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."

Comments

police states (both pleasant and not-so-pleasant)

[Threni]

What's a pleasant police state?

Trends, Big Brother, etc.

[Acidic_Diarrhea]

Here's a question that I'm mulling over as a result of reading the synopsis of this article. With all the literary and cinematic works that have been made which deal with a Big Brother-like state [for lack of a shorter term], why is it that the governments of the world are still able to move in the directions outlined in those works? It seems like no matter how embedded in our culture the idea that certain traits of governments are bad and that we must rally against them, these traits continue to crop up. Consider this, has the U.S. become more or less like the vision of 1984 since publication?

Re:Trends, Big Brother, etc.

[Angry White Guy]

It is because the people who are the most at risk are usually working too much to do anything about it, living from paycheque to paycheque. When you have your own problems, who cares if the government is picking on the immigrants. Who cares that e-mail's getting bugged? Who cares if some crack addict got the living sh*t kicked out of him for speeding in California. The other side of the coin is the guy who has enough money to live like a king, has influence in the community. Are they going to upset the boat? No, because its these laws that help keep them where they are. The balance of power is just that, a balance. You take too much, and the people have nothing. When they have nothing, then they have nothing to lose, and that's when civil revolt occurs. Read Macheiovelli's 'The Prince' for a much better understanding of what's going on in the world, and what has gone on in the world since we started walking upright.

Re:Trends, Big Brother, etc.

[f97tosc]

Consider this, has the U.S. become more or less like the vision of 1984 since publication?

In general, I believe that it is a myth that we had some super-democratic past, and that American society is getting less and less democratic.

Take for example discrimmination at airports against arab-americans; or the background checks of immigrant arabs. Well, I am not saying it is right, but it is nothing compared to the treatment of ethnic Japanese during WW2. They were locked up for years even though they were US citizens.

I don't like everything in the Patriot act either but to say that it constitutes a strong trend towards an Orwellian 1984 is not very well grounded in history. Did you know, for example, that during Washington's presidency it was illegal to criticize the president in print? This is much worse than all these questionable patent and copyright laws.

Tor

Re:Trends, Big Brother, etc.

[Iguanaphobic]

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

Re:Trends, Big Brother, etc.

[James_Duncan8181]

Umm...Iceland had a functioning democracy with a constitution about 800 years before the founding of the US...

Dangerous Technology?

[stanmann]

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.

So what

[Timesprout]

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.

SARS and Chinese timeliness

[squashed]

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.

Re:Fictional Writer

[L7_]

No.

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? The author, it seems, has made a life studying technology, its ramifications, and plausible futures. So, when commenting on said technology, I would actually not take his comments "with a grain of salt" but rather as an educated opinion of the state of the world's technology.

I can't think of a better background for a person to have to comment on the things that he is commenting on.

Re:Negative Utopia

[PD]

you mean double-plus un utopia

Writer was 1/2 right.

[gurps_npc]

The one thing he left out was that fact that that our new technologies are NEW and that they WILL result in major societial changes in NEW and unpredicatable ways.

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.

Usually technology brings its own balance

[OpenSourced]

By the time a "Do your own genome" kit is available to to public, tools will be in the hands of goverments to reduce the menace of it. The article makes the error of extrapolating only a part of reality to the future, while keeping the rest of it at today's lever. I mean, by the time the terrorists have a "Do your own Ebola virus - NOW Improved, it kills faster!" kit, the goverments will have a "Make your own antibody - ALL antigens - guaranteed!" kit that will make all attemps to spread an epidemic seem moot.

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.

Limit of lethality to viruses

[kurtkilgor]

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.

Re:What does 'Deus Ex' mean?

[TheWickedKingJeremy]

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.

Motivation

[Jennifer E. Elaan]

A friend of mine and I discuss this quite often. It involves a balance between the increasing ability of people to kill enourmous amounts of people and the motivation to do so. We long ago reached the point where large governments have the power to eradicate all life on earth. The capability of the individual keeps rising.

Stopping the access to the technology would require such things as destroying the internet and other worldwide mass-communications. Essentially, the technology won't go away. Police states are never 100% effective, which means that as soon as a technology like, say, bioweapons or antimatter ends up in the hands of average people, if someone has a motivation to use it, they will.

The only way to stop this threat is to stop the motivation. Secure people generally do not commit crimes. If you have nothing to fear (poverty, hate crimes, etc) then you will be less likely to do these things. As the ability of individuals to secure weapons of mass destruction increases, we have to start thinking about making our society more content.

