Slashdot Mirror
Deus Ex Writer Discusses 'Dangerous Technology'
Dan Weaver writes "One of the writers for the exceptionally good action RPG Deus Ex has authored a rather thought-provoking Salon article on the Bill-Joy theme of dangers posed by emergent technologies and the difficulties that police states (both pleasant and not-so-pleasant) encounter in dealing with them. In the light of revelations about China's tardiness and confusion in addressing the SARS epidemic, this article is particularly timely."
There is not any such thing as technology that is inherently Dangerous.
Guns --designed to "kill"... When used correctly allow an 80 year old woman to be safe in her home(if used properly; which for an 80 year old woman means shooting first fast and accurately)
Cloning-- can be abused to build "organ farms" and can also allow(someday) those who cannot have children "normally" and have the legitimate "selfish" desire to have a child of their own genetic makeup to do just that.
Surveilance Technology-- goes hand in hand with communication technology... allowing those being watched to organize to fight the abuses of that same tech.
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
SARS is the Chernobyl of the Chinese government. Chernobyl taught the Russian people, and the world, the unprecedented dangers of a closed society in a highly technological era. Another aspect of the modern era is globalization and international mobility. Again, we see that a closed society is no longer tenable. SARS' underreporting and denials by the Chinese authorities, like Chernobyl, will bring severe, lasting political consequences for the regime, and may be an impetus that finally takes toward replacing the totalitarian political system.
"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."
-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials
As usual, there is a group calling the US a police state. First of all, we do not put soldiers in our civilian population, we put them other people's civilian population. Perhaps if other countries would simply rise up and kill their own butcherous leaders, we wouldnt have to. We already did ours, in 1776, and now they are our friends.
But on the issue of police states, to compare to France or Germany, which are quite liberal and free states:
In America, you can still be a Nazi. its tolorated here in the name of free speech. Not so in France and Germany. Cant sell Nazi stuff either. America, we tolorate the worse scum in the name of free speech. We would rather KNOW who they are anyway.
In America, there must 'probable cause' not just 'reasonable suspician' like most of Europe, before a search warrant can be execused. I know this will cause arguements from the uninformed. dont bother replying, just set me as foe.
In the US, it is ILLEGAL to put the military on the boarders, or to act as police except in emergencies (airports after 9-11 for instance). Not so in most other places.
So like the US or not, to call it a police state is as stupid as the Information Minister in Baghdad swearing that there are no troops downtown. Its what you WANT to be true, but its FUD.
Ok, im done, i just get tired of self loathing Americans and other jealous types. Personally, Im pretty damn proud to be an American.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
You are almost saying that because he writes fiction he can't think about the state of the world. That seems a very limited view. I mean, what special knowledge MUST one have to be able to criticize or comment on something?
Yes, he does think about the state of the world, and he does have an educated view, but he ALSO has his own 'world' that he thinks the world is becoming. Does he have an overactive imagination? Have you played Deus Ex?
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
The Machine gun is a great example.
Many people may not be aware, but the Machine Gun has Saved more soldiers lives than it has taken. In fact many people believe that the Machine Gun has saved more soldier lives than penicillian.
Before the Machine Gun, 10 men could guard no more than 20 or so unarmed prisoners. Otherwise they rush you, take your weapon etc.
Yes, it allowed prisons and concentration camps to grow, but before it, GENERALS COULD NOT ACCEPT THE SURRENDER OF THE ENEMEY EXCEPT AT THE END OF THE WAR
You could not accept the surrender of one battalion, because you could not spare the men to guard them while your other forces went off to fight the next set of soldiers.
So if people surrendered and it was not the last enemey combatants, you killed them. So no one surrended.
The inventor of the Machine Gun did NOT realize he was allowing people to surrender, he thought he creating a horrendous killing machine.
similarly, the new technolgies we are creating WILL surprise us, and will create NEW social structures that we did not have before.
Society will evolve in a strange new manner, not the simple ideas propagated by these Science Fiction Authors mentioned by the writer.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
If we're going to have any hope of surviving a future in which many citizens have the power to create dangerous virii or in any way cause widespread death and devastation, then we're going to have to do a helluva a lot better job than we are now of creating responsible citizens.
Rather than adopt the authoritarian solution of removing all power from as many people as possible and investing as much power as possible with a single "trusted" individual in the hopes of reducing the risks associated with an empowered citizenry, I'd much rather we at least implement better measures to given and take power from individuals based on their demonstrated level of responsibility. Not all or nothing, but a graded continuum. Some of that exists now: felons aren't supposed to get access to firearms in the U.S., for example.
