FM-AA-CIA-15 Rev.

0 10-July-2020

Study Guide in GE 6: Science, Technology, and Society Module No. 9

STUDY GUIDE FOR MODULE NO. 9

WHY THE FUTURE DOES NOT NEED US

MODULE OVERVIEW

In this Module, we will look into dangers that could humanity could experience when science and
technology is unchecked by society’s standards. We will primarily draw from the views of Bill Joy, then Chief
Scientist at Sun Microsystems, as expressed in his article entitled Why the Future Does Not Need Us? in the
April 2000 issue of Wired magazine regarding new technologies and the issues that revolve around themWe
hope that we could answer the question of the title of his article and articulate why he thinks that the future
does not need us.

MODULE LEARNING OBJECTIVES

At the end of this Module, you must have achieved the following:
1. identified William Nelson Joy’s arguments as to why the future does not need us;
2. evaluated contemporary human experience in order to strengthen and enlighten the human person
functioning in society

LEARNING ACTIVITY 1

Have you watched futuristic movies, such as I, Robot, Ex Machina, AI, Gattaca, I Am Mother, and many
others. If you have, share the plot of your favorite movie of this type in class. Do you notice a recurring
theme in these movies?

Based from what you have watched and your personal beliefs, answer the following questions:
1. Is there a possibility for a future where humans will cease to exist and will be replaced by robots?
Why or why not?
2. Do you think technology can eventually take control of humanity?
3. Is there a possibility for a future where humans will cease to exist?
4. Do you think that this occurrence might be prevented? If so, how?

WHY THE FUTURE DOES NOT NEED US

In his article Why the Future Does Not Need Us?, Joy expressed his concerns on the emergence of
new technologies, their consequences, and their possible dangers. He said that because of the complexity of
our systems and our attitude towards science and technology that these problems may emerge. In particular,
he was concerned with three 21 st century technologies: genetic engineering, nanotechnology, and robotics
(GNR) (these technologies will be discussed in more detail as the course progresses). He recognized the
appeal of the developments of these new technologies and the promise that they bring humanity.

However, though the advantages of these technologies are undeniable, the dangers they present and
issues that they raise is also very concerning and alarming. They raise moral or ethical issues, safety
concerns, and they might be used to destroy humanity.

He cited the work of Theodore Kaczynski, entitled Unabomber Manifesto, to illustrate the dangers of
these technologies. In his work, he said that there are two possibilities that could occur when intelligent
machines that can eliminate human effort in doing work: either we let these machines do decisions or we
retain control. Either way, the result would be the same: the ending of humanity and the loss of the purpose
of life.

He asserted that biological species will lose against competition with new technologies. Gradually,
but eventually, new technologies will take over. Though new technologies have already been introduced
before, such as nuclear, biological, and chemical technologies, GNR is much more worrying. New
technologies can offer new types of accidents and abuses that can be accessed by small groups. He
asserted that we have not learned the lessons of the past, citing the creation and use of the atomic bomb and
its consequences as an example. He was worried to we could be in the same path, if not worse. He warned

PANGASINAN STATE UNIVERSITY 1

 FM-AA-CIA-15 Rev. 0 10-July-2020

Study Guide in GE 6: Science, Technology, and Society Module No. 9

of an impending arms race not against enemies that threaten our civilization bur against our wants and
desires.

Some solutions on these issues have been raised, such as leaving the planet and exploring other
possible places to inhabit or building shields to ward off dangerous technologies. However, he believed that
these solutions might create more moral problems in addition to being impractical and unrealistic in the
current time frame.

Though he said that seeking knowledge and pursuit of our dreams is good, if it will lead to danger, we
should think of restricting ourselves and reexamine our views. He referenced the Dalai Lama’s principle that it
is neither material things nor the gain of knowledge that will make us happy. He remained hopeful that the
discussion of these issues and our capacity to care will help us solve these issues.

To better understand the arguments that Joy presented, read the article Why the Future Does Not
Need Us? through the link https://www.wired.com/2000/04/joy-2/.

CRITICISMS ON JOY’S VIEWS

However, some have shown some crtiticisms on Joy’s views. In the article entitled A Response to Bill
Joy and the Doom-and-Gloom Technofuturists by John Seely Brown and Paul Duguid, they argued that
although new technologies needed to be contemplated thoroughly, technology and social systems shape
each other and that social systems have the capacity to direct these new technologies. For example, genetic
engineering, once regarded to be unstoppable in its development, had some issues because society has seen
its potential threats. Nanotechnology, on the other hand, has not been even been fully developed to pose any
threat. Even robots, according to them, cannot make decisions the same way that humans can in their
present state. Developments and advances in robotics, they argued, might not necessarily mean that they will
lead to a state that is similar to humans. Society may be able to plan ahead and respond to issues that new
technologies pose.

They basically argued that the extension of ideas made by Joy regarding the possible events that
might happen because of these technologies is too great a leap. Before getting to a point of danger, there will
be actions that society will take to prevent arriving at these grim destinations.

To better understand these arguments, read the article A Response to Bill Joy and the Doom-and-
Gloom Technofuturists through the link
http://nook.cs.ucdavis.edu/~koehl/Teaching/ECS188/Reprints/Response_to_BillJoy.pdf.

LEARNING ACTIVITY 2

Reflection

Reflect on the following questions:

1. Explain the positive and negative impacts of GNR technologies. What moral or ethical issues and
safety concerns do they pose?
2. We know by now that any technology may be dangerous. However, Joy was much more worried
about GNR technologies compared to other technologies. What were the reasons for these great
concerns?
3. Explain how we will lose our humanity and purpose of life whether we retain control of decision-
making or give this capability to technology.
4. Do you believe in the opinions of Joy? Why or why not?
5. What solutions can you propose as to not reach what he predicts might happen?
6. Some people accuse of Joy of being a neo-Luddite, something which he denied in his article. What is
a neo-Luddite? Based from Joy’s article, do you think that he is a neo-Luddite? Why or why not?

SUMMARY

The following learning points summarize what you have learned in this section:

PANGASINAN STATE UNIVERSITY 2

 FM-AA-CIA-15 Rev. 0 10-July-2020

Study Guide in GE 6: Science, Technology, and Society Module No. 9

 Bill Joy, the author of the article “Why the Future Doesn’t Need Us?”, discussed about how advance
technology could affect the human race. His views about the rapid progress of technology, specifically
GNR technologies, embody a negative relation between humanity and technologies.
 Critics of Joy believed that Joy showed only one part of the bigger picture. In this case it is
preeminently necessary that the scientific community, governments, and businesses engage in a
discussion to determine the safe guards of humans against the potential dangers of science and
technology.

REFERENCES

 Quinto, Edward Jay M. and Nieva, Aileen D. (2019). Science, Technology, and Society. pp 123-130.
Quezon City: C&E Publishing.
 Brown, J. S. and Duguid P. (2001). A Response to Bill Joy and the Doom-and-Gloom Technofuturist.
Retrieved from
http://nook.cs.ucdavis.edu/~koehl/Teaching/ECS188/Reprints/Response_to_BillJoy.pdf
 Joy, W. (2000, April 1) Why The Future Doesn’t Need Us. Wired. Retrieved from
https://www.wired.com/2000/04/joy-2/

PANGASINAN STATE UNIVERSITY 3