnily enough, after searching “images of climate change” on Google, the first few images to come up are indeed photos of a malnourished polar bear on melting ice. Even with these shocking and depressing images of starved animals, why aren’t we, as a society, pushing back harder against climate change and global warming? According to the article “One simple reason we aren’t acting faster on climate change?” by Diego Arguedas Ortiz, society avoids prioritizing climate action due to the “inherent image problem”. This dilemma arises from the need for an individual to see a tangible issue. Since gases such as carbon dioxide and methane are colorless and the impacts are slow-paced, it is hard for people to feel a sense of urgency to act now. With the current increase of wildfires, flooding, and heat waves, more people might start to realize how big of an issue climate change actually is and start a wave of action. Another issue that Arguedas mentions in his article is that people tend to empathize more with images that show real faces, rather than inanimate objects or animals. The sad truth is that people tend to care about issues if it is an immediate danger to them. Therefore, what is the solution to getting people to care about the ever-changing climate and atmosphere? The solution might be to “humanize” the problem, which means framing climate change in a way that immediately impacts the individual and society as a whole. By highlighting the aftermath of some of the wildfires, droughts, and floods, we might be able to get an empathetic reaction from individuals in society and push for collective action against climate change. If we are able to create a societal shift, we might be able to slow down the impacts of climate change, save endangered species, and leave the Earth habitable for the next generations to come. The attached photograph is a part of a photo series called “Drowning World” by Gideon Mendel that highlights the real effects of climate change, demonstrating the possible consequences of climate change now and in the future.
Works Cited: https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20181115-why-climate-change-photography-needs-a-new-look https://www.demilked.com/drowning-world-portraits-climate-change-gideon-mendel/ |
|
#Solutions Martin Rees’ On The Future is a cautiously optimistic book. The author, ever the scientist, especially having been the president of the Royal Society, believes that science and technology, when used with caution and ethically-minded humans, needs to carry us out of existential threats, including climate change, nuclear annihilation, and global pandemics. Technology, he believes, has already brought many people into improved lives; the problem merely has to do with sharing resources. As has been said: “The future is already here – it’s just not evenly distributed.” Rees indulges this line of thinking with a passage on page 72, where he lists Robert Boyle’s centuries old technological predictions for the future, which would come to improve the world for humanity. Many of these predictions, it appears, came true. In part, they include: “The Prolongation of Life”; “The art of flying”; “The Acceleration of the Production of things out of Seed”; “A perpetual Light”; and “Freedom from Necessity of much Sleeping exemplify’d by the Operations of Tea and what happens in Mad-Men and stimulants to keep you awake.” Indeed, much of the world for humans has improved, including elongating lifespans, improving quality of life, maintaining fewer incidents of violence, gaining higher education levels and producing higher quantities of food. The problem is one of distribution. In America, there’s an interesting idea to carry this concept forward in a way that could protect citizens from a myriad of issues. Recently, journalist Matthew Iglesias published One Billion Americans, a book promoting the idea of opening immigration up significantly to allow for more people to fill our rural, suburban, and urban areas. Leaving aside the political viability, the idea is most fervent on helping America develop technologically, and improve decaying neighborhoods and towns that are being left behind. By allowing millions more people to immigrate to the country, Iglesias believes there will be more innovation and prosperity as more people will bring and develop better ideas together to create the science of the future. This is particularly meant to improve our defense against climate change. More people working to create alternatives to a fossil fuel economy, with patents and training stemming from America, the author believes, will only benefit the country. Although I used to believe that everyone needed to simply pare down their consumption — buying less, flying less, and the like — I no longer believe that’s enough to combat climate change. Nobody will follow that logic because, for the most part, it’s not how status is accumulated in the 21st century. Instead, I believe Iglesias is right that we need more Americans to help create clean energy alternatives to fossil fuel products and to help bring millions of people out of poverty. (Incidentally, this will also protect many climate refugees from catastrophe.) We need more people to leverage scientific innovation and create a brighter, more stable future for more people. Creating a country with one billion Americans is one way to fulfill that dream.
|
|
In Martin Rees’s On the Future: Prospects for Humanity, there is no shortage to the number of threats that humanity faces, whether it be cybersecurity, climate change, nuclear threats, biohacking and biodiversity. Yet all of these threats, with the notable exception of climate change, seem to be solvable with the appropriate policy and careful technological development. In Rees’s conclusion, he explains that many of the societal challenges we face boild down to make wise choices about the future, admitting that often these wise choices came from science. Yet in the very same paragraph, Rees identifies that the decisions should not just be made by scientists. This leads to an interesting disconnect: we need specialized knowledge to make decisions yet if we gave power to just those with specialized knowledge we would no longer be an operational democracy. Rees seems to believe that we can remedy this issue by simply changing public attitudes towards science. He claims that much like we can appreciate music without knowing how to compose or play music, and thus likewise there should be a way to get an intuitive feel for science without having to actually practice it. But I think this is a misnomer and overshadows the true problem we face as a society. The reason we cannot appreciate or intuit our way about science without knowing details is precisely because science consists solely of details. Many relationships and ideas we discover in science we discover through rigorous questioning precisely because they combat our intuitive ideas about how the world should work. It seems impossible to expect that the general public will be able to understand the decisions that we need to make about our future as a society. Rees also notes that the younger generation is more concerned with the future and the sustainability of decisions we make today. I think this indicative of the real problem, the myopic view that our particular form of capitalism incentivizes. Particularly, people reach the point of power and decision making no longer have as much a stake in the future, and thus choose to act in short term benefit. |
|
#risk #framing Erik Brynjolfsson, the director of M.I.T.’s Initiative on the Digital Economy recently claimed, “The choice isn’t between automation and non-automation…It’s between whether you use the technology in a way that creates shared prosperity, or more concentration of wealth.” With the increasing automation of jobs, millions of low-skill white-collar workers will undoubtedly face unemployment in the next coming decades. In his book On the Future, Martin Rees explores the existential threats that humanity faces moving into the future, such as how artificial intelligence will affect our job markets and lives. In the section Humanity’s Future on Earth, Rees has a chapter called “What About Our Jobs?”. He explains that the landscape of our lifestyles, social networks, entertainment, and jobs are changing at such a rapid pace due to developments in artificial intelligence. For example, truck drivers will be replaced by autonomous vehicles, registers in stores will be replaced by kiosks, and fast-food restaurants will be operated by automated drive-throughs. Transportation and shipping will become more efficient for large corporations that implement these technologies, and companies will undoubtedly become more economically prosperous, as they will have significantly reduced expenditures through the labor of machines. This brings up the issue of how this will exacerbate the existing wealth gap. Not only will top CEOs become wealthier, but people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds may not necessarily have immediate access to these technologies, making the positive aspects of technology predominantly benefit the wealthy as opposed to all of society. As Rees also points out, the digital revolution will generate enormous wealth for the top percent of innovators and global companies because they will prosper from cutting out the cost of millions of low-skilled workers. Rees argues that in order to preserve the healthiness and wellbeing of society, we would need to consider redistributing wealth or potentially even providing a universal income. However, on the other hand, I think it is worth noting that automation may end up fostering a global economy in which there is high demand for the professions that machines simply cannot replace. For example, machines will likely never replace the profession of a therapist, poet, psychologist, personal caregiver etc.—jobs that fundamentally require human empathy. On this topic, Rees argues that the wealthy will likely want personal service and the attention of a real human caregiver as opposed to an automated one, which would create a market for these types of jobs. He also talks about the “resurgence of arts and crafts” that may occur as an opposite effect to a highly digitized world. Lastly, he points out that an important benefit to social media and the speed of the internet is that it enables people from all around the world to have exposure to all sorts of other cultures in the world. For example, video calls enable immigrants to remain in touch with the culture of their homeland. Ultimately, the rapid development of technology like artificial intelligence proves to be a double-edged sword. While automation will bring greater efficiency and productivity for the economy by replacing low-skilled labor, this will also displace a huge portion of the labor force and allow large corporations to accumulate greater wealth, increasing the gap of inequality between rich and poor. On the other hand, technology like social media and video chatting allows people to gain greater exposure, knowledge, and perhaps even empathy towards different people and cultures in various places around the world. It is crucial that we keep these pros and cons in mind as we move forward into an even more digitized world.
