1. Garreau,Joy and Fukuyama describe the scenarios in which at best hundreds of thoudsands of people's lives would be lost.
If this can be triggered by scientists' recklessness and needs to be regulated as Joy and Fukuyama insist, how do you think it should be regulated?
Or regulations might be powerless. If so, what do you think could stop technologies from beating us down? Support your opinion with good reasons.
2. Herapeutic society is trying to eliminate pain and suffering(p162). What is your opinion about this? Support your answer with the consequences that might follow. How would a world without pain and suffering be?
3. On page 143, it says "At that stage the machines will be in effective control. People won't be able to just turn the machines off, because they will be so dependent on them that turning them off would amount to suicide". Will humans ever become so dependent on machines that they will lose the ability to turn them off? What kind of technology do you think will we be so dependent on that by unplugging it will lead you to suicide, and why?
Group Leaders
Tomoaki Kawano
Yumi Ochiai
Yusuke Omori
3. I think that the machines here refer to the machines to which we will assign our lower order jobs like maintenance of electric supply, water and internet connections. And i think that what the author says here doesn't mean that it will lead to suicide, he means that it would effectively kill us off.
ReplyDeleteAs for humans being unable to turn machines off, i think that it is a no-brainer. We already have servers running 24x7, electric mains monitored by machines, trains running on auto pilot.....Humans cannot turn them off anyway. It remains to be seen if the same thing applies to personal technology as well.
A clarification. When i say lower order, i mean maintenance and repairs and that sort of thing, as opposed to creative work..These vary in complexity, and the future will only bring more automation.
ReplyDelete2.Without pain, i think that there will be no concept of mistakes: No more will the child burnt by a fire learn a valuable lesson. On page 164, Fukuyama talks about the need to regulate, and goes on to say that people can't regulate themselves. No pain , i think, means no regulation.
2. A world without pain and suffering would be very dangerous. It would, like Shantonu said, take away the concept of mistakes from peoples' minds and in addition, it would also make the people very vulnerable. What I mean by vulnerable is if people are suddenly faced with some unexpected situation when their lives are put at risk, they will not know how to handle it because they will have forgotten what suffering is and the relevant solution that can be provided to confront it. They won't be able to judge how serious this situation will be, and may overreact to it because they won't have other painful events they can compare it to. Thus, there will be utter chaos and if they are not able to confront it well, it may lead to their demise. No matter how flawless the future may become, we never know where the Achille's heel of the system may lie and when it may be challenged. Pain and suffering is needed in order for humans to keep evolving and for them to prepare for the unexpected.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete1.The advance of technology can be regulated by law and education, not perfectly but almost. First, legal actions will work for sure, because scientiests won't want to be arrested. In Japan, the government decided not to offer subsidiary
ReplyDeletemoney for research institutes of human cloning, so such institutes cannot get much money for the research. I think that it kind of contributes to keep technology from advanceing too much. Some might say that scientists may still try to advance their research, but I doubt it. For exmple, Japanese government enacted the law that regulated human cloning as well as most of the developed countries. Even WHO started to regulate cloning and the international trend goes that way(regulation) now. As long as the international society stands against cloning as a whole, scientiests who work on it get discouraged and the research won't go so far.
Secondly, education is a must. Japanese people comparatively have problem consciousness about this problem because TV shows and (like NHK) and other media sometimes feature such technology, and in school we often learn about it just like us. Japan is a technology-oriented nation, so we have a lot of chances to touch leading-edge technology. However, some countries are not aware of the problem because they don't know about such technology or they're not educated about it. For example, some Chinese proffesors lately succeeded in human "embryo" cloning and they said that they were positive to apply it to further research. Like this, it is at risk from going too far if they don't have many expriences or knowledge about it. Teaching and Warning the dangerousness is important to regulate cloning.
I don't think that regulations might be powerless. It can regulate technology if we make various kinds of efforts.
>Kaori
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comment.
I agree with your idea that the regulation in international level is required.
I guess most scientific developments occur in competitions among developed countries.
So even if a country enforced a law or constitution restricting its scientific research to a certain level, it wouldn't work effectively.
In our modern world, technological developments usually mean heaps of money and money drives human beings.
Considering this fact, it sounds unrealistic to expect just a local regulation to play its role.
Let's suppose, for instance, you were hanging out with your friends and they, not including you, were riding double（二人乗り、よくわからん） on bicycles.
In this situation, would you keep walking on the grounds that it is against law? I suspect most people wouldn't do that.
