2084 is Coming Fast: How Fast Will We Master the Ethics of Technology?

The prospect of ending disease and dramatically slowing aging, coupled with mass extinction of traditional jobs, at least in the developed world, poses hefty ethical quandaries for humankind.  We may find ourselves living longer than ever before while having less meaningful, necessary work to do.  I am an optimist and progressive by nature, but I’m concerned about—perhaps even doubt—our ability to shepherd technology in a way that benefits all mankind.  Are we mature enough as a species to be responsible stewards of our own brilliant creations? 

We’ve already proven, time and again, our technology outpaces our ability to reconcile it with our humanity.  “If we can, we will” trumps “even if we can, should we?” every time.  By the time we’ve cogitated on the ramifications, there ain’t no gettin’ that genie back in the bottle.  We cannot form public policy fast enough to keep up.  To wit: nuclear weapons, weaponized germs, drones, electronic cigarettes, driverless cars, computer-controlled high-speed securities trading, etc. 

Many of us have heard the almost cliché ethical conundrum associated with driverless cars: will the car be programmed to protect the occupants or the people outside the vehicle if it comes to that?  Who gets to decide the answer to that question?  The insurance industry?

Over the past few years, there have been discussions regarding the theoretical possibilities of creating some doomsday form or state of matter in the Large Hadron Collider (the largest and most powerful particle accelerator in the world, housed in Switzerland and run by scientists of the European nuclear research agency, CERN).  Could a cadre of Swiss PhD quantum supergeeks accidentally create a black hole that would destroy our planet?  My reading strongly indicates the general consensus among the scientific community is that such a possibility is extremely remote.  Close to zero.  Still, who asked the question, and who got to answer it?  How close to zero is okay for the rest of us? 

This time lag, this growing gap, between technology deployment and ethical due diligence is widening at an accelerating rate. 

By the end of this century, we will very likely have conquered, or at least significantly subdued, many, if not most, of the diseases that vex us today—cancer, heart disease, and degenerative neurological and muscular disorders.  We will very likely have the technological capability to prevent birth defects and even select genetic traits in our offspring.  It’s very possible we will have a much better understanding of the mechanisms of aging, and will have developed ways to retard the aging process.  It’s all very exciting.

It’s also very scary.  Certainly, biotechnology breakthroughs are going to be available on a very asymmetric basis, socio-economically.  Access, for the first decades, will be an expensive privilege, not a right.  We will vanquish disease, eliminate birth defects, choose the color of our children’s eyes, and defy aging in the affluent parts of our world first.  The fundamental distinction between “haves” and “have-nots” is relative financial wealth—the chasm that incites and inflames global conflict.  What will happen when the “haves” also gain access to (or, more ominously, control of) more of the most precious resource of all: time—years, maybe decades, of high-quality living?  Look out world. 

So, people in the richer parts of the world will be living longer, healthier lives.  Doing what for a living is not yet clear.

Mankind began as hunter-gatherers.  We lived in small social groups, working to meet all of our needs on our own.  We evolved, moved into cities, began specializing, and trading on our specialties to meet all our needs.  You made my bread, I shod your horses.  Today, over half of human beings live in cities.  A tiny percentage of us provides the food for all of us.  Our progressing specialization through the ages, accelerated by global competition, has been the driving force behind automation.  Automation (including artificial intelligence) is merely the next logical, inescapable, step in industrial development.    

     

We are either past, or fast approaching, the point at which most manufacturing jobs (as well as jobs in many other sectors—agriculture, medicine, transportation, energy extraction, to name a few) can be technologically performed better by machines than humans.  Safer.  Faster.  Much less variation.  No human error.  The “jobless recovery” after the 2008 global financial meltdown gave us our first stark glimpse of this new reality.  The only true decision being made right now: “Is it more cost effective to automate in the developed world, or export the jobs to low labor rate countries, where wages are still cheap enough to offset poor efficiency and productivity?”  This trend is irreversible and accelerating.

So, we better figure out how and where we humans fit into the world that is fast coming at us.  What functions are inherently incompatible with automation (at least for the foreseeable future)?  What fields will we try to steer our children into to give them the best chance for opportunity and success?  Will there be enough work for all of us to do?  Will that work be valuable enough—will we get paid enough—to allow us to support ourselves and our families?  How will, how should, the economy work?  We’ll be living longer, capable of working longer.  Will our global population increase precipitously, will it accelerate, if we’re all living longer? 

These themes are not new.  They’ve been within the realm of science fiction for decades.  What is new is that these themes are no longer fiction.  It’s happening.  We’re witnessing the emergence.  There are far more questions, with precious few answers.  I certainly have none to offer, other than to start thinking about all of this right now.  Now is the time to be articulating and debating the important questions, because as soon as we can do it, we probably will do it, whether or not we should do it.  Cash in on those investments.  Exceed the earnings projections.  Reward the shareholders.  Long-term risks and consequences be damned.

Again, I’m an optimist.  This technological progress in life sciences and manufacturing can, and should, turn out great for all of us; but, I’m not convinced the forces of nature—human and otherwise—will lead to good outcomes naturally.  It won’t happen by accident.  We have to decide and commit to playing active offense, or passive defense.  Are we going to steer this car, or what?  

God bless us, everyone.