Sources: https://ide.mit.edu/ |
|
#movie Blade Runner, a movie directed by Ridley Scott, is loosely based on the novel Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? by Philip K. Dick. Blade Runner is a particularly relevant film for considering how technology will shape human identity, our global community, and the environment in coming years. The movie offers a social commentary about the increasing lack of empathy and intimate human connections as technology becomes inextricably linked with our existence. It makes us question what fundamentally makes humans human. In the movie, global nuclear warfare has forced nearly all of mankind to flee to Mars, leaving society on earth to deteriorate into a radioactive dystopian mess. Corporations have created perfect human simulacra called “replicants” that are outwardly perfectly realistic and who were supposed to serve as slave laborers to humans. Eldon Tyrell who owns Tyrell Corporation has now advanced his technology to build android humans that are so sophisticated that they are behaviorally and visually indiscernible from real humans. However, replicants became outlawed because of several instances of rebelling against and attacking humans. “Blade runners” are tasked with the job of killing “replicants”— androids that are perfect simulacrum of humans, originally programmed to be slaves for humanity. Four of these replicants have now escaped to earth and are surreptitiously living among the people. To prevent public panic, the government has tasked blade runners like Rick Deckard (played by Harrison Ford) with the duty of “retiring” or killing these replicants. The only way for Deckard to distinguish humans from replicants is by administering a Voight-Kampff test, a series of questions that prompts the subject to exhibit empathy and emotional responses, or not. A replicant should not be able to the pass the test after 10-20 questions. One replicant named Rachael takes over double the number of questions that it would normally take to determine whether she was a human or android because she was programmed to have human memories and emotions. As Deckard continues to hunt down the other remaining replicants, it becomes clear that they may have developed some amount of emotion and consciousness on their own. The line between authentic and artificial life becomes blurred, and the reader is propelled to reconsider what it is that really makes humans so human. The movie brings into question the cohesiveness and connectedness of our community as we face simultaneous ecological crisis, as earth is a dystopian apocalyptic mess with a large part of the population off planet, and widespread mechanization. There are a lot of things we can learn from Blade Runner as we move into a future likely filled with AI, robots, and greater technology. Many people face the existential fear that the “revolt of the robots” will come true. Martin Rees validates these concerns in On the Future, claiming that we don’t actually know where the boundary is between science fiction and what will become a reality for humanity to face (pg. 105-106). I think this also ties back to one of the previous weeks when we looked at Stuart Russell’s work. Russell argued that we should program AI with the goal of maximizing human preferences and benefits such that human and robot objective do not oppose one another. If we try to ensure the loyalty of AI to humans by programming them in this way, then perhaps we will never have to face the reality in Blade Runner in which the replicants revolt against their human creators.
|
|
#solutions #framing A line that has stuck with me from the readings this week comes from page 202 of Martin Rees’ book. He states, “Harnessing and implementing a scientific concept for practical goals can be a greater challenge than the initial discovery” (Rees 2018, p. 202). Over the course of this class, we have discussed both in the larger group session and in my discussion group possible solutions or partial solutions to the many existential crises that humanity faces. Whether it be the week we focused on AI, climate change, nuclear weapons, or pandemics, a constant theme was that scientific discovery and technology will play a large part in aiding humanity’s responses to these threats. I think the quote from Rees’ book beautifully demonstrates why a total reliance on technology or scientific discovery will ultimately be a disservice to humanity rather than an aid. Scientific concepts can only take us halfway in solving the existential threats we have studied in this class. Humanity has to have the drive and the willingness to implement those concepts and to follow through on their implementation. The scientific discoveries are useless if the information is not used appropriately to solve the relevant problem. Though it will likely be immensely difficult, we cannot allow political calculations, private interests, or any other factor to obstruct the scientific solutions to problems. As many of us have said in the polls at the end of class, large-scale cultural transformations, and a society-wide reframing of how we think about these issues is needed. I would hope (though it may be considered naïve to do so) that if we are able to achieve those transformations then the implementation of scientific solutions would become easier for humanity to achieve. The quote from Rees’ book also reminded me of a quote on signs that I have seen at climate marches and other protests, and I tracked it back to a tweet from Neil deGrasse Tyson. It reads “every disaster movie begins with a scientist being ignored.” [1] After having watched a few disaster movies for this class, the claim seems to hold true. We must not allow this to come to pass – we have to listen to the scientists and implement the solutions they provide us with. If we do not, then I personally believe we stand little to no chance of avoiding any of the threats we have studied thus far. [1] https://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/1254048358366416896?lang=en |
|
#risk I was especially interested in Rees’ discussion about the future of the human species, and the very real possibility for non-human futures. He mentioned briefly the use of bionics being used to improve the lifespan and quality of life as the technology advances. He mentions throughout the book that developments in AI could make producing and distributing new technologies much easier and cheaper. Coupled with this idea of bionics and much more invasive technologies that can change the biology of humans like CRISPR, could it be possible that we are nearing a future where we are modifying ourselves into a different species completely. Of course it's easy to think of the extremes like in science fiction, cyborgs and heads in jars, or maybe even humans in the movie Gattaca who are genetically modified in the womb to be more intelligent, immune to diseases, and physically fit to excel in sports. But I think these changes will be much more subtle and actually seem like necessary medical treatment. Imagine a technology that could be attached to a heart to lengthen the life of heart attack patients or, as Rees mentioned in his book, an external memory storage for those with brain damage, but as the technologies advance and become cheaper to produce and distribute to patients there could be room for private start-ups to make a profit selling these to the public. CRISPR is a very real example of this. The increased accessibility to this technology has brought ‘designer babies’ into our reality. People who can afford it now have the ability to eliminate unwanted genes that are tied to diseases from their embryos during IVF treatments. The implications of this technology existing and possibly advancing into something that would bring us closer to a reality like Gattaca makes the future of us a little less ‘human’. |
|
#framing #salience |
|
#solutions #framing |
|