However, there are far too many exceptions to an ideal:
- responsible people without power,
- irresponsible people with power.
Got a ways to go."Provided by the management for your protection."
Your point is excellent, but of course the reason that things have generally improved in these matters is exactly because of that perception and a willingness to act on it to block such extreme measures. It's that public pressure that keeps it down, not some general inclination toward the common good on the part of those in power.
As an aside, I think there is a pretty strong case that America is getting less and less democratic (not in the pure sense of the word, of course, but representatively democratic, as it was intended to be). It essentially has to do with the fact that the citizen/representative ratio has grown much larger than the founders could ever have expected. With so many constituents to such a small number of representatives, it shouldn't be any surprise that our views are represented much less democratically than in the past.
This is not at cross-points to your point, mind you--it's perfectly possible (and probably even natural) for a democratic decision to result in less freedom for a minority (or perceived minority). Those issues were really a failing of the judiciary, which is theoretically immune from democratic pressures, to check the democratically elected executive and legislative branches.
No relation to Happy Monkey
As far as I can imagine, the same rationale applies to other areas of science. It's not the lone terrorist that should worry us, it's big organizations (like goverments) that have the means and the people to be at the cutting edge. I mean, really, when you compare in history the damage made by terrorism or small organizations with the damage made by goverments, you can easily detect a pattern.
Rome taught me patience and assiduous application to detail. Virtues which temper the boldness of great, general views.
OK, so let's say you have a computer program and associated hardware that let you drag and drop little blocks to make the most lethal virus you can think of. Viruses that target humans have been evolving for as long as humans have, which is several million years. If it were possible to make a virus that would cause extremely massive casualties, don't you think it would have evolved already?
It is not possible for a virus to kill more than a certain percentage of a population because at some point the population gets so sparse that the virus can no longer spread. When we consider modern methods of quarantine, disinfection, and treatment, I find the possibility of a highly lethal virus even less believable.
The reason why biological weapons are scary is because they can spread a virus much more efficiently than it can spread itself. But making biological weapons requires big machines which, as the author says, are "easily visible by satellite." So I don't think he has much of an arugment.
Not knowing much latin myself, can someone fill me in as to what 'Deus Ex' means?
The answer, as always, is quickly derived from a google search:
In some ancient Greek drama, an apparently insoluble crisis was solved by the intervention of a god, often brought on stage by an elaborate piece of equipment. This "god from the machine" was literally a deus ex machina.
Few modern works feature deities suspended by wires from the ceiling, but the term deus ex machina is still used for cases where an author uses some improbable (and often clumsy) plot device to work his or her way out of a difficult situation. When the cavalry comes charging over the hill or when the impoverished hero is relieved by an unexpected inheritance, it's often called a deus ex machina.
my religion lies somewhere between buddhism and super monkey ball - pamphlet?
its unbelievable to me that people would be so quick to give up what has made this country great. What the heroes of WW1 and WW2 fought so bravely for...freedom. Land of the free, home of the brave my butt...this country is full of sniveling cowards who, at the first sign of danger, turn over what thousands have lain down their lives for. If the government ever outlaws knowledge, then i my friends will remain an outlaw, a new type of outlaw... THE GEEK OUTLAW!!! *smiles* I will never relinquish my basic freedoms, not even when looking down the wrong end of a gun. INFORMATION WANTS TO BE FREE!!!!
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
This is MY galaxy...go find your OWN!
Mankind has been producing dangerous technology since we first learned to bang sticks and stones together. Responsible usage and control have worked for us so far.
Yeah, but dangerous technology - even though we so far has managed to avoid it - only "needs" to wipe us out once.
The point the article author was making, was that up until now, we have been able to maintain a reasonable control of dangerous technology. However, in the future, it might be possible for a small number of motivated loonies to create some sort of rapidly spreading, deadly decease, and kill a whole lot of people before the world realises there is a new treath out there.
The subject of this article will care. And all of his cousins who've lost mothers and sisters will care too. The US response to this will be... PATRIOT2, more draconian legislation to take away more of the citizens "rights". The current administration has guaranteed an endless supply of Bin Ladens. One of them will get through and then...
I saw this in another thread last night. Someone posted it AC and I can't find a Google for it. It hits the nail right on the head though.
One constant throughout human history has been the struggle between the "haves" and the "have nots." For the purpose of this discussion, I will refer to the "haves" as "the elite" and will call the "have nots" "the rabble." I am doing this to emphasize the fact that the rabble, while comprising most of the population, is almost always pitifully weak and disorganized, thanks to constant manipulation by the elite. "Divide and conquer" has always been the name of the game here; it has always been easy for the elite to manipulate public opinion and keep the rabble squabbling among each other.
