Where has technology been leading the society? Is it creating new ways to interact, easing our lives and leading people into a secure future or making them dependent, cut off from each other and less human? Would it be correct to call it a necessary evil which people cannot give up? The intricacies involved in analysing the impact of technology on today’s modern society have something to do with each individual and how he prefers to give it a place in his life. Simultaneously while learning from instances where technology has failed us, it requires in depth analysis on what day to day advancements in this field hold for the future of human beings.
A lot of people including researchers like Stephen Hawking and Elon Musk do not justify that all future developments in science and technology will hold good for human race with any downsides. Even today there are marked downsides in widespread use of some technologies like social media, weapons, atomic bomb that the human race has not yet overcome. Was it a mistake in having allowed technology penetrate daily lives of people without first assessing the human factor involved in interaction with technology? (Hale) Much similar to a common flu virus which produces severity of flu ranging from harmless to severe. How Humans understand and handle the technology at their disposal gives rise to most of its perceived advantages and disadvantages.
In the words of famous researcher and inventor who had his life dedicated to inventions for common good, Nikola Tesla– ‘Our virtues and our failings are inseparable, like force and matter. When they separate man is no more.’ Accepting a new technology involves many changes in the social framework most of which may be cultural, changing the ways we interact with each other. For example the wide scale adoption of social networking through internet has minimised the need to call a friend or distant relative. The excitement and emotional rush in seeing a known person after a long time and discovering new stories about his life will no longer be felt again, as our lives are being telecasted live on social media. This has also reflected upon the change in character humans are undergoing with adoption of technology, like in the above case people using social media addictively have become less patient and persistent in facing challenges. Several feelings whether jealousy, pleasure, interest, indifference, ignorance etc are simulated by phantom personalities projecting through data shared in social media, of people they know. A lot of debatable changes in human behaviour have been researched in many countries about the addiction of social media. Are people loosing their true character and becoming machine faced unable to tolerate the warmth of human company anymore. Most of the people would prefer to sit in front of a computer and pass their time online rather than sit and empathise with any of their relative, who may be living in the same house. Destruction of single most human virtue in being empathetic about others can predominantly be blamed on rampant addiction to social media. Even outside their homes people prefer looking into their phones than the humans outside and rather not enjoy the warmth of their company. For example, in Shanghai there are pedestrian path with important signage printed on the road to catch the attention of such people. Access to technology that can yield our way gives people confidence but also isolates them as human beings as in the classic example above.
An article published by Chris Dixon in Business Insider (August 2016) acknowledges ‘the role of technology in contributing to the increase in life expectancy of humans’ while it explores the new avenues where technological advances would expand to make our life more comfortable and less challenging. Less challenging? Doesn’t it imply less independent. The concept is against the spirit of human excellence in spite of toughest external conditions. The same spirit that leads a scientist make a new discovery or invention after years of persistence against all odds that ridicule him and cast aspersions on his research. But the excellence he creates subdues the same spirit in all those who get ready access to his inventions. An award or a more comfortable lifestyle without a preceding hard work is addictive and doesn’t allow for appropriate time and effort to take responsibility for its most suitable use. The worst example is the state the environment and earth has been thrown into by a mad exploitation by various industries, where it is battling to keep sustaining the millennia continued life it has so well cherished until now. However all these are the problems of human nature which uncover wherever humans interact with something new. All the technological advancements have these side effects of misuse because of society having failed to realise the right of equal distribution and opportunity to access. For example a person who can not afford a vehicle has to endure the pollution caused by numerous cars plying on the road he walks beside. While all the people in the cars have access to much cleaner air conditioned air when they are the problem of such a cause for endurance. The situation is much worse in heavily polluted cities such as New Delhi where each hour of a poor man’s journey claims a week of his life. Why would anyone advocating use of cars even for unnecessary travel not change his opinion once subjected to being on the other side. For a person sitting in an air conditioned vehicle, technology has blessed his life for he can now commute at ease without having to opt to walk surprisingly in cases where he can. The antipodal perspective is that of the poor man who still has to walk, and for him this walk is unhealthy and poisonous. Giving technology for free use without imposing restrictions on its uses has led to a technology divide where for a particular section it leads to improvement of life while for a different section brings ruins (Magnus Jean). But again the question remains unassuming of an acceptable answer – is any technological advancement worth that cost?
It can be argued that these are limitations of human society and concern a different subject of sociology. And that there is a different problem at work where technology has impacted negatively on society. The problem is of population explosion wherein the present levels of population are not sustainable based on the amount of naturally available resources on earth. It is, in fact technological expertise at society’s hand that has led to sustaining such huge population by enormously increasing our ability to harness whatever available resources are there to their maximum capacities. And if the society wants to continue to secure survival of everyone on this planet, reliance on technology is essential. Technology is the only way, through which new ways can be found to continue using the depleting resources and in some cases create new ones. This is a fairly decent argument which recognises the manifestation of a different demonic problem has led many views against what we can actually call a saviour. Returning back to the example above, the menace of poisonous fumes emitting vehicles is magnified and taken a horrible form because it is not a sustainable technology at current rate of consumption of natural resources and the human population. But technology is the only silver lining in this situation where it is on a path to correct itself. The new concept of electric cars, technological efforts in the direction of harnessing solar and nuclear energy and making it feasible to use it in place of petrochemical based fuels are steps in the right direction for a progressive future that can only be brighter (Elon Musk).