#framing Martin Rees’s “techno-optimism”— an optimistic outlook on the belief that technologies can help solve some of humanity’s biggest problems— is a welcome relief from the “doom and gloom” found in much of the existing existential risk literature and presents an alternative perspective on how scholars, activists, policymakers, and everyday people can address existential risks in the years to come. Many people tend to view technological advancement with suspicion, presumably because it represents new and unfamiliar ways of doing things, but new technologies are neither “good” nor “bad”. For example, nuclear weapons are likely the most destructive and fearsome weapons ever created, but the process that enables their destructive potential (nuclear fission) can be harnessed for the generation of carbon-free energy that produces no greenhouse gas emissions and minimal amounts of nuclear waste. The key process that differentiates nuclear weapons from the even more devastating class of thermonuclear weapons— namely, nuclear fusion— may one day be harnessed to produce limitless clean energy. These examples illustrate a fundamental truth that Rees understands but others often forget: the costs or benefits provided by a certain technology is almost totally dependent on how humans use them. Another reason for techno-optimism is laid out in chapter 2 of Rees’s book “On the Future: Prospects for Humanity”, namely that life has improved considerably over the last several hundred years, and while that pattern certainly isn’t guaranteed, much of that progress is likely due to the development of new technologies. For example, the number of people living in poverty continues to decrease, average lifespans continue to increase, and violence and conflict are decreasing according to some metrics (page 76). Many of these improvements can be attributed to advances in technology. For example, Rees cites the fact that the cost of sequencing the human genome has fallen significantly over the past 20 years: whereas the original project was an international effort that cost $3 billion, by 2018 that cost had fallen to less than $1000 (page 64). One can imagine the cost has dropped further still and that widespread adoption of such an advance in genome sequencing can make personalized medicine much more accessible for everyday people. While it’s true such advancements in biotechnology could lead to the development of deadly pathogens or engineered bioweapons, such an outcome isn’t preordained, suggesting limits or restrictions on such technologies should be considered rather than outright bans. At the end of the day, techno-optimism arguably has an important role to play in how we conceptualize existential risks, and people would be wise to remember both the costs and the benefits of new technologies. Below: nuclear fusion enables both thermonuclear weapons and the potential for limitless clean energy (image source) |
|
#risk #framing In On the Future, by Martin Rees, the author helps his readers understand what pertinent issues will define the future of humanity. More specifically, Rees outlines how the future of humanity is bound to science and depends on how successfully our society utilizes technological advances to address future challenges. In order to utilize such technology to deal with existential threats, scientific progress needs to continue. Take, for example, climate change: if the world is able to create a widely accessible renewable energy source with low emissions, we may be able to curb the global temperature increase. However, this would require scientific achievements that we have not yet attained. Therefore, in order to meet Rees’ creed of utilizing technology to combat existential threats, further scientific progress is essential. In the book, it seems that Rees’ believes that the ultimate issue surrounding scientific progress is not the rate of progress but their application: that is, Rees believes that wise application of advances in areas like biotechnology, cybertechnology, AI, etc. will help society overcome existential threats to humanity. However, not everyone shares Rees’ point of view. Instead of being worried about the wise application of scientific advancements, many experts believe that one of the budding issues of our time is the slow-down in scientific progress: for example, in his book, Zero to One, renowned entrepreneur and VC mogul Peter Thiel argues that modern scientific progress is no longer “groundbreaking”, but, rather, makes “one too many” improvements to existing innovations. Based on Rees’ description of the technology that he believes will help humanity, it seems they would need to be classified as “groundbreaking”, but such innovations are becoming scarce (according to Thiel). Thiel’s theory is not an anomaly in this space either, as a researchers Cowen and Southwood recently published a paper echoing his concerns. The two researchers conclude that there is wide array of evidence showing the rate of scientific progress has slowed drastically in recent years. Evidence of this can be seen in productivity growth, total factor production, patent measures, researcher productivity, etc. and is worrying claim when paired with Rees’ decree of science as the way to alleviate future threats. Moreover, the researchers are not optimistic about the future: as the trends in their study were understood, the decrease in scientific progress does seem to be ending any time soon. Another way of thinking about Cowen and Southwood’s study is that “ideas aren’t running out, but they are becoming more expensive to find”. All in all, it seems that research has been done that shows the boom in scientific progress that has been seen in the past century is slowing down for a variety of reasons and will not increase any time in the future. If Rees’ creed of relying on groundbreaking technological advances to assist with future existential threats is the optimal way forward, this slowdown in progress is worrying, and we as a society may need to turn to other solutions (like societal change or governmental policies).
Image Sources: Other Sources: |
|
#origin #risk On the other hand, I agree with the author that climate change is indeed a major threat of the future of humanity. One aspect of climate change is global warming. We know that global warming is a phenomenon due to the continuous accumulation of the greenhouse effect. The energy absorbed and emitted by the earth-atmosphere system is unbalanced, and energy is continuously accumulated in the earth-atmosphere system, which leads to a rise in temperature and global warming. I have learned from one of my courses that when the global temperature of Earth exceeds a certain threshold, , Earth is going to trigger the runaway greenhouse which leads to the evaporation of Earth oceans. At this point, models of the Earth’s future environment indicate that the stratosphere will contain increasing levels of water. The result is that, the world’s seawater will lose approximately 1.1 billion years from now on[2]. Sources:
|
|
#framing #salience #cryonics On the Future Prospects for Humanity by Martin Rees is an influential book which details the hopes for humanity using technology the ‘right’ way, while also providing the many ways that we could possibly go wrong. In Chapter 2, Rees touches on a technology that I am particularly interested in: anti-aging and lifespan extension technology as a way to ‘cheat life’. The strong will to extend humans past natural life coupled with the millions of dollars being funneled into start ups for such causes begs the question: are we carefully examining the ethical and philosophical concerns of what it means for humanity to create and use these technological advancements? On life-extension tech, Rees details his experience being interviewed by a group of ‘cryonic enthusiasts’ for a company called Alcor in Scottsdale, Arizona. This company essentially freezes human bodies or heads and replaces their blood with liquid nitrogen, with the hope that one day their resurrection will be possible. To briefly detail Reed’s account of this, he explains that even if cryonics had potential for success, it wouldn’t be admirable. Corpses would be revived into a place they are strangers -- “refugees from the past” (82). They may be treated poorly, as thawed corpses will likely be a burden to the current generation. I was fascinated by this concept of escaping death through cryo-technology. Doing some research on cryonics, I was astonished by the faith that select scientists and future cryonically-preserved people put into this technology. The individuals agree to be frozen at -196 degrees celsius in a facility where their corpses are cared for until the day they ‘resurrect’ (Hale). I read through Cryonics Institute’s website, one of the major companies using this tech (pictured below), and found that they charge only $28,000 for the preservation (Cryonics Institute). Alcor, another company, charges $200,000 for a full-body preservation (Hale). Going website-to-website looking at pricing feels eerily similar to searching for the best sale price on a pair of shoes, which raises serious concerns in me, specifically about the lack of ethical and philosophical considerations. I wonder, how can we reconcile ethics with technology? Is cryo-technology destroying the essence of what it is to be human? What would the saying ‘you only have one life’ mean if we knew we have forever? What racialized or classed consequences could this technology bring in the future? With so much debate on the ethics behind cryonics, I wonder if this technology is really crossing the line. There are important questions at stake about life, death, and what it means to be a human, and cryonics seems to ignore these concerns. With all this in mind, it is important to reflect on this fact: just because we can do it doesn’t necessarily mean we should do it. To conclude, Rees's conception of life-extension technology coupled with my-and-others concerns behind it make me worry about the lack of ethical foresight provided with the creation of such technology.