I think rules are effective only when people subject to them believe the other people would keep the rules.
You can find the same logic in a meeting, where one person begins talking and other people follow it.(Maybe unique to Japanese people)
After all, human being is too vulnerable to be always deontological.
As for your second reason, educating children seems necessary and very effective.
However, I doubt the example of China is appropriate because there is a huge gap among China itself and therefore you can't generalize its education.
It is true Chinese education as a whole doesn't reach the level of developed countries like Japan.
But if you look at Beijin university or something, some people even think that it outdoes University of Tokyo.
And China has lots of students in United States and England, developed coutries.
Ironically, the fact that Chinese professors were succeed in cloning human embryo shows its level.(Yet I think China as a coutry lacks moral!)
Sorry, I know the example is not so important in your argument.
Like I said, education is a good way considering whether we will enjoy Heaven or pay for a high price for our foolishness is up to the next generation.
Hey, thanks for the comment Shantonu.
ReplyDeleteThis part you said, "And i think that what the author says here doesn't mean that it will lead to suicide, he means that it would effectively kill us off." I couldnt really understand it. What do you mean by "kill us off"?
You said "Humans cannot turn them off anyway." isnt that what leads us to suicide?
We are so dependent on machines that we can no longer turn them off even today. What do you think will happen in the future?
3. I think that this has already started in modern society. When our phone breaks down, first we panic. Than we go to the cellphone shop, and ask them to fix it. But, we just can't wait for days without a cellphone. That is why the store gives out a cellphone that you can use during that time. We feel left out when we look a cellphone which has become a communication tool today. It still has not become an amount equal to suicidal, but as technology advances, the dependence on technology will increase. On page 62, there is a good example of how much we rely on computer. This woman encounters a problem which her hard disk breaks down. She had a book that she was writing about China, and it was all gone. She felt as if her soul was gone. It says that there are 'data crisis counselor' for psychologists to help people with these kind of symptoms. The more we use technology, the more we will use it and it will cause people to depend on them. Hence, we are already in the situation of turning devices off is impossible. For some people, it already does equal to suicidal, but what definitely will kill us is if computers started to save memories or elements that relate to people's life. Life as memories. I'm sure it will amount to suicidal. It's like losing your life!
ReplyDeleteThanks Shantonu for your comment!
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with you. We learn a lot by experiencing pain. And yes, it would let us live without regulating ourselves, and we eventually lose the feeling of being a human.
Thanks Kaya for your comment!
Your idea, “pain and suffering is needed for us to prepare for the unexpected” is interesting, I didn’t think of the unexpected situation. I agree with you, that they would totally forget what suffering is so they would not understand the unexpected situation. What I thought, to add to what you wrote, is that people would not even know if they are really in danger or not. Like even if they are badly injured, they wouldn’t know it because they don’t have feelings of pain. And as you said, this may lead to demise. And yes, I also think humans need pain and suffering to live. It is scary to imagine future with humans without suffering, they really would be just like robots!
Thanks for your comment Yuji.
ReplyDeleteLooking back at The Curve, there are examples that shows how we are closely related to technologies like the example you gave. On the same page 62, it says " We have bonded with these new machines. They have become part of us and we part of them."
What is significant is that it mentions about losing souls or mind once you lose the technology they depended on. P64, P65 it says, " he felt as if a part of him had been removed...the machines have not only changed you, they have become you."
We are already depending on machines so much that it is almost impossible to just turn them off. We have already lost the ability of turning them off. Moreover, just losing the hard-drive, or BlackBerry (cell phone) will lead us to lose or souls, mind, and part of oneself.
To my own prediction, if, in future, enhanced lose its technology(some kind of ability given genetically) inside them, they could die. Am I making sense? lol
Anyway, if you have time I would like to hear your opinion for my second question; what kind of technology do you think will we be so dependent on that by unplugging it will lead you to suicide?
2.Humans would turn out to be like robots if there would be a world without pain and suffering. It seems peace was brought to the world if pain and suffering, negative emotions, were solved by technologies as it says "These engineered human beings may be happy in such a society,..." by doing just their hobbies.(P.144) However, I presume that if there were no negative emotions, it's possible that humans gradually forget to recognize positive feelings such as satisfaction and happiness, since there would be nothing to compare it to. Without either positive or negative feelings, humans can lack having emotions and become apathetic and closer to robots that don't have emotions. I think that we can feel the happiness because there are also dissapointing things, which are both the factors that enrich our life.
