Why the Future Doesnt Need Us: Ten Years Later

Ten years ago, Bill Joy, techno-guru and co-founder of Sun Microsystems, wrote the now-famous piece for Wired Magazine entitled: Why the Future oesn!t "eed #s$% &n it he worried that our 'rea(nec( progress in ro'otics, genetic engineering, and nanotechnology ) unencum'ered 'y ethical restraint ) might 'ring us to e*entual e+tinction$ Though sometimes accused of 'eing a neo,uddite, Joy clearly has ne*er 'een anti-technology$ -ather, his piece, ta(ing our de*elopment of nuclear weapons as a cautionary tale, see(s to find ethical 'oundaries for our pursuit of scientific and technological (nowledge$ &n other words, he!s grappling with the age-old .uestion: Just 'ecause we can do something, ought we to do it/ -eading the article today, one can see that we ha*e not nearly approached the doomsday scenarios he en*isions$ Scientists often o*erestimate what they!ll 'e a'le to do and 'y when$ & cannot say, of course, how close we are to real 'rea(throughs in technological engineering, yet it was not the technology side of the argument that fascinated me$ What gra''ed my attention is Joy!s attempt, apart from a 'i'lical epistemology, to ground some (ind of ethical restraint on scientific progress$ & don!t 'elie*e he succeeds, and it would 'e difficult to imagine anyone succeeding gi*en our current scientistic% idolatry with respect to technological ad*ance$ Who holds authority in our culture to tell us what the truth% is and how we ought to direct our li*es/ &s it the man in the collar or the la'coat/ To as( the .uestion is to answer it$ 0ou don!t see the priest or the prophet on 1"" telling us what we should thin( a'out our modern world$ -ather, it!s the scientists, for we are con*inced that they ha*e 'rought us all of the miracles ) and we do indeed consider our modern technological and medical in*entions to 'e miracles$ 2s Joy writes, In this age of triumphant commercialism, technology with science as its handmaiden is delivering a series of almost magical inventions that are the most phenomenally lucrative ever seen. We are aggressively pursuing the promises of these new technologies within the now-unchallenged system of global capitalism and its manifold financial incentives and competitive pressures$% This has led to tremendous arrogance and hu'ris in science ) scientism% ) and Joy is right to worry a'out it$ Joy continues, lants! with leaves! no more efficient than today"s solar cells could out-compete real plants, crowding the biosphere with an inedible foliage. #ough omnivorous bacteria! could out-compete real bacteria$ #hey could spread li%e blowing pollen, replicate swiftly, and reduce the biosphere to dust in a matter of days. &angerous replicators could easily be too tough, small, and rapidly spreading to stop at least if we ma%e no preparation. We have trouble enough controlling viruses and fruit flies. 'mong the cognoscenti of nanotechnology, this threat has become %nown as the gray goo problem.! #hough masses of uncontrolled replicators need not be gray or gooey, the term gray goo! emphasizes that replicators able to obliterate life might be less inspiring than a single species of crabgrass. #hey might be superior in an evolutionary sense, but this need not ma%e them valuable. #he gray goo threat ma%es one thing perfectly clear$ We cannot afford certain %inds of accidents with replicating assemblers. (ray goo would surely be a depressing ending to our human adventure on )arth, far worse than mere fire or ice, and one that could stem from a simple laboratory accident. But the o'*ious .uestion when faced with e+tinction 'y gray goo% is 3Why would it 'e a depressing end/! &f our li*es are nothing 'ut physical e+istence here, as Joy seems to 'elie*e 4see his ode to atheist 1arl Sagan in the article5, & can!t imagine that it could possi'ly matter how, or e*en if, we go e+tinct$ But what!s e*en harder is to 'elie*e that we!ll