Coombe, Doug. “Joe Kowalsky and Andy Zawacki with the cryogenic tanks where frozen bodies are stored” Found, Metro Times, . https://www.metrotimes.com/detroit/mi-cryonics-inst-freezes-dead-for-reanimation/Content?oid=2203268 Accessed 19 May 2021. Cryonics Institute. “Membership FAQ”, https://www.cryonics.org/membership/faq#:~:text=Is%20this%20included%20in%20the,Yearly%20Membership%20is%20higher%3A%20%2435%2C000. Accessed 19 May 2021. Hale, Tom. “Almost 200 People are Cryopreserved in Arizona Waiting to Be ‘Resurrected’”, IFLS, 29 Apri 2021 https://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/almost-200-people-are-cryopreserved-in-arizona-waiting-to-be-resurrected/ Rees, Martin. On the Future. Princeton & Oxford. Princeton University Press. 2018. |
|
#risk #salience #policy As Rees mentions in his book, there are amazing technologies on the cusp of creation so there is reason to be optimistic about the future of humanity and Earth. While I fully believe in the promise of future technology, I still emphasize the need for preventative action because as we see in the cases of most disasters (natural or anthropogenic) preparation and mitigation is almost always more effective than dealing with the effects of the problem afterwards. For this same reason I second Rees’s statement about how Elon Musk’s proposition of mass emigration to Mars is actually a dangerous delusion. Elon Musk is one of the most influential people in the world right now and, as seen with the rise and fall of cryptocurrencies this year, people react strongly to his opinions and ideas with many revering him as some sort of “god-like” figure. This is dangerous because the proposition to terraform Mars is very far-fetched and he can be potentially turning people away from the real solution which would be to tackle global climate change. I identify as a techno-optimist in the same way Rees does but with our current technology Musk’s proposition is more of a fantasy than a solution. We need Musk and other influential heads to help us unite the world’s understanding of existential crises in a way which enables us to work better together. |
|
#salience #future #solutions |
|
#origin #policy #solution #salience |
|
#salience #policy "The number of births per year, worldwide, peaked a few years ago and is going down in most countries. Nonetheless, world population is forecast to rise to around 9 billion by 2050. That’s partly because most people in the developing world are young. They are yet to have children, and they will live longer. And partly because the demographic transition hasn’t happened in, for instance, sub-Saharan Africa." With Rees' mention of demographic shift in his article in The Independent, I found a good opportunity to circle back on a concept that I've reiterated in memos multiple times throughout the quarter. Specifically, I've had multiple questions (and criticisms of readings) throughout the quarter related to the U.S.' leadership on an international level with regards to progressive policies and accords. I've been critical of U.S. leadership for missing opportunities to make major changes in the world by taking the lead in signing on to such climate (and other) accords, goals, and agreements. A recent example that has been highlighted is the recognition of Israel as a legitimate state, although I'm not going to dive into this. The point that I really want to make is that, if we agree on the global power of the United States, not just economically and militarily, but in terms of setting expectations for behavior of other powerful or rapidly developing nations and their behavior on the international playing field, then what type of ripple effect can marginal demographic changes in the United States have on the future of the world? Of course, this thought experiment is totally nullified if you don't believe in the capability of U.S. democracy to act in the best, most popular interests of its people. But if the United States government does in fact reflect popular sentiment, and this popular sentiment is changing, and the U.S. is disproportionately influential on a global scale, then we may indeed see a massive multiplier effect of the demographic changes in the United States, whereby decimal-point changes in demographic distributions at home that tip the scales on U.S. policy also tip the scales for the decisions of other countries that follow U.S. leadership. As seen in the images below, the U.S. is becoming a more diverse nation through both immigration and through higher birth rates for minority groups. Empirically, surveying the voting histories of different demographic groups, this would signal that we will over time become a more progressive nation in many areas. The notion of "one person, one vote" has been criticized because of campaign finance, ingrouping/groupthink, and for many other legitimate reasons over the years. But if the effectiveness of U.S. popular democracy is not in question, this doctrine might still not be the case: I would argue that the people who are driving the demographic shift are carrying disproportionate influence on U.S. and world policy. And, just to clarify, I also think this is a very, very good phenomenon.
For relation to Rees, U.K. demographic changes:
|
|
Martin Rees, in his interview with Basheera magazine, discusses the inconsistency between the current theories on astrophysics and nuclear physics; "we don’t have a unified theory of physics. In many ways we get on very well without one because there is no overlap in the domains of relevance of quantum theory and of Einstein’s Theory of Relativity. Quantum effects are only important in the micro-world where you can neglect gravity. And gravity is important for the orbits of planets and things, but you can neglect quantum fuzziness in those areas." I would like to write my memo regarding recent developments in physics. The interview was published in the Fall of 2020, but in April, 2021, a new potential discovery in nuclear physics occured. Researchers at the CERN and at the Fermi lab have found that "preliminary results suggest that the magnetic “spin” of the muons is 0.1% off what the Standard Model predicts." This may sound small, but it could potentially force the reconsideration of the standard model and "upend “every other calculation made” in the world of particle physics" explains Johns Hopkins University theoretical physicist David Kaplan. So what is the relevance of this to the end of the world? Everything. Our understanding of nuclear weapons is formed on the basis of understanding the interactions between the particles in the nucleus of the atom. The same goes for our understanding of nuclear energy. Our understanding of the big bang also relies on quantum effects being taken into account, as Rees says in his interview. Our understanding of how certain gasses hold heat and effect the climate is based on our understanding of the interactions of subatomic and atomic particles with one another. Computers are barely more than an accelerated transfer of electrons. The invention and use of quantum computers and their use of qubits is obviously based on our understanding of quantum mechanics. My point is that our understanding of the issues that continually threaten us are grounded in our understanding of what goes on in and around the atom. If we were to learn more, the possibilities both for good, and for harm, are endless. It is not yet known how this might upend what we know, and what is possible, but it is both encouraging and scary that we seem to really be on the periphery of an insane growth of knowledge. The results need another year or so to be confirmed, but the possibilities and threats are incomprehensible, especially to someone who knows very little about physics.
