Slashdot Mirror
The Net As New Jerusalem, Part Two
"I have worked hard for nearly two years, for the sole purpose of infusing life into the human body," wrote Victor Frankenstein in Mary Shelley's great novel. "For this I had deprived myself of rest and health. I had desired it with an ardour that far exceeded moderation; but now that I had finished, the beauty of the dream vanished, and breathless horror and disgust filled my heart."
In our time, Victor Frankenstein would be in Silicon Valley, taking one meeting after another with venture capitalists, angling for a profile in Wired, wrangling tens of millions for his new company, lifeinthebody.com (based in Cambridge, Mass.), beginning commercial licensing of the discoveries of the Human Genome Project.
In contemporary America, Victor wouldn't have to hole up in a remote tower far from human observation. He could partner up with somebody out in the open and promise to create perfectly engineered babies, cure cancer, and stop aging. The venture capitalists would be drooling all over him.
Ethical morasses lie at the heart of modern-day technology, increasingly run by highly-educated, wealthy elites who have little awareness that everybody isn't as technologically-inclined, -equipped or advanced as they are. In this Jerusalem, half the country is still outside the gates.
But perhaps these ethical quandries could form the foundation for a new kind of ethical and rational politics that addresses social divisions among the techno haves and have-nots, the future of gene mapping, intellectual property questions, the use of nano-technologies, the creation of ubiquitous and expensive technologies that are poorly designed or environmentally damaging, the intrusion of government. As in Victor Frankenstein's time, we hear little public or civic discussion about these choices. They haven't surfaced during the presidential campaign and debates. They get crowded off front pages and TV newscasts by hype-laden stories about dotcom greed, crackers and sexual predators online.
We need an ethical framework for technology, and while I'm not a technologist, I'm happy to start the discussion by suggesting some opening questions to ask about developments technological.
Do we need it?
Can we support it? Can the people who buy or use what we make get free, readily-available help?
Are new technologies open to peer review and scrutiny, that is, are the software, hardware, systems and design of new technologies available for public and other inspection in order to root out potential mistakes, problems and flaws?
Will everyone have equal access to new technologies, or will they become the property of corporate and social elites with specialized knowledge and lots of disposable income?
Do new technologies have unintended consequences? Have academic, business or civic analysts examined them? Have their ramifications been explained to the people affected (as in telling Victor Frankenstein's neighbors that a monster would soon be running around the community?).
Can technologies be created with consideration both for the environment and for consumer's convenience? Can batteries, parts, cartridges, support and service be standardized, so that consumers don't have to continuously scramble? Can software and computer makers agree on ethical standards for their product's lifespan, so that people who invest in expensive technologies can be assured that they will last a few years, and that products and software for them will be available in the future?
Can the sale and licensing of gene research to private bio-tech corporations be halted until critical social issues can be discussed and resolved? The public has yet to grasp the consequences of such researching falling into the hands of a few corporations, lulled as they are by scientific and political promises of cures for cancer, aging and heart disease.
Is downloading music or a novel theft? Do the ethics of copyright and intellectual property need reconsideration? Or elimination? Is there a more rational alternative to the Sonny Bono and Digital Millennium Copyright Acts?
How can we ensure that technology and software companies and Web sites prominently disclose privacy provisions and implications? It ought to be illegal to distribute people's personal information with their knowledge and permission.
Perhaps we should require that before new technologies are licensed, deployed or sold, we need a technological impact statement. Like the environmental statements designed to make people aware that their surroundings could be affected by construction or research projects, a TIS would mean that before projects like the gene map are sold and distributed, ordinary people are aware of the technology and its possible impact on their lives and those of their children.
Humanity's most precious possession is our most terrible curse: memory. We're adept at freeing genies from bottles, but inept at putting them back...or leaving them there even if we do manage to reimprison them.
It's easy to say we shouldn't pursue a technology that's not sustainable, not clean, not fair in the consequences it will bring into the world...but who are "we"? Certainly Jon Katz and I can agree not to dabble in things that will harm our neighbors or make the world less hospitable for our descendents, but will everyone else? When "we" say "The consequences of Technology X are not acceptable," how do we prevent "not-we" from having, and acting upon, a different opinion?
Lots of third world nations find it awfully suspicious that the major industrial powers are trying to limit CO2 emissions just when industrialization is starting to benefit the little guy. Sure, we know things now about the effects of CO2 on the environment that we didn't before, but how much comfort is that knowledge to the starving peasant who could have benefited from manufactured goods, but whose government has been bullied into signing an agreement not to use technologies damaging to the environment? How do "we" weigh a .001% greater chance of skin cancer for everyone in the world against the quality of life of a few million? How do we make amends for decisions of this nature that we've already made, and that we continue to make to this day?
-- He's fantastic, made of plastic....
In the early stages of the automobile, there were hundreds of manufacturers in the US, and lots of unsafe cars. Now there are the Big Three and cars are much safer, but do you think that during the early stages of the industry anyone could possibly have predicted what the automobile would become? In the early stages of any new technology, it's really rather impossible to predict future uses or outcomes.
Dynamite was supposed to render wars a thing of the past, due to its vast destructive power. I'll bet if you polled leading "experts" and concerned citizens at the time of its creation, most would have agreed with that prognosis.
My point is that it would be wonderful if we could truly understand the impact of new technologies before their introduction into society, but there are so many variables (human behavior, economic trends, interaction with other technologies, invaders from Mars...) that it's just not feasible to come to any real conclusions about the impact of a technology, other than the really obvious, immediate effects.
You seem to be saying that we should innovate in accordance within the framework of a vast plan, which is contrary to how innovation works best.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
...this one takes the cake...
Perhaps we should require that before new technologies are licensed, deployed or sold, we need a technological impact statement. Like the environmental statements designed to make people aware that their surroundings could be affected by construction or research projects, a TIS would mean that before projects like the gene map are sold and distributed, ordinary people are aware of the technology and its possible impact on their lives and those of their children.
The fact is, we can never predict where technology will take us with any degree of accuracy. Could the Wright Bros have said, "well, in fifty years, our little POS contraption will develop into hypersonic spy planes that could observe the Soviet Union, so maybe we should keep this secret as to not upset the balance of power."
Could Tim Berners-Lee have said "gee, this little Web thing could be used to distribute pornography, so maybe I should keep it secret for a while longer."
Could Rob Malda have predicted that Slashdot would end up overloading web servers world-wide?
The answer to all is "no." To mandate some kind of TIS would not only be impossible, but it would be dangerous. We can't predict the course of technology, we can only adapt to it. Even without technology, life adapts, otherwise it wouldn't currently be around. Let me put it succinctly:
The greatest risk is not taking one at all.