ReplyDeleteAnother possible cause of being apathetic is small reaction of other people. For example, you took an action to have someone notice something, but because it would be solved by technology if it's a problem for that person, you wouldn't be satisfied with the result of no effect that he doesn't notice your action. After several times of trying, you might give up taking actions and just keep doing your hobbies, which is no difference to a robot working. To keep humans like humans and not turning into robots, pain and sufferings are indispensable, regardless of little misfortune.
Thanks for the comment Izumi!
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with your point that without negative emotions we would forget the positive feelings too. Fukuyama says that too in page 162. It seems like we would have a great life without pain and suffering but we have to know the fact that the feelings of satisfaction and happiness are due to such negative feelings. I hope humans would stop trying to eliminate negative emotions, if not, we would be like robots as you said!
For the second possible cause, what kind of action do you mean? Tell me more specifically, if you have time!
Our lives without any pain, longing, anxiety and other negative impacts would be no longer considered as "human" activities. Like Izumi mentioned in the previous comment, i think human beings will lose the sense of positive emotions gradually after losing negative emotions, which will eventually lead humans to completely emotionless creatures.
ReplyDeleteAs for things are planed to be perfect in the therapeutic society(i'm so not sure how this will work out but), we'll begin to take everything for granted and won't thank god for all the blessings we receive. It would be very dangerous for our mental health because we no longer need to challenge with risks to hurt ourselves or lose something.
This emotionless and perfect life will remove the human characteristics, altering human beings to something similar to robots.
oops! the upper comment is for question2!!
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, sorry for the late comment!
ReplyDelete2)I am not really sure how to answer this question.. It seems that everyone is agreeing that pain and suffering is necessary for our specie, in every possible way. I kind of disagree with that.
For instance, we have talked a lot about racism and gender inequality this semester. We discussed how these things happen and how the situation could be improved, but no matter how much we talked about it, we could not reach a definite answer to any of the questions.
I kind of think that this was because we were all trying to ignore that all of it had their roots in our human nature, namely the notion to differentiate and the want to get ahead of everyone else. I think discrimination will be a problem forever in someway or another, as long as we stay human.
So, I think we all agreed that discrimination and the pain caused by it was something awful, something that should be removed. But then, many of us still think that human nature should be preserved as it is right now, and that some pain will always be necessary for us to feel otherwise. Don't these two ideas contradict each other? One suggests to remove pain, and the other suggests to preserve it.
I think they do contradict each other, and if they do, I'd rather be honest and say I prefer not to feel pain at all.
Personally, I believe that all the suffering that I have gone through in my life has made me a bigger person than what I used to be before, well at least a bit. And most of the times, I'm thankful for the experience. But I feel that I am enabled to say this because I have only lived for nineteen years and have been blessed throughout those nineteen years. I even feel that I am in no position of talking about actual pain.
I am not trying to be like some kind of a hypocrite and say that there are many more people that are suffering in this world. I think pain is nothing you can compare between each individual. I am just saying, that we should admit that there are some pain that we would be better off without. And to ignore that possibility would not be fair to the scientists and the researchers that believe that their technology could be the radical solution to many of the problems people have to endure today.
YOH I was so relieved after the debate and totally forgot about this blog, sorry...
ReplyDelete3. To be honest I've been always confused why the author or whoever mentioning this kind of issue are assuming that people will be so dependent on computers and technologies when it's already predicted to bring a negative affect to human beings. As the technology progresses, it must be obvious at some point that we are going too far. If a product that is very useful but might bring a person in fatal consequence is available would you buy it? Another thing is, though, such a thing is already in real life like Kaya mentioned in the debate. Pace maker. It's planted in a patient's heart and switching it off leads the person to death. So far, it's proven relevant and acceptable. People just have to be capable of judging what to come in practice.
Im sorry for being extremely late.
ReplyDelete3. I agree with Yuji that we are already depending on technology too much that we can not turn them off. Thinking about your second question, “what kind of technology would lead us to suicide”, I imagined the world without technology. Well, everything would basically stop, if we are talking about technology as in every machines and every creation of human. Machines will stop working so no more cars, trains, washing machines, cell phones, computers, and iPods. Factories will stop so no more processed food, mass producing cloths, … well no more mass produced of anything. Everything that is automatic will stop. I wont be able to go anywhere anyway in such a world because automatic doors wont let us out of our apartment. Therefore, we will no longer be able to live. Like Shantonu said, it would effectively kill us. However, if we are not talking in such an extreme way, situation would be different. If we turn off only the recent developed technologies, it would lead to suicide like you mentioned I think. For example, computer. If someone is net surfing online all day and do not get in touch with the outer world at all, disappearance of computer would probably lead them to suicide. (on the other hand, maybe it would lead them to actually go outside ha).