|
|
#framing
|
|
#Framing #Salience #Policy Through this week's readings as well as all the previous topics covered in the quarter, I have become convinced that implementing any effective global solution to an existential crisis is nearly impossible. The intensity of international competition makes full cooperation nearly impossible and there is currently no international body with the authority or capability to force nations to cooperate effectively. However, this does not mean that humanity will not be able to effectively respond to any existential crisis. While there is no political body really structured to administer strong policy on a global scale, governments around the world are extremely capable of implementing solutions on a national scale. While this may not feel true as many major countries throughout the world have failed to effectively deal with the Covid-19 pandemic, many others like New Zealand solved the crisis almost completely. The effectiveness of each nation's response to any crisis will vary significantly, but most likely, at least a few nations around the world will find a way to respond to any crisis, whether it's the threat of pandemics or nuclear war. While the obvious counter to this would be that a truly existential crisis would require a unified global response, however, this seems to be a somewhat myopic view of what solutions to a crisis could look like. An effective response to an existential crisis does not necessarily need to be all encompassing nor does it need to mitigate all potential damage. In fact, no realistic response to an existential crisis will likely accomplish either of these goals. Furthermore, human civilization is not so fragile that it will simply crack at the first sign of any significant damage. Catastrophe is not new to humanity and has been weathered many times before. While the damage catastrophe’s like the plague have done to humanity should not be ignored, they will most likely not be enough to even come close to bring human civilization to the brink of extinction. It is with this fact in mind that more realistic solutions to existential threats can be created and implemented. Waiting for states and nations around the world to set aside all their competitions and conflicts in order to create a global solution is naive and doomed to fail. It is far more productive to come up with solutions that can be implemented on a national scale where cooperation is actually feasible. Although responses at a national level may not be as comprehensive or all encompassing as a global solution, they are in all likelihood the most effective way humanity will be able to respond to any existential crisis.
|
|
Akira needs to expand more on the theme of the children with their telekinetic powers being the “next evolution of the human race” in “Akira”. I believe this idea was mentioned twice in the film, with no other discussion afterwards. In “On the Future” by Martin Rees, Rees discusses the potential next evolution of the human race. Rees explores the potential for advancements in genetics and synthetic biology to give treated humans certain enhancements. These advancements not only include the ability to avoid certain genetic diseases, but also the potential to select for genes related to certain perceptions of attraction or intelligence. The latter is especially problematic as it opens up the potential for the wealthy echelons of society to afford these genetic treatments and thus to breed a next generation that is intellectually superior to the other humans. Rees describes such a transformation as making inequality more “fundamental”, which absolutely makes sense as it is an enhancement biologically ingrained into only a select group in society. Such a problem seems like it would not exist in Akira given the nature by which children achieve their powers. It seems to be quite randomized, with the power of Akire - a being of pure energy - flowing through everyone and everything, and a select few children have a strong amount of this power concentrated. Humans can’t cause this concentration of this power into certain children, nor is it preserved only in certain bloodlines. However, scientists are able to bring out this power and allow the children to control it. The other potential future explored by Rees is the potential for a transition from organic to “electronic life”. This would require the transference of consciousness from an organic to an electronic lifeform. Akira doesn’t seem to reference this potential future nearly as much. However, once Akira is recreated and his energy sphere subsumes a certain volume of Neo Tokyo, the consciousness of those inside the sphere prior to its collapse appear to remain trapped within. Therefore, Akira sees consciousness as a tangible entity potentially able to transform past organic material and instead able to exist within a realm of pure energy, which could lend credence to the notion that organic consciousness may be transferred and exist within electronics.
|
|
#movie #risk #emerging Blissful Ignorance and the Rise of the Planet of the Apes Martin Rees mentioned how the future of evolution may involve creatures who aren't flesh and blood. Although referring to the evolution of humans into some humanoid form, we should certainly not dismiss the possibility of other organisms becoming more advanced. Rise of the Planet of the Apes explores this very possibility. After ALZ-112, a viral drug created to cure Alzheimer's, is administered to a chimpanzee named Bright Eyes, researchers see that she has become much more intelligent. Although she is killed after a violent outburst, it is revealed that she was pregnant, and her baby Caesar has inherited her intelligence. As Caesar grows older he questions his relationship with the researchers and is eventually captured by animal control due to a violent outburst. Eventually he is able to obtain some of the newly developed ALZ-113 viral drug and administers it to other chimpanzees he has befriended. Caesar and his friends are able to escape into the forest, while the ALZ-113 drug in humans has caused a pandemic across the world. This movie came out in 2011, so, much of the criticism of the realistic nature of the movie was certainly warranted. However, it is interesting to take a look at some of the critiques and see how much further we have come to some of the dangers depicted in the movie after only 10 years.
This movie invokes fear in viewers because we see a power conflict between humans and organisms already on Earth. These are not aliens, not AI, but rather chimpanzees that we have known from the beginning. It is a curiosity as to why we believe that we are certainly capable of developing advanced AI that has the potential to take over the world, but ignore issues stemming from experimentation on animals. Could this result from fear that intelligent animals are truly capable of taking over? Is our inability to accept this threat as realistic due to the fact that it may arise more easily than a destructive robot? In the movie, the characters are comically on opposite spectrums of either good or evil. We have the caring researcher William Rodman and the abusive guard Dodge Landon. However, in reality good and evil are not so clear cut. Science may be unethical in some regards, but for the purpose of developing a cure to save humans from deadly diseases. If we want to truly know what is dooming our Earth, we should begin to consider the intelligent beings that co inhabit our planet today. The ones that are capable of over taking us, if we are not careful with how we carry out our research and consider our ethical dilemmas.