Re:well, I'm in the USA

[jo42]

1 out of every 142 Americans is in jail (source: ABC News).

If that isn't a police state, I don't know what is...

Lifesavers, those machine guns!

[Infonaut]

20,000 British soldiers died at the hands of German Maxim machineguns on the first day of the Battle of the Somme in WWI.

The trench warfare of WWI came about in large part because of the tremendous defensive power of the machinegun. Maneuver warfare, which might have shortened the war considerably, was impossible because no matter how much you "softened up" the enemy with artillery, machineguns would still be there to mow you down. The conditions in the trenches contributed to the death of at least twice as many soldiers as did enemy bullets.

If you don't consider the Gatling Gun to be a "true machinegun", then the surrender of 12,000 Union troops at Harper's Ferry during the American Civil War seems to invalidate the claim that generals couldn't accept surrender.

If you do consider the Gatling Gun to be a machinegun, then you could just go back a bit further, to 1805, when Napoleon's Grande Armee captured 30,000 Prussian and Russian soldiers at Austerlitz. No machine guns, Gatling Guns, or anything even close at the scene of that surrender, yet somehow it happened.

I could go on and on with examples, but the point is that soldiers did surrender before the advent of the machine gun. The machine gun IS a killing device. It kills more efficiently than any other form of bullet-launcher.

I don't consider machine guns to be evil, because I was often damned happy to have two M60s at my disposal as a platoon leader. But let's not pretend that machineguns have saved more lives than "penicillian".

Ah, But...

[Blue Stone]

...The times, they are a-changing....

Laws enacted, and in the process of being enacted since 9-11, have and are turning America toward police-statehood.
Detention without trial; without access to lawyers. Mass surveillance measures being created. The "Material Witness" laws being subverted...

And America is not alone, The UK is also undergoing it's own particular form of Big Brother transformation.
Just don't kid yourself it's not happening.
Little by little, it is.

One of the defining characteristics of a police state (though I'm no expert on the subject, by any means) to my mind, is the mass surveillance, monitoring, cataloging and tracking of the citizenry, for no real good reason.

The Stazi used this means extensively, and the emergence of it in the US, UK, and elsewhere, seems to indicate (to me at least) that the people in charge, are moist in their underwear at the thought of being able to know who you are, where you are, where you've been, where you're going, who you know, who you've associated with, who you've talked to, what you've read/listened to/viewed, who your relatives are, who you care about, what you care about, etc. (the etc. might be a little redundant at this point.)

I don't care what they need it for, whether to stop terrorists/crime/benefit fraud or whtever, on a personal level, that makes anyone who opposes me in any way, in any kind of dispute, whether because I'm fighting the building of houses on allotments, or the re-development of public land, or some bogus council activity, right up to fighting the government in court, a much greater threat than they have any right to be in a society that is not a police state.

That gives them the power to lean on me in ways that they could not, if they minded their own business, and got on with what they are supposed to be doing: representing my own and other common people's interests.

It gives them immense power over the populace that they are supposed to serve.

It isn't fully formed yet, but the Big brother Beast is growing in the womb; limbs and features, already visible.
Police State?
Maybe not today, but someday, soon, and perhaps for the rest of your life.

On a side note, two things: The US has banned the burning of crosses [in public at least] as constituting racial harassment (the term used was somewhat different, but I forget, just having heard it on the radio.) maybe the Nazi/Jew thing will be dealt with in the same manner, in the future.

And, Pharmboy, you said, "Perhaps if other countries would simply rise up and kill their own butcherous leaders, we wouldnt have to."

I know it's like shooting fish in a barrel, and a pretty easy riposte, but...
...maybe they wouldn't have to rise up, if the US (and other developed, Northern Bloc countries) didn't enable, arm and support their butcherous leaders in the bloody first place!

Re:well, I'm in the USA

[Trurl's Machine]

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

Re:well, I'm in the USA

[maxpublic]

Anyone who thinks the US is a true "police state" is automatically an intellectually devoid overreactionary.

Well now, that depends on what you think the minimum qualifications for a police state are.

Right now the government can come and kidnap you, then imprison you indefinitely without any recourse to the court system and in complete violation of the U.S. Constitution. I use the word 'kidnap' because they don't even have to arrest you; all they have to do is declare that you're a 'material witness' to some unspecified crime.

That's it. Piss someone off in power and away you go, with no chance of regaining your freedom until those in power choose to let you go.

How anyone can see this as anything but a characteristic of a police state is beyond me. Guess your definition of 'freedom' allows you to overlook those kinds of abuses - so long as they don't happen to you, eh?

Max