somehow agree to what Joy calls relin.uishment$% -elin.uishment,% according to Joy, means that we must limit de*elopment of the technologies that are too dangerous, 'y limiting our pursuit of certain (inds of (nowledge$% This is a haunting sentence 'ecause, unwittingly, Joy is echoing the 'i'lical account of what happened with 2dam and 6*e in the 7arden$ 7od pro*ided e*erything the man and woman could possi'ly want, and then some, 'ut 7od warned that there was a certain (ind of (nowledge,% to use Joy!s words, that they were not permitted to ha*e$ -e8ecting this 7od-gi*en limitation, they plunged the entire creation into misery and di*ine 8udgment$ 2nd man(ind has 'een in arrogant re'ellion against 7od e*er since$ "ow the sons of 2dam simply ha*e smarter technologies with which to re'el$ "othing in the nature of what!s needed as a solution has changed$ What!s needed is moral and spiritual transformation 'y the power of 7od$ Joy, unsurprisingly, does not offer this as a suggested solution$ But he!s clearly on to the pro'lem$ 9e writes, We have, as a bedroc% value in our society, long agreed on the value of open access to information, and recognize the problems that arise with attempts to restrict access to and development of %nowledge. In recent times, we have come to revere scientific %nowledge*It was +ietzsche who warned us, at the end of the ,-th century, not only that (od is dead but that faith in science, which after all e.ists undeniably, cannot owe its origin to a calculus of utility/ it must have originated in spite of the fact that the disutility and dangerousness of the 0will to truth," of 0truth at any price" is proved to it constantly.! It is this further danger that we now fully face the conse1uences of our truth-see%ing. The truth that science seeks can certainly be considered a dangerous substitute for God if it is likely to lead to our extinction. :emphasis mine; We are already 'eyond the point of danger, for the pursuit of scientific and technological (nowledge, has supplanted 7od in our common life$ The rise of the "ew 2theists% ) aw(ins, ennett, 9arris, 9itchens, <in(er, et al ) has 'een ena'led 'y our scientific arrogance$ We continue to pursue life-destroying em'ryonic stem cell research 'ecause, as <resident ='ama told us, <romoting science isn!t 8ust a'out pro*iding resources ) it is also a'out protecting free and open in.uiry$ It is about letting scientists like those here today do their jobs, ree ro! !ani"ulation or coercion, and listening to #hat they tell us, e$en #hen its incon$enient % es"ecially #hen its incon$enient& &t is a'out ensuring that scientific data is ne*er distorted or concealed to ser*e a political agenda ) and that we ma(e scientific decisions 'ased on facts, not ideology$% 2h, & see$ Science must not 'e hindered 'y the ideology% of people li(e me who 'elie*e that we!re all created in 7od!s image from the moment of conception$ 0et here we!*e got Bill Joy telling us that may'e we ought to hinder science 8ust a 'it$ Joy says, &f we could agree, as a species, what we wanted, where we were headed, and why, then we would ma(e our future much less dangerous ) then we might understand what we can and should relin.uish$% &ndeed$ But these .uestions a'out our desires, ends, and means are not scientific .uestions, as Joy clearly understands$ They are metaphysical .uestions, spiritual .uestions, that must 'e answered 'y a so*ereign source outside of oursel*es$ Joy argues that such relin.uishment ) relin.uishment that & assume will 'e stated and enforced 'y the go*ernment ) will need a *erification mechanism$ 9e says, 2erifying compliance will also re1uire that scientists and engineers adopt a strong code of ethical conduct, resembling the 3ippocratic oath, and that they have the courage to whistleblow as necessary, even at high personal cost.! 9e calls for this at the precise moment when the medical profession is a'andoning 9ippocratic medicine with, shall we say, a'andon$ 9ow in the world do we thin( we will con*ince oursel*es to let go of the idol called technological progress at any cost%/ Joy .uotes a 'e*y of moral *oices, though ne*er Jesus, in his ruminations a'out how we might proceed> finally getting around to his ultimate thesis: #he &alai 4ama further argues that we must understand what it is that ma%es people happy, and

acknowledge the strong evidence that neither material progress nor the pursuit of the power of knowledge is the key that there are limits to what science and the scientific pursuit alone can do5learly, we need to find meaningful challenges and sufficient scope in our lives if we are to be happy in whatever is to come. 6ut I believe we must find alternative outlets for our creative forces, beyond the culture of perpetual economic growth/ this growth has largely been a blessing for several hundred years, but it has not brought us unalloyed happiness, and we must now choose between the pursuit of unrestricted and undirected growth through science and technology and the clear accompanying dangers. :emphasis mine; Where might this strong e*idence% against our scientistic idolatry come/ =ur great calling is for it to come from the people of 7od, who (now 'y their life in 1hrist, that see(ing first the (ingdom of 7od and 9is righteousness% in the power of 1hrist!s resurrection, is where true human happiness and flourishing will spring forth$ &!m not suggesting we 'ecome neo-,uddites oursel*es ) of which there!s not much danger in western 1hristendom ) 'ut & am e+horting us to esta'lish 1hristian communities, in the power and lo*e of the 9oly Spirit, where'y we e+hi'it and show forth a common human life that is true, no'le, right, pure, lo*ely, admira'le, e+cellent, and praiseworthy>% communities where we set our minds on things a'o*e, not on earthly things?letting the word of 1hrist dwell in us richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with than(fulness in your hearts to 7od?in word or deed, doing e*erything in the name of the ,ord Jesus, gi*ing than(s to 7od the Father through him% 41ol$ @:A, BC-BD5$ This has always 'een the call for 7od!s people, and it is certainly the answer that Bill Joy is searching for, though left unfound, in his article$ & highly commend the entire piece to you$ -uminate o*er it, and then ruminate o*er your Bi'le with 7od!s people, for wisdom and winsome witness in our technological age$