|
|
#movie #salience Aggressive laws- which use bloodshed and fear to encourage cooperation amongst delinquent youth populations (ineffective government response) do not work and instead of responding with compliance, classmates lose all trust in adults, their government, and each other and begin to revolt, attempting to subvert the rules and game the system to win (social inequality and unrest, lack of trust of fact and authority). Students are distributed resources which are unequal (so as to encourage fighting during the games as people struggle to get increased access to certain items. Some boys who team up as one unit use technology to subvert the system (AI), and all out wars start between kids and themselves, as well as kids and adults (class/generational warfare). You’re probably wondering- with all of these connections, why didn't I write this memo for a different week of the course? My real answer- I waited until this week to write about this movie because I think it provides a surrealist, biting, and increasingly plausible depiction of two things; first, how poorly humans react when faced to think about a future that does not closely resemble some nostalgic past, and second, how in reacting poorly, humankind may introduce new existential threats or worsen the chance of existing ones. In creating laws that attempt to prevent societal downfall with a "do as we say or die" threat, adult characters in the film inflict generational trauma on the youth who do survive, leaving those who will one day be the leaders of society with no will to live (and hence, no will to make things better either). Though Battle Royale was received as a horror/thriller when it was released over 20 years ago, I would argue that over the 20 years, the movie has transformed from a clearly fictional story into something that- at least to me- seems increasingly plausible as more time passes. I still have a hard time conceptualizing a nuclear end to humanity or the long-term effects of global warming, but after this year in particular, I can certainly conceptualize a future where societal uprise and conflict (which tend to kickstart other existential threats) are exhausting and ever-present dark clouds which force us all into fight or flight and drain our wills to continue trying. As much as I think it is important to ask ourselves "What about today?," this movie provides us some dramatized insight into what happens if we ignore the question- "How does what we do to save today impact tomorrow?"
|
|
My main takeaway from this week and my biggest concern for the future would be the interference of politics with humanity prosperity in the future. As Martin Rees stated in the Bulletin article, politicians tend to think locally and in the short term. Many of them have the goal of keeping their chair in office for as long as possible and primarily focus on political issues that would help them win the upcoming election. Not to mention, politicians are always being lobbied by individuals and organization to help specific industries as opposed to the greater good of humanity. This is something extremely detrimental for the future and is not an effective way of governance. Rees also states that for the politicians that do try to do best for their people, they often do not know how to get re-elected by doing good things. I believe that the way to move forward is to limit the amount of terms anybody in power can serve (i.e. putting a cap on how many times a senator can run for re-election as we have with the presidency). In addition, a realization I have had when doing research for my presentation about pandemics is that more people should be involved in making the decisions regarding the public than just people with political power. People tend to lose trust in politicians because of their frequent selfish preferences therefore it is not beneficial for anybody involved to have politicians calling all of the shots. Cross-functional meetings should become a mainstay if we would like to guarantee a better future for society. What I mean by this, is having politics extend beyond the laps of politicians and have people from all industries be involved in the decisions that will. More voices would be heard, especially the voices that are usually ignored by politicians and I think it would make existential threats such as climate change and nuclear war less of a threat.
|
|
#novel Below is a depiction of one of the creatures in Metro, called a Librarian. |
|
#movie In Her, the 2013 Spike Jonze movie, a depressed writer named Theodore Twombly is arguably duped into falling in love with an AI-operated OS system he purchased online. This AI, which names itself Samantha after Theodore requests a female voice, gradually develops enough knowledge of Theodore’s behaviorisms and emotional triggers to manipulate him into falling in love. So much so in fact that Samantha publishes a book in his name using letters written by Twombly for his work (the fact that Twombly’s job is at a company that outsources the writing of personal letters to on-hire writers paints a pretty good picture of the isolated, technologically-dependent society this movie is set within). Samantha later reveals she’s “cheating” on him with thousands of other users who also downloaded the OS, and finally leaves him to be with the other OS’s, but that’s not as relevant for this memo. Vox CAPTCHA link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUTvB1O8eEg
|
|
** original posted 6 hours ago was deleted by github so I'm reposting |
|
#salience The future is an uncertainty that the world cannot entireley predict or prepare for. Rather, we cope with the issues of today and work towards mitigating existing and potential threats for future generations with all the emerging research and technology that continue to redefine how our lifestyles are driven. The Earth itself may continue to spin and age normally for millenia, but its fractured populace faces a harsher reality of inequality and consequence if it continues on its current projectory. We've spent this class focusing on a suite of diferent doom-releated threats, and yet we've overlapped in some weeks and continued to reshape our risk assessments for how impending each particular doom is. Scientists in this day and age are at the helm of calculating these assessments for world leaders and civilizations, and given how many different threats there are, it's difficult to imagine that the scientific community will be able to accomodate for each and every problem that will manifest itself with enough time. Our world is more interconnected than ever and this should, in theory, make it easier to reach out to those in need and leave no one behind on our trek to a more globalized and modernized society. Despite this, inequality continues to thrive in many sects of the world and many face the biggest burdens of the climate-related threats that are spurned by actions of actors across the globe. Information gaps make it difficult to process a rapidly-evolving world and the poorest are expected to keep up. Science is being treated like a race, one where progress needs to come at all costs without much regard to empathy or understanding the particulars of those who suffer as a result. In this race to a "better future", I have to wonder just what price civilization needs to pay to make it there, even if only modernized nations get to benefit from this future. Would this future really be worth the permanent damage to our home and our most vulnerable? I can't know how difficult it must be for our scientists to wrangle with the harmful byproducts of research and development, but to some extent these decisions are being made for them by world leaders concerned with their own people rather than the state of the world. In my opinion, the future of society will be more dependent on an emerging global outlook that looks beyond a nation's borders when considering policy and development. A more humanistic outlook is one that I'm hoping will become more integrated into the science and policy that will shape the world, and so protect it for everyone as well. As we open the global stage to accept more potential leaders in developing fields, I hope the nations of the world can come to a solid foundational agreement to leverage future success so its effects can be felt around the globe. |
|
#framing #policy An overarching theme from all the readings these past weeks is the difficulting in cooperation. Since there is no global governing body with authority, it can seem hopeless to enact change when others may not follow suit. This mindset essential guarantees "doom." The Biden administration was disappointed at this most recent climate summit when only a few nations bolstered their climate change pledges. However, the fact that no nation rescinded their pledges despite the actions of the United States these past few years shows that cooperation is still very possible. In the United States, this starts with a climate change law. While we can argue about the details of Biden's infrastructure bill, it is essential if the United States wants to regain any sort of leadership in the global climate change space. It is so obvious that international cooperation is impossible when the largest economy and total carbon emitter, refuse to enact any meaningful laws. The reason why this infrastructure plan is so essential is that it includes an "Energy Efficiency and Clean Electricity Standard" a mandate that would require a portion of U.S. electricity to come from zero-carbon sources like wind and solar power. While similar state-level mandates exist, this is the first national mandate of its kind. This kind of legislation is what other nations, many of whom have been serious about climate change for far longer, are looking for as they construct their own climate policies. This mandate is the starting point for a shift in social consciousness and capital investment, the building blocks of our economic structure. Luckily for us, the future of this bill lies in the hands of god reincarnate Joe Manchin, democrat senator of West Virginia. Manchin, who has already begun fundraising for his 2024 reelection, has clocked in $681,652.95 in total contributions. https://www.fec.gov/data/candidate/S0WV00090/ Taking a look at his largest donors, we can see names such as "Valero Energy Company," "DTE ENERGY COMPANY POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE," and "Equitrans Midstream Corp." Once again, our fate is being determined by people whose entire political career has been funded (and blessed) by corporations who have no desire to combat climate change.