Actually, it is hard to think about the kinds of technology leading us to suicide. It is easy to imagine how inconvenient it would be without those technologies but that’s it. I think this is because I cant really imagine living a life without those technologies. Lets say, cell phones for example. Everything will be inefficient, I can see that. But I can not imagine my feelings toward the absence of cell phone enough to think about suicide. I can’t even turn those technologies off in my head. Can you?
I am always late..sorry about that. Everyday's routines always make me forget about posting comments..
ReplyDelete1. Technologies would need to be regulated. That is because these things have not only good side but bad side.
Before mentioning what kind of regulations would gonna be needed, I want to say that sharing information and strong coorporations with each other could help sceintists find other people's ideas and give opportunities to think about their studies objectively. I know they are doing this, but I recommend that more strong ties should be promoted. Just regulating acceralation of their studies will not work effectively.
However, it should be needed to arrange rules or laws to prohibit bad use of technologies because it is so easy to imagine some people are not going to protect rules. So, what kind of rules should be needed? For example, if there are those who did break the common rules, they should be robbed PhD, or taken away from the academic community for good. I suppose these are the most scary thing for them.
I have thought about why there are the choice which regulates tech, I came up with an idea that we are feeling the neccesity of making efforts to approach a more peaceful world. In order to come it true, what we need to do is not only regulating it. There will be many things we have to know and think about but I will take two things here. I think that more deep appreciation towards tech, and active interactions with each other will have a key to go on to the next step.
Thanks for your comment Miki!
ReplyDeleteOhh, I liked how you connected to religion. (ro- sensei's influence?lol)
True, people believe in religion because they want something to help themselves to be relieved from sufferings. So if pain and suffering were removed from this world, there would be no need to believe God. So the religion most probably would be removed from this world. The elimination of pain and suffering will bring up a huge effect on humans. I like how people thank God for the blessings, just like how it is now.
Hey Saori, thanks for posting your interesting view!
ReplyDeleteHmm, it is somehow convincing...lol It is true that there is some pain that we would be better without. However, if we remove pain, the world would not stay as peaceful as it is now because it eventually removes the positive emotions too. It would be the best if scientists can invent the way to remove the "actual pain" and stay with the small pains in order not to lose positive emotions, but there would be more problems emerging, like "what would the border line between the two pains be?" So I agree with your point, "to admit that eliminating pain could be the solution to many of the problems people have to endure today", but I say that there would be more problems if we use this technology.
But thanks for the different point of view, it was very interesting!
>Asami
ReplyDeleteThanks for the comment.
I believe that considering the implications of studies before conducting the applications is crucial. So I agree with you.
Scientists used to be way more indifferent to what their studies would cause than today.
By and large, scientists in the past only pursued the technological possibilities of their subjects as seen in the famous dialogue between Einstein and Roosevelt.
But the use of atomic bomb in WW2 provoked a huge doubt among the general public as to technologies.(My guess)
In a sense, Hiroshima thing was probably necessary as an anchor which prevents humans going too far.
Anyway, encouraging scientists to communicate with other people is a good idea.
Besides the reasons you mentions, it will give non-scientists the oppotunities to review the situation.
I think the importance of 'informed consent' will increase and should be extended to wider areas other than medicine.
On the brink of extinction, humans, even non-scientists, have to seriously deal with the problem we are facing. We can't be unconcerned anymore.
Everyone is responsible for the future of our species. Maybe that's exactely the reason we are now studying this issue.
As for arranging rules or laws, both already exists, but the problem is they don't catch up with the speed of technological developments.
So sometimes exising rules can't manage new problems coming up. As a countermeasure against this, rules are frequently updated, but that's not enough.
As abstract as it may sound, maybe ethical understanding has to be built among scientists so that they can be always flexible.
Of course ethics isn't necessarily powerful enough to deter some people, so pressures from other people like exile will be needed as you say.
Hey its kind too late but Ill comment back since you guys commented question #3!!!