In one of the editions of ‘what if’ series by World Economic Forum, a blogger asked a question ‘what if drugs are printed from the internet?’ Given the fast pace of research and development in the one of the most promising technological endeavours for future is a 3D printer. Constant upgrades may make it possible to print anything from it, including medicines. Not only will it make drug stores and pharmaceutical companies obsolete causing rampant unemployment in the sector but also make lives lived on and fixed to a couch. If they could print medicines, why not food? Like a wish tree a 3D printer will print anything one wants, without him having to move from the bed. There is sufficient evidence that how technology has already made people lazy and how the fast pace and ease of communications has made the human interactions obsolete. One may not feel the warmth of excitement to see his friend next morning because he may have had a video call last night. People’s ability to feel warmth and experience the influence of a human being when the auras interact is unique in humans. Loosing the direct interface with each other and having to go through an artificial technological interface takes that humanity out of people in relations and friendships. Why would someone make an effort to go to his mother’s house when he can video chat with her? The more technologies evolve, the more are people going to be dependent on them and their behaviour modified according to ease of living. On the other side of this paradox is the reach technology has given us to the unprivileged masses. Those who are separated with distances are united by a phone call. Students have access to online tools and oceans of knowledge through internet. Remotely located villages and communities can access the same kind of medical care as the population in largest of the cities. Where human reach to serve the needy was limited, it has been now extended infinitely by technology. It lies in the hands of the user to use the tool available with discretion. If he is using this to harm himself, the tool cannot be at fault. Because in contrast someone else is using the same tool for betterment of society and human race. There can never be a sufficient argument to abandon development of something for fear of it being misused when it has the potential for betterment of human race when used with discretion and against sound judgement.
Other than the 3D printer, the other most promising avenue of technological expansion is the Artificial Intelligence (AI). Ralph Haupter, president of Microsoft Asia has believed that advent of AI into mainstream lives is not very far. The possibilities and opportunities with AI are endless. But just to think about the most significant way AI will impact human lives is by making machines automatic. The interface with machines may disappear and no longer a requirement for controlling and guiding them would exist. The biggest fear about the negative impacts of AI is an immediate large scale job loss looming with its advent. It is going to lead to so many humans becoming obsolete. Machines being given priority above humans is demeaning the existence of human life itself. And then there is the most popularly perceived threat of species termination if machines decide to take over the world. AI can be an immortal evil dictator from which humans would never escape (Elon Musk).
Stuart Russell, Director Center for Intelligence systems, UC Berkeley in an article ‘2015: what do you think about machines that think’, has indicated that AI should not be pure intelligence but intelligence provably aligned with human values. If the machines are more capable than humans, it could lead to many problems including species ending problem. There are arguments that no conceivable risks exist to humanity for at least some centuries, though it can be just somebody’s false perception, similar to the one Rutherford had while asserting so confidently that nuclear energy could never be harnessed and within twenty four hours Szilárd inventing neutron induced nuclear chain reaction. The threat from creating super intelligent machines is genuine and therefore there is an effort to integrate human values with AI. Far from being easy, it carries significant downside risks for even small errors in value alignment. Stuart has also drafted and become first signatory to an open letter calling for researchers to look beyond the goal of making AI merely more powerful. AI systems should do what we want them to do (Stuart Russell). Several researchers have voiced their concerns about keeping our options in place to be able to regulate AI at will. But the step is to integrate control and self restrictive thinking in the AI itself that scientists create. A well regulated AI with capabilities to reach dangerous locations and finish dangerous jobs will serve as a boon for human society where all regular to sharpest precision jobs will be automated. Although on the downside people may fear for loosing jobs and a much larger problem of erosion of skills that humans have learnt over generations, because they will have no work, eventually leading to each human being becoming obsolete. Should the machine fail, would a human have retained his skill to finish the same job. It is true that finer skills are lost for lack of practice but it is also true that humans can, by their nature never sit idle and would move on to learn and develop new skills. For example, with the advent of typewriters a new skill of typing came into being and that would be soon replaced by a new skill which would require fast conversion of ideas into language as typing becomes obsolete in light of speech recognition by AI. Job loss can be a temporary problem that would subside once the transition phase is over.
An article published in BBC focus magazine (issue 285 2016) emphasises an important direction in which technology is leading us today which is based on a fundamental characteristic of technology that it improves on its last. Technology only solves the problems it creates or even the ones that have existed before. For example London’s coffee industry creates 200000 tonnes of waste each year. Today we have modern technical know how of how to convert it into efficient biofuel and save substantial environmental damage while simultaneously having a renewable source of energy.
Conclusion
Technology has more benefits than disadvantages which are solely attributable to it. Most of the harms or negative modifications are a direct result of humans not responsibly using new technology. If one doesn’t know the best use of a fire, he will likely burn himself. One cannot blame the fire as the reason for injury and say the fire should never have been discovered or existed. Similarly where the aspects of something new are wrongly or insufficiently understood, harm or misadventure with the discovery is very likely. Therefore it is not appropriate to deny acceptance of a new thing in human lives which has direct evidence of making it safer and more beautiful. Technology will not harm our future as long as people are mature enough to understand its role and limit its use to the needs, it was created to satiate.
Works Cited
BBC focus magazine, issue 285
Chris Dixon, Business Insider, 18 Aug 2016
Elon Musk, http://www.lifescience.com
Magnus Jern, Chief Innovation Offcier DMI, https://medium.com/@magnusjern
Stuart Russell, http://www.edge.org/response-detail/26157 , 2015
Stuart Russel, Quanta Magazine 2016