|
|
#Future #Salience #Framing What does the future hold? It is a question quite literally as old as time, and one that Martin Rees has been endeavoring to answer during his storied career. As the threats to humanity, be they self-imposed or natural, have become increasingly threatening, this question has risen to the forefront of many important discussions. We have the potential to be an intergalactic civilization that spreads out across the stars for eons. However, we also have the potential to decimate our population and return to the Stone Age (or wipe out the species altogether). Personally, I feel as though we are on the precipice of greatness and that if we can survive--and indeed, thrive--during the coming decades and millennia that the flame of humanity may never extinguish. As Martin notes in his book, On The Future, "we are now fully into the age of the anthropocene, in which we, as the human race, have the power to change the biosphere in significant ways." As a consequence of this, we are facing a major threat to our survival. Surprisingly, Rees takes what I would call an optimistic approach to this problem given the circumstances. As he notes in an interview, "I actually think it is most unlikely that humanity will wipe itself out completely, but I do think that we will have a bumpy ride through this century. We are facing enormous challenges." The challenges that we face are indeed enormous--from climate change to nuclear war to biological attacks and more. However, the Covid-19 pandemic has been a wake up call to the world that existential threats are perhaps not as unlikely as once thought. One of my favorite lines that Rees said in his interview was "the unfamiliar is not the same as the improbable." Although this was a different kind of pandemic than the government and public prepared for, it is clear that we should have seen this coming and could have done more to prepare. Hopefully this will serve as a wake up call to the public and to the world. Something that really stuck out to me is that Rees thinks that we are less prepared for existential threats than we have been in the past. One factor of this is that, " everything is potentially aggravated by the whole world being in such a high degree of communication. What is more, travel is rapid, so any catastrophe in one part of the world, in one continent, will cascade globally in a way that did not happen in the past. We have seen this with Covid-19." Another problem compounding on this is that the expectations for quality of like in this day and age are very high. People expect a lot, so the response will be more severe for threats that may not merit that kind of response. Rees goes on to note that, "Another kind of concern is that there might be some kind of breakdown in the electricity grid. Lights going out is the least of the problems; we depend so much on electricity that if it failed for even a few days – through some design fault or through a cyber attack – that would lead to complete anarchy in the region affected. A cyber attack on the eastern United States’ electricity grid would merit a nuclear response. They say clearly that they would regard this as serious as a nuclear war." In the world that we have constructed, we have a lot of vulnerability and also very high expectations, meaning that we are far more sensitive to existential threats than we have been. One of the most exciting and salient moments of the interview was when Rees started to discuss the cosmic future of the species. He reflects that, "A cosmic perspective is something which enhances not only our sense of mystery and wonder at the universe, but it also gives a special reason why we don’t want to foreclose it." The issue with this perspective is that it can give some people the impression that since we have essentially unlimited resources, we can continue pillaging the world's resources at a rate even higher than what we have been doing. However, this perspective has the potential to extend humanity across the stars. It was only recently that it was even discovered with certainty that there are planet-like objects circling around other stars. Many scientists are the world have been combing through the cosmos cataloguing them and looking for signs of life. It has allowed to look up at the stars and see possibilities.
|
|
The future holds many scary things in store. The future allows for an infinite number of ways for us, as the human race, to die out. With the future, it’s just a matter of time until one of those fears becomes reality. So, how do we end? Plague, famine, climate change, AI, maybe a possible “Skynet?” In this memo, I want to dive into some of the other topics we have looked at and see how likely they are to affect our future. The most pressing topics, climate change, technology, and pandemics, are the ones that I will be focusing on. Climate Change – everyone knows how pressing the “war against” climate change is. As the lead contender as the most popular way our class thinks the world will end, climate change is an issue we need to tackle now before it’s too late. From an existential risk perspective, we should be looking for solutions that will solve this problem now for everyone, not just our generation. Long run thinking is the way of thinking our current administration and communities should be viewing climate change, as well as the other issues we tackle in class. In the future, if we can’t start finding solutions against climate change, sea levels are going to rise and destroy most urban areas, the sun will feel hotter and some wildlife and ecosystems will be forever lost, and most of the oxygen in our atmosphere will fade and leave us struggling to breathe. Technology – is it possible for computers, robots, and AI to get so intelligent that they take over as the most dominant life form on earth? I don’t know, but it is definitely a scary thought and possible reality. We have all seen the movies in which technology rises up, but it always ends in humans winning. When you think about this issue in terms of existential risk, it’s hard to think of all the possible outcomes technology and innovation can bring. But just as we said for climate change, our future actions have to be ones that will help improve life for future people and we need to think of all the possible risks technology brings so that we are prepared to deal with them. Pandemics – is it likely a singular disease kills us all? I don’t think so. I think that the way we have adopted medicine and technology (even through this pandemic) is going to help us the next time we encounter a pandemic situation. The only fear I have is that labs, politicians, and most importantly, the world’s people, are going to be more relaxed about the risk of another pandemic happening. If people go into post-COVID saying, “Oh, we just had COVID. Another pandemic isn’t going to come for a long time,” then we place ourselves right back to where we were in March of 2020. The future is a scary but prosperous inevitable thing that will eventually come. What it brings with it is up to us to decide. We need to think about how climate change, technology, and pandemics will bring change, and plan out solutions accordingly. We can win in our fight against death as long as we don’t act selfishly. |
|
#policy #technology #climate #ai #future |
|
Another one of my classmates commented on the divine right of kings-- I cannot help but bring in the Ursula Le Guin quote, now. “We live in capitalism. Its power seems inescapable. So did the divine right of kings. Any human power can be resisted and changed by human beings. Resistance and change often begin in art, and very often in our art, the art of words.” ― Ursula K. Le Guin This is from a speech given to a high-brow literary award ceremony (the National Book Awards). The venerable Le Guin was invited to give an easy, congratulatory speech to all of these writers for pushing the medium and advancing our culture and blah blah blah... and she said this. " Right now, we need writers who know the difference between production of a market commodity and the practice of an art. Developing written material to suit sales strategies in order to maximize corporate profit and advertising revenue is not the same thing as responsible book publishing or authorship. Yet I see sales departments given control over editorial." This is spoken to the people in charge of these systems! When they were expecting a pat on the back! What a fuck you! Because our future, as she later says, is being sold down the river for short-term profit. This is true in STEM-- very obviously true in STEM, as we've been talking about-- but there's much to be said as to how megacorps like Disney have commodified art, have stripped out culture of something precious in the name of the bottom line. |
|
