I just filled out a survey about what I think the best and worst consequences of digital technology are going to be for humans. I’m in a sort of cynical mood but perhaps you’ll find my responses interesting. If you find the questions stimulating, do feel free to reply with some of your own answers. I love comparing points of view. 
BEST AND MOST BENEFICIAL changes
* Human-centered development of digital tools and systems – safely advancing human progress in these systems
Nature’s experiments are random, not intentional or goal directed. We humans operate in a similar way, exploring what is possible and then trimming away most of the more hideous outcomes. We will continue to develop devices that do the tasks humans used to do thereby saving us both mental and physical labor. This trend will continue resulting in more leisure time available for non-survival pursuits.
* Human connections, governance and institutions – improving social and political interactions
We will continue to enjoy expanded synchronous communication that will include an increasing variety of sensory data. Whatever we can transmit in near real time we will also be able to store and retrieve to enjoy later – even after death. This could result in improved social and political interactions but not necessarily.
* Human rights – abetting good outcomes for citizens.
Increased communication will not advance human “rights” but it might make human “wrongs” more visible so that they can be diminished.
* Human knowledge – verifying, updating, safely archiving and elevating the best of it
Advances in digital storage and retrieval will let us preserve and transmit larger quantities of human knowledge. Whether what is stored is verifiable, safe, or worthy of “elevation” is an age-old question and not significantly changed by digitization.
* Human health and well-being – helping people be safer, healthier, happier
Huge advances in medicine and the ability to manipulate genetics are in store. This will be beneficial to some segments of the population. Agricultural efficiency resulting in increased plant-based food production as well as artificial, meat-like protein will provide the possibility of eliminating human starvation. This could translate into improved well-being – or not.
* Other – you are welcome to write about an area that does not fit in the categories listed above
IMHO, the most beneficial outcomes of our “store and forward” technologies are to empower individuals to access the world’s knowledge and visual demonstrations of skill directly, without requiring an educational institution to act as “middleman”. Learners will be able to hail teachers and learning resources just like they call a ride service today.
MOST HARMFUL OR MENACING changes
The biggest threat to humanity posed by current digital advances is the possibility of switching from an environment of scarcity to one of abundance. Humans evolved, both physically and psychologically, as prey animals eeking out a living from an inadequate supply of resources. Those who survived were both fearful and aggressive, protecting their genetic relatives, hoarding for their families, and driving away or killing strangers and nonconformists. Although our species has come a long way toward peaceful and harmonious self-actualization, vestiges of the old fearful behavior persist.
Consider what motivates the continuance of copyright laws when the marginal cost of providing access to a creative work approaches zero. Should the author continue to be paid beyond the cost of producing the work?
* Human-centered development of digital tools and systems – falling short of advocates’ goals
This is a repeat of the gun violence argument. Does the problem lie with the existence of the gun or the actions of the shooter?
* Human connections, governance and institutions – endangering social and political interactions
Any major technology change endangers the social and political status quo. The question is, can humans adapt to the new actions available to them. We are seeing new opportunities to build marketplaces for the exchange of goods and services. This is creating new opportunities to scam each other in some very old (snake oil) and very new (online ransomware) ways. We don’t yet know how to govern or regulate these new abilities. In addition, although the phenomenon of confirmation bias or echo chambers is not exactly new (think “Christendom” in 15th century Europe), word travels faster and crowds are larger than they were 6 centuries ago. So is digital technology any more threatening today than guns and roads were then? Every generation believe the end is nigh and brought on by change toward “wickedness”. If change is dangerous than we are certainly in for it!
* Human rights – harming the rights of citizens
The biggest threat here is that humans will not be able to overcome their fear and permit their fellows to enjoy the benefits of abundance brought about by automation and AI.
* Human knowledge – compromising or hindering progress.
The threat lies in increasing human dependance on machines – both mechanical and digital. We are at risk of forgetting how to take care of ourselves without them. Increasing leisure and abundance might seem like “progress” but they can also lull us into believing that we don’t need to stay mentally and physically fit and agile.
* Human health and well-being – threatening individuals’ safety, health and happiness
In today’s context of increasing ability to extend healthy life, the biggest threat is human overpopulation. We don’t get too upset if thousands of lemmings jump off a cliff but a large number of human deaths is a no no, no matter how small a percentage of the total population it is. Humanity cannot continue to improve its “health and well-being” indefinitely if it remains planet bound. Our choices are to put more effort into building extraterrestrial human habitat or self-limiting our numbers. In the absences of one of these alternatives, one group of humans is going to be deciding which members of other groups live or die. This is not a likely recipe for human happiness.
* Other – you are welcome to write about an area that does not fit in the categories listed above
Is climate change going to wipe out humanity? No!
Creator: gremlin Credit: Getty Images
The disastrous effects of a changing climate – famine, floods, fires and extreme heat – threaten our very existence.
This quote, from the very first page of the United Nations Common Agenda Report Summary, is wrong. Yes, there is a very real threat – but it isn’t a threat to the “very existence” of humanity. It is highly unlikely that climate change will cause such widespread death in the human population to reduce the 7,953,952,577 or so individuals now alive down to the 500 or so that would be necessary to repopulate the Earth.
What is threatened? The way of life enjoyed by the wealthy people who live in the richest nations on the planet. Yes, the poor are likely to die first under the influence of climate degradation. The wealthy will be able to move inland, to higher ground, or further from the Equator. They will be able to buy expensive food and build fire resistant, air conditioned homes. Yes, quality of life is likely to decline even for the rich. But no, climate change is not going to wipe out the human race. A comet strike? That could do it. Huge solar flares? Possibly. Global nuclear war? We might not survive that. But climate warming due to human activity? This is a self-regulating problem.
Why is climate change self-regulating? Because, as changing climate conditions kills off our excessive population, poorest first, it will also decrease the industrial activity that causes it. Humans will lose the technical capacity to keep pumping carbon and other pollutants into the atmosphere. Without such interference the planet will reach equilibrium again. Overall mean temperatures may be hotter than the previous they have been in more than 100,000 years but, as a species, we are likely to adapt.
Modern humans have been around at least 196,000 years and maybe as much as 300,000 years. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_modern_human). They have lived through major climate changes that they did not cause. Some of us more modern people will too.
I’m not suggesting that there is nothing to worry about. The possibility of knocking human progress back to the stone age is no laughing matter. The likelihood of a global population collapse as cultures struggle to adapt to warmer and more volatile weather is not fun to contemplate. But does exaggerating the consequences of climate change help or hinder the popular crusade to halt human impact on planet-wide weather? By suggesting that the human race will not survive we make it easier to dismiss the whole issue.
IMHO, overstating the consequences of climate change empowers climate change deniers.
Flames rise from the remains of a house that burned down in Santa Rosa. (Jeff Chiu/AP)
Share this:
Like this:
Leave a Comment
Filed under Climate Change Commentary, Future Gazing, Uncategorized
Tagged as disaster, future