The elite, though comprising only 1% of the population (the exact percentages are arguable, though the figures I am using are in the right ballpark), control most of the wealth. (In modern America, one has to be worth at least $100 million to be a serious player.) The elite don't have to work per se; they spend their time making deals, which, although stressful at times, is much too stimulating to fall into the realm of institutionalized drudgery which people commonly refer to as "work."
Falling below the elite in status and power are what could be called "elite wannabes," "lackeys of the elite," or "wealthy rabble." These people are very wealthy by rabble standards.
Power and status are hardwired into human behavior. Before the rise of agriculture, when humans were nomadic hunter-gatherers, it was difficult to accumulate power and status, since possessions were limited by what people could carry with them. There were probably powerful lineages that got passed through the generations, but the gap between the powerful and everybody else was limited due to the nature of their lifestyle.
All this changed with the rise of agriculture approximately 10,000 years ago. For the first time, people became sedentary, and they produced surpluses of grain which had to be defended. These surpluses meant unprecedented power for whoever was able to control them, and the first elite was born. For the first time, organized war became possible.
Howard Zinn's "A Peoples' History of America" describes the real dynamics at work behind the American Revolution. Rather than some idealistic "liberty and justice for all," the American Revolution was actually fomented by the American elite, who chafed under the British royalty.
It has been pointed out that by fighting an enemy, one takes on many of the characteristics of that enemy. Interestingly, it was World War 2 when America became a fascist power. By fascism, I am referring to Mussolini's definition: "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power."
By 1945, state and corporate power in America had merged into what was later termed the "military-industrial complex," even though it wasn't until 1961 that Dwight Eisenhower gave his famous speech warning America about a system that had already been in place for 15 years.
Even though America had become fascist by 1945, there remained a vast amount of consolidation to do: there still remained the rabble and their pesky vote (an archaic carryover from the Revolutionary War era). The rabble had recently suffered two major traumas -- the Great Depression and World War Two, and had reached an unprecedented level of solidarity. The rabble had become dangerous, and it was necessary to manipulate them back into their customary position of helplessness, while at the same time enhancing the power of t
Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power.
I think one of the big holes in this article is the idea that information == knowledge. That anyone can comprehend (and diagnose and modify extensively) any and all information.
/. folks here, but people in general)? What about Windows? Hell, how many of us use Aspirin or airplanes and have little more than the basic understanding of how they work?
Of course this is not the case. How many people use Linux and know each and every last piece of code (and I'm not talking about
The problem is this: the more advanced a society becomes, the more specialized its population becomes. That means the slight fraction one has knowledge of shrinks as time progresses even though they might know more than people a hundred years ago.
So what has society done? Attempted to make any and all technology novice-usable. So I don't have to know how an ATM or automobile or cd players works to use it.
So let's take the author's example of the Ebola-AIDS virus. Assuming that the above traits hold (that we become more specialized while technology grows more advanced yet usable) then anybody might be able to unleash Ebola-AIDS while only a handful of people would have the slightest idea how to stop it.
Basically it's the Script-Kiddie Syndrome to the Nth degree. All I need is a Genome Rootkit and I can cause havoc. And who cares if I can't hack any and all persons? What if I just need to hit a 3rd world country that hasn't gotten the latest service pack? I could wipe out Zambia or Cambodia. We see this time and time again: the problem and the cure exist side by side. Yet for some reason the former gets out more than the latter. How often are sites hacked on year old exploits?
Of course this is all hypotheticals. But it seems that the failing is something intrinsically human, not political or technological. So neither a police state or open utopia would solve any of this. Besides, the author's example is a wacky level of technology. Who knows. We might all be Wesley Crushers by then.
What is music when you despise all sound?
I agree. A much better example is that the USSR was pretty comfy for Communist Party officials,
A popular mistake, but still a mistake. In fact, the Communist Party officials lived in constant terror. Stalin was holding their closest relatives in gulags as hostages, and they themselves never knew the day of their fall. Communism was a living hell for everyone involved. Party officials in the first place.
http://www.wsws.org/exhibits/1937/lecture1.htm
Anyone who hasn't figured out that the United States is a police state just hasn't been paying attention. This is really not a matter of opinion. The fact is that the U.S. has a larger percentage of its population in prison than any other nation in the world. There are two possible explanations for this circumstance:
There are two types of people in the world: those that divide everything into two possibilities and those that don't. Is it possible there are several reasons, including that the U.S., like banks, attracts criminals because it's where the money and opportunity is?
