Recently commented on
How can humanity continue techno-scientific progress with out jeopardizing social/environmental well being or causing our own extinction?
These are important questions that embeezee directed towards me relating to my comment on Render's "Algorithms are the intellectual currency of the future." That article discusses the importance of algorithms and stipulates that their discovery will become a "central task of humanity" as automation frees us from the physical labor to do intellectual work. There, I questioned the assumption that automation would bring about the planetary abundance necessary to liberate humanity from physical tasks and might in fact increase the divide between the technological haves and have-nots. Embeezee then asked these important questions about scientific progress and its potential aftermath:
Do you not think it's true that throughout history we humans have had a problem with the separation of creation with dealing with the aftermath of it? Scientists run around creating, discovering, and only later does society try to clean up the aftermath of it.
ex. industrial revolution created pollution, increased poverty-wealthy gap in the world
I am not saying that this is a done-deal. If anything, I feel as if this is something we need to correct.
Do you have any ideas for solutions to this? I am very interested in hearing any ideas about how to better connect the social science and science spheres, the intellectual and practical worlds; figuring out ways to merge the theoretical with the reality. But less abstractly, how can we continue to grow without killing ourselves in the mean time?
How can we do this?
Well I certainly don't have a great answer for these challenging questions but I have some intuitions:
1) Transparency can go a long way. Informing the public of techno-scientific research will allow them to question possible outcomes of that research. Collectively we will see more issues than any single individual regarding techno-scientific development. Providing universal access to knowledge is crucial to this (how will I know the possible outcomes of nanotech development if I was never taught about molecular structures).
2) open public discourse. providing a forum where anyone can express their concerns will help develop techno-scientific policy that accounts for all stake holders (anyone possibly effected by techno-scientific development)
3) (disclaimer: i am a radical leftist) Renching control of development from those who only see technology as a means to state/military domination and capitalist profit. Their interests our not our own (or the majority of humanity's).
These are just a few ideas and I might post more as a comment. A lot of my terms and ideas come from Amor Mundi, a blog by Dale Carrico, a Cal Berkeley Professor and great techno-progressive thinker.
More importantly,
What do you all think??????
These are important questions that embeezee directed towards me relating to my comment on Render's "Algorithms are the intellectual currency of the future." That article discusses the importance of algorithms and stipulates that their discovery will become a "central task of humanity" as automation frees us from the physical labor to do intellectual work. There, I questioned the assumption that automation would bring about the planetary abundance necessary to liberate humanity from physical tasks and might in fact increase the divide between the technological haves and have-nots. Embeezee then asked these important questions about scientific progress and its potential aftermath:
ex. industrial revolution created pollution, increased poverty-wealthy gap in the world
I am not saying that this is a done-deal. If anything, I feel as if this is something we need to correct.
Do you have any ideas for solutions to this? I am very interested in hearing any ideas about how to better connect the social science and science spheres, the intellectual and practical worlds; figuring out ways to merge the theoretical with the reality. But less abstractly, how can we continue to grow without killing ourselves in the mean time?
How can we do this?
Well I certainly don't have a great answer for these challenging questions but I have some intuitions:
1) Transparency can go a long way. Informing the public of techno-scientific research will allow them to question possible outcomes of that research. Collectively we will see more issues than any single individual regarding techno-scientific development. Providing universal access to knowledge is crucial to this (how will I know the possible outcomes of nanotech development if I was never taught about molecular structures).
2) open public discourse. providing a forum where anyone can express their concerns will help develop techno-scientific policy that accounts for all stake holders (anyone possibly effected by techno-scientific development)
3) (disclaimer: i am a radical leftist) Renching control of development from those who only see technology as a means to state/military domination and capitalist profit. Their interests our not our own (or the majority of humanity's).
These are just a few ideas and I might post more as a comment. A lot of my terms and ideas come from Amor Mundi, a blog by Dale Carrico, a Cal Berkeley Professor and great techno-progressive thinker.
More importantly,
What do you all think??????
Add comment
| Promote (6) |
|
Add to favorites
|
| Synapses (1) |
|
Connected to
