You enlist three scenariosheaven, hell, and prevailto describe potential outcomes of our technological future. What's the heaven scenario?
The foremost proponent of the heaven scenario is a guy named Ray Kurzweil, a famed inventorthe classic geek hero. He looks at this curve of exponential change and what's going on in the GRIN technologies, and he thinks this is all terrific. He sees a curve going straight up to heaven, basically. He sees us conquering pain, suffering, death, stupidity, ignorance, ugliness, and basically doing this in our lifetime.
That's one of the critical aspects of Radical Evolution: We're talking about the next 10 or 20 years. We're not talking about some far side of the moon. This is going to happen on our watch.
In the heaven scenario that Ray and others portray, what happens is that the curve goes straight up, and there're all sorts of wonderful technological changes that solve all sorts of problems that have plagued mankind forever. This produces a change in what it means to be human that is basically good. As Ray describes it, it's essentially indistinguishable from the Christian version of heaven.
Ray, for example, doesn't think he's going to die. He takes 250 pills a day. And his view of it is that if you can stay healthy for the next 20 years, the curve of technological change will be advancing so rapidly that an awful lot of what ails [us we] will essentially be able to conquer.
What's the hell scenario?
The hell scenario is eerily the mirror image of the heaven scenario. The poster boy for the hell scenario is Bill Joy, who invented [much] of what makes the Internet workanother big-deal technologist, heavy dude.
He's looking at the same information about this curve of technological change, and he's saying, Wait a minute. This could go just the opposite way. He says with the GRIN technologies, what you're doing is offering incredible powers to ordinary individuals. Some of them are bound to be nuts, you know. What's going to happen as a result?
One of the things that drives him nuts, for example, is the Australian mouse pox incident. [Researchers] were looking for a form of mouse contraceptive, and they were doing genetic tinkering with the mousepox virus. It doesn't do anything to humans, but it's a close relative to small pox, which does do bad things to humans. They made one small change in the genetic structure in this mousepox virus, and the resulting organism was 100 percent fatal to the mice, no survivors. They all died. Researchers had never seen anything like this before. That just doesn't happen.
It was amazing how bad this change was. Up until then, the conventional wisdom was that if you mess around with a virus genetically, it will always make it weaker. Not in this case. They made it astonishingly bad. And then they published the results on the Internet, where anybody who'd wanted to could look it up and see what they'd done and how they'd done it.
And this just drives Bill Joy nuts. He says, Well, if you handed a million people their own private atomic bomb, do you suppose one of them would be crazy enough to use it?
He's just tremendously worried that we stand a good chance of extincting the human species in 25 years. And that's the optimistic version. In the optimistic version of the hell scenario, you only extinct the human race. In the pessimistic version, you extinct the entire biosphere. Every living thing on Earth goes.
OK, so how about the third scenario, prevail. What's that?
Prevail is not some middle ground between heaven and hell. It's way over in an entirely different territory. What heaven and hell have in common is that the people who embrace these scenarios basically are technological determinists. They think that what it means to be human is shaped entirely by our technologies and that there's not a whole lot that we can do about it.
And that's where prevail differshuman history doesn't have to be shaped entirely by technology. It's basically a bet on human cussedness, the belief that history shows that humans can turn any apparent eventuality on its head, if we work at it hard enough. Classic example of a prevail story in history was the British nation of shopkeepers having victory over the Third Reich during World War II. I mean that was "not supposed to happen," and yet it did.
Now obviously, I'm pulling for this one.
In heaven and hell, the measure of advance is how many transistors you have connecting to each other. In prevail, the critical measure is how many connections you have between humans, not between transistors. And there's some reason for optimism that the prevail scenario might, in fact, work and that connections between humans are the right measure of progress.
For example, during 9/11 the fourth plane never made it to its target. Why? Because the Air Force were such hot shots? No. Because the White House was incredibly prescient? No. What happened on that fourth plane was that ordinary humans, empowered by [mobile phones], empowered by their technologies, in 90 minutes flat figured out what was ailing their society, diagnosed it, and, at an incredible cost to them, cured it. That was bottom-up human cussedness, empowered by technology.
Free E-Mail News Updates
Sign up for our Inside National Geographic newsletter. Every two weeks we'll send you our top stories and pictures (see sample).
SOURCES AND RELATED WEB SITES