I have been thinking about that quite a bit, lately, in part because I am reading Social Justice in Islam by Qutb (see this Salon article for why).
It seems to me the answer -- and a very overlooked and under-appreciated answer it is -- is that totalitarianism is massively seductive, even to the average man on the street.
Those of us who self-conceive as outsiders -- whether because of ethnicity, religion, sexuality, eccentricity, etc. -- we look to conformism as an obvious threat. But to people who self-conceive as "normal", who take identity and comfort from their "averageness", who enjoy majority privilege and a sense of entitlement, conformity looks comforting and comfortable.
Totalitarianism is, really, the ultimate dream of conformity -- state imposed, pushishable-by-death conformity. That idea has considerable appeal to people who consider themselves safely within the mainstream. Not only is it not any skin off their nose if a few statistical outliers get trampled, they see it as a relief -- whether emotional or finanacial.
Totalitarianism is inevitably sold as a panacea. Totalitarian movements sell themselves by presenting a vision of how, if everyone just co-operated, transcended their differences, were willing to submit themselves to a little bit of hardship and sacrifice, they could improve the Commonweath -- to build heaven on earth. If we all just pulled together, we could feed all the hungry, eliminate crime, cure disease, and be ensured a pleasant afterlife appropriate deity.
That's a seductive vision. It's even more seductive to people who have an unconsidered conviction that they, being good, loyal citizens doing their part for the the common good, would not be the people who would have to make significant sacrifices. Indeed someone who thinks they are an "average guy" looks at those people who object to going along with the totalitarian regime and resents bitterly that he is going to be deprived of the good life by some weirdo going on about a right to privacy.
-*- Any technology indistinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced -*-
Actually, I think Sloppy's probably right.
1) Taking Sloppy's scenario literally, the destruction of an entire planet in the Star Wars universe is a terrible thing, but nowhere close to the extinction of all life. By the time the technology for a Death Star (or equivalent WMD) arises, we will most likely have spread beyond a single planet.
Addressing your interpretation of point one the point remains roughly the same. Planetary ecosystems are durable, flexible things. Sudden changes may throw them off kilter temporarily (with a not insignificant level of suckage, but ANY survival is meaningful, as it means a chance for an improved future), but soon enough a new equilibrium point is reached. The end result may not closely resemble the original, but it is still (generally) a viable ecosystem, and as time passes and the indiginous organisms continue to adapt to the new conditions it may very well flourish beyond it's pre-cataclysm state. It would take an awful lot to totally kill an entire planetary ecosystem. No single cause short of a massive asteroid impact or (possibly) an all-out thermonuclear war would stand a significant chance of wiping out even the entire human race, let alone all life.
2) As I indicated above, wiping out a significant percentage of the human race would suck beyond the telling of it, but in the grand scheme of things even such a disaster would be overcome in time. The difference between wiping out 98% of the human race and wiping out 100% of it isn't 2%, it's infinite! (Particularly for the 2%!) A miniscule survival rate means that there ARE survivors, and humans have a knack for adapting to adversity and replenishing their numbers.
To that end, if Mother Nature *IS* going to wipe us all out she'd better hurry. If you look back at human history, it is the story of nature having an ever-decreasing control over the lives and deaths of mankind. Back when our entire species lived in sub-Saharan Africa a single plague, contaminated food supply, or major climate change could've easily wiped us all out. No longer.
ET's aside, Nature's (if I may anthropomorphize) last opportunity to exterminate our species via a stronger competitor died out with the Neanderthals. Her last real opportunity to wipe us all out via a single disease ended with the Black Plague. Nature blew both opportunities, and our species grew smarter, more diverse, and more numerous to the point where neither scenario presents a realistic threat of total extinction anymore. Our annihilation is slipping out of "her" grasp. At this point, for Nature to do us all in would require that she escalate to a major meteor strike or worse, and it's only a matter of time before we spread to other planets, allowing us to dodge even that bullet.
The war for survival isn't over yet, and may very well never be, but we're doing a damn fine job so far.
-Cybrex
Boundless Expansion, Self-Transformation, Dynamic Optimism, Intelligent Technology, Spontaneous Order- BEST DO IT SO!
I was in total agreement until this. The federal government is *not* weakening by any means. Quite the contrary -- the federal government is growing in power and expense, and has been growing strong since the introduction of the federal income tax. It is centralized power -- not a lack of it -- that created the police state. It is centralized power -- not a lack of it -- that steals our freedom.