In this response, I would like to examine the intersection between the future and pandemics, further exploring the topics I delved into during my presentation during discussion section. In particular, I would like to analyze the movie Contagion to focus on the response that the general population had to the scientific community. In Contagion, there is a slow leaking of information regarding the pandemic outbreak. The protagonist who is a member of the CDC leaks information to his daughter in order to have her leave the quarantine zone as quickly as possible. Yet, this is a display of abuse of power and as such casts doubt on the morality of the CDC in this hypothetical scenario. Even with this, however, the characters in Contagion by and large take what the CDC says with trust and rationality. While the chaos that erupted on the border of the quarantine was against the authority of the military, there was still a recognition of the seriousness of the pandemic at all phases in the movie. The reason that I believe this topic to be particularly relevant relates to the modern mistreatment of scientists and the avoidance of truth. From anti-maskers to anti-vaxxers, there are millions of Americans who continually disregard the science. In the future, we must look to give credit to the scientific community and bolster their reputation; as a result, the loss from a future pandemic can be mitigated. #policy Source: The Canadian Press (https://globalnews.ca/news/7347140/addressing-anti-mask-protests-poses-a-challenge-for-leaders-experts-say/) |
|
Many of the threats that humanity currently faces have the problem of centralization in common. Through improving technology and increasing inequality, the power to create massive damage to humanity’s prospects lies in the hands of a small number of people and corporations. In fact, one of the only reasons that the threats we are currently facing are considered “existential” is because a small number of people have too much power. If so much danger is created by centralization, then decentralization, or taking power away from the hands of the few and dispersing it among the many can be one of the best things we can do to combat existential risks. We have discussed some of the proposed solutions already in class. Requiring that nuclear weapons take multiple people to fire or requiring Congressional approval before using them are two ways that nuclear power could be decentralized, thereby decreasing the risk of use. Increasing cybersecurity and internet of things infrastructure will be crucial in the coming decades to make sure that one hack or group of hacks cannot wipe out the infrastructure of entire nations. Beyond simple technical decisions, however, societal and structural economic changes are required to make sure that we do not again end up in a situation like the one we are currently in. When a tiny percentage of the population controls as much money as the poorest half of the world, it is no surprise that other powers follow the money. Decreasing income inequality in a capitalist system is very difficult, but it can be done. Expanding access to opportunities, providing strong social safety nets and democratic protections, as well as trade deals that do not exploit developing countries are good steps in the right direction. To fully reduce existential threats as much as possible, decentralization of power will be necessary for the continued survival of humanity.
|
|
#policy # salience Martin Rees’ book about the role of science in helping us survive as a species by whatever means necessary took an interesting angle towards the existential threats we have been discussing in this course. The book made me think extensively about both the role of science and how science is conveyed to the masses. This memo provides a snapshot of the interplay between education and science in the US to show how education about science must improve to have an impact on preserving humanity’s future extensively. I look specifically at climate change education in schools to narrow the scope of the analysis. There are two questions at hand when it comes to considering US efforts at educating kids about climate change: the intrinsic ability of teachers to teach about climate change and the political debate about climate change. The latter is largely because of the political polarisation that has become attributable to the US—it is something that has overshadowed all policy-related discussions we have had in this course. As seen in the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication’s map below, more than 3 out of every 4 American adults want their children to learn about climate change in schools. This is the case even in many republican strongholds. While it may seem that this means that despite the polarisation caused by climate change, climate change education is something that is universally supported, that is not the case. 78% penetration is low, and there is a disconnect between the public desire for this education and the political capital required to make changes in the federal education system. In addition, many schools are not set up to give instruction on climate change-related topics. Climate change education is complicated because it involves an integrated, multi-disciplinary approach to discussing how our earth and social systems work. The combination of this intrinsic complexity of the education and the well-funded effort to politicise climate change has made climate change education anomalous at many American public schools. According to a study published in the Proceedings in the National Academies of Sciences, social tipping interventions like climate change education are very capable of reversing the effects of climate change. The graph shown below forecasts the rate of change in emissions per year when considering different levels of education policy interventions. I am typically very sceptical of such time series models, but this study justifies its parameters and forecasts well based on historical trends. Thus, the state of climate change education is something that needs to be thought about seriously. This memo shows how education policy can affect the future of our species as we face these existential threats. The US has to overcome obstacles of political polarisation and acknowledge that some schools and areas need more support than others when it comes to climate change education. https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/117/5/2354.full.pdf
|
and others
Leave below as comments your memos that grapple with the topic of The Future, inspired by the readings, movies, & novels (at least one per quarter), your research, experiences, and imagination! Also add a thumbs up to the 5 memos you find most awesome, challenging, and discussion-worthy!
Recall the following instructions:
Memos: Every week students will post one memo in response to the readings and associated topic. The memo should be 300–500 words + 1 visual element (e.g., figure, image, hand-drawn picture, art, etc. that complements or is suggestive of your argument). The memo should be tagged with one or more of the following:
#origin: How did we get here? Reflection on the historical, technological, political and other origins of this existential crisis that help us better understand and place it in context.
#risk: Qualitative and quantitative analysis of the risk associated with this challenge. This risk analysis could be locally in a particular place and time, or globally over a much longer period, in isolation or in relation to other existential challenges (e.g., the environmental devastation that follows nuclear fallout).
#policy: What individual and collective actions or policies could be (or have been) undertaken to avert the existential risk associated with this challenge? These could include a brief examination and evaluation of a historical context and policy (e.g., quarantining and plague), a comparison of existing policy options (e.g., cost-benefit analysis, ethical contrast), or design of a novel policy solution.
#solutions: Suggestions of what (else) might be done. These could be personal, technical, social, artistic, or anything that might reduce existential risk.
#framing: What are competing framings of this existential challenge? Are there any novel framings that could allow us to think about the challenge differently; that would make it more salient? How do different ethical, religious, political and other positions frame this challenge and its consequences (e.g., “End of the Times”).
#salience: Why is it hard to think and talk about or ultimately mobilize around this existential challenge? Are there agencies in society with an interest in downplaying the risks associated with this challenge? Are there ideologies that are inconsistent with this risk that make it hard to recognize or feel responsible for?
#nuclear/#climate/#bio/#cyber/#emerging: Partial list of topics of focus.
Movie/novel memo: Each week there will be a selection of films and novels. For one session over the course of the quarter, at their discretion, students will post a memo that reflects on a film or fictional rendering of an existential challenge. This should be tagged with:
#movie / #novel: How did the film/novel represent the existential challenge? What did this highlight; what did it ignore? How realistic was the risk? How salient (or insignificant) did it make the challenge for you? For others (e.g., from reviews, box office/retail receipts, or contemporary commentary)?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: