WHY THE FUTURE DOESN’T NEED US

Bill Joy is an American computer scientist who has performed early development work and has
invented much in technology. In his article “Why the Future Does Not Need Us”, he argues on how
technology has changed many things thus endangering human beings’ capability. The paper will
discuss the argument of Bill Joy’s article on technology.
According to Bill Joy’s essay, the greatest fear is that the technology is changing very fast with the
invention of intelligent robots, genetic engineering, and nanotechnology. Therefore, the work of
human beings in many sectors has become minimal. It is because the invented machines work
better compared to human beings. Eventually, if we continue to use machines, less human labor will
be needed. This argument is based on the information that machines are better in giving results
once allowed to make decisions in comparison with human beings.
The utmost challenge is that if the equipment is allowed to make all decisions, human beings will not be
able to cope and be reliable without them. Upon reaching the stage, there is a possibility that at some
point the system to keep the machine going will be needed or upgraded. That might be so difficult that
human beings will not be able to make such decisions since they will require a higher level of intelligence.
However, if that is the case, machines will take a total control (Khushf 31). His major concern was that
when these machines take a full control, people’s existence will become scarce. That is why he
suggested that we, human beings, either minimize the use of technology or completely abandon it to
prevent the occurrence of such unknown disasters.

Bill Joy had based this argument on the knowledge he had gained since he started his journey of
inventing new technology. He has also borrowed some passages from the well-¬ known influential
scientists who contributed to the development of technology. He has quoted passages from the
people including Ray Kurzweil, Hans Moravec', and Arthur C. Clarke just to mention but a few. All
these writers were concerned with the invention of machines that were at some point going to take
over human thinking. Quoting relevant passages from these authors supported Joy’s argument and
vision of the end of human errors and a takeover by machines. That gives his arguments meaning
given that the dispute has not been seen as someone’s unrealistic thoughts.
The author further tries to support his argument by citing two examples; one is where he compares
species that existed in North and South America and were separated only by a sunken Panama
isthmus. Over time, species from the North America whose nervous system, rate of production, and
metabolism were more developed took over the less developed forms of the southern America
species to almost eliminating them. This is a case he used to affirm his argument that biological
species can never survive the most upcoming superior competitors just like the old technology
cannot be able to survive the new upgraded one (Khushf 32). He also tried to compare the
technologies used in making weapons in the 20th and 21st centuries. In the 20th century, people
resorted to nuclear, biological, chemical weapon, and the weapons used in the 21st century include
genetics, nanotechnology, and robotics. Developing nuclear weapons in the 20th century required
the protection of information and the raw materials needed were difficult to find. However, the
machines were very powerful and helpful in difficult activities. Compared to the 21st century
technological weapons, the differences between the weapons are apparent. The raw materials for
the 21st century weapons are readily available as compared to the 21st century. You only need to
know how to run them. Besides, they do not require great facilities to work and, above all, they are
very powerful. It is also clear that genetic engineering may before long develop available treatments
though not necessarily an absolute cure for a good number of diseases; also, many problems are
addressed by both nanomedicine and nanotechnology. Generally, they can drastically increase our
average life span and improve our lives. However, with each of these technologies, the influence of
small individual reasonable advances leads to an increase of grand power.
In conclusion, I am concerned rather than optimistic about the further advancement of the technology. In
that case, if the situation is not taken into consideration and we continue to follow the route of new
inventions, human power or energy will at some point be minimally required. However, I disagree with the
author in his view that human beings can be completely substituted with the machines. It is because they
require human involvement for them to operate. In the first place, they were created by human brains;
therefore, their existence is simply broadening human brains that results in more precise decision-
making. Secondly, these machines will require to be upgraded by the human beings.