ReplyDeletesayaka
and
natsuko
thank you for your comment
well author is probably providing just as enough info in order for us to make us think for ourselves whether or not our future will become Heaven or Hell
about the machines that would lead us to suicide, well we can think of two types
one is physical and another is mental
like pace maker, without it that person will die physically
if there is a medicine like a drug that will help us to lose sense of fear, pain, sadness and all kinds of affliction suffering
once we lose the effect of its med then that will definitely lead us to death
all of the sudden you are reminded of every suffering you experienced
unless you are super duper mentally strong
you would probably, no, definitely die
are you confident to survive this kind of suffering?
at least im not
and for natsukos, turning off machines such as trains and automatic doors is out of the question. Without a train or any kinds of transportation system would cause a world crisis.
well,automatic doors we can just break it lol
i absolutely agree on "cant really imagine living a life without those technologies"
of course, we use it everyday every hour every second
but can we just let it overwhelm us?
all we can do is NOT to stop using technologies in order to keep us alive
well if us, human beings really did extinct at some point in the future, we will start everything over again
do you think this kind of cycle is possible? lol
that is kind of interesting....
anyway, thank you all for your comments!!!
I know it's too late but let me make a comment on Q3.
ReplyDeleteFor me it's easy to imagine the situation that we "will be so dependent on them that turning them off would amount to suicide", both physically and mentally.
As Yusuke said, pace maker is one of the good examples of the physical dependence. If you are taking a certain medicine on a daily basis, that could be one example too.
As for the mental dependence, it is not only for particular people like these patient mentioned above. Now we go to school to attend classes and that takes up better part of our day so we do not rely on technologies much. Of course we use mobile phones to contact with friends and computers to do assignments, but we also have time to hang out with friends at bakayama or go to a PE class.
However, once we graduate from school and enter the real world, we will be working on a computer all the time (if you're going to do physical labour that's a bit different story, but still). If you are not married and don't have a family, your life would definitely depend on computers more than ever. At least mine would. Then if suddenly the computer was gone, all of the work done, contact details of friends, or the method of communications itself were all gone either. It's fatal.
Yuji also said that but there's an example of a woman who's gone crazy when her hard disk was broken. The same thing would happen to me if I lost the data on my computer now. 10,000 of photos...20,000 of mp3 and video files...all the messages and essays, they are like our own history. I don't think I can stay sane.
These technologies have given so much value to such bodiless things as data files that they're becoming the most important part of our life. It's terrifying, but we cannot stop it.
3.I think there are many technologies that would lead people to suicide if they are turned off. It can be easily seen in many places where people are consciously or subconsciously addicted too much upon technology.
ReplyDeleteFor instance, cell phones are one of the new technologies people use so much hours everyday that they cannot live without it. I have experienced this too, when I realized that I forgot to bring my mobile to school, I also realized that I wanted to go back home and bring my cell phone during the lunch time (my apartment is 15min away from school). When I felt this, I thought that I was really addicted to cell phone. I don't think people today won't be able to resist being mad or panicked if literally all the cell phone company went down. Im sure some people would even try to commit suicide too.
2. I totally agree with Izumi and Miki.
ReplyDeleteIf all the negative impacts on humans disappear, there will no longer be "positive" impacts too. It is true that decreasing serious suffer and pain is good for us but I think a certain level of pain or suffering is needed for our growth, mentally and physically. I think pain and suffer enables us to "care" other people and recognize the fact that we are "alive". There are a lot more than we can expect how pain and suffer effect us.
So sorry for the too-late post...
I'm very sorry for the late post...
ReplyDelete2.Like everybody else, I disagree with a pain-free world.
I think that we can feel what we can feel now for a reason as mentioned in Radical Evolution. "But if you think about things like anger and the kind of violence and pride and the responses a lot of acts of violence, it actually is all in the service of defending norms of communities"(p.162)
Pain and suffering are necessary for us. Almost all sicknesses are noticed because we feel pain. Without it, we don't know when you are at risk. With pain, we can identify what's wrong and possibly cure it.
I’m very sorry for commenting so late.
ReplyDeleteI think that it would be hard to regulate before things happen. However, education and information would help us to stay on the rail. Kaori mentioned about the education and Tomoaki mentioned about informed consent which is what i think is important in keeping technology in control. It is the moral and ethics which is going to regulate the miss use of technology. If the people are educated and understood the dangerousness of such technology it could be regulated. But for that information is necessary and it would be the government and media’s responsibility to inform the people so they can make a decision on new technologies. Today the nuclear power is known to be a very harmful thing and is regulated all over the world. There are countries which still have nuclear power but it is not used by the moral decisions. I think these kinds of moral would be very important in regulating technology.