 |
Does this new technology come with its own problems?
|
| Of course, if I was describing this vision of rapid human advancement at a dinner party, glass in hand, I would have been pulled up long ago. Firstly with incredulity at these technologies coming to pass so rapidly. Then with shock and fear of the perceived negative sides. So what could be the negatives and moral questions? And why am I confident that the H+ movement contains within itself the right ingredients to adapt and face these challenges? |
 |
|
Although I cannot tackle every issue that these future visions address, other thinkers from the H+ field have. Since the 1980's, they have engaged with and provided solutions to the many challenges that future technologies will bring. Only now are some of those thinkers being belatedly listened to, like Oxford’s Future of Humanity Institute’s director Nick Bostrom, but will this good work be drowned out? Or will the bio-Luddites and a coalition of the religious right and misinformed green campaigners control the debate? |
|
|
If governments are late in preparing for our future, what about the general public? That of course depends largely on where you are in the world. Japan and Korea have a technology-loving and aware public. North America and Europe mainly consider most of these technologies to be far flung sci-fi. Most of us have grown up on a diet of Hollywood-fuelled fear of your computer suddenly waking up and either squashing you like an ant or turning you into its well fed pet or slave. |
 |
What of the fear that these technologies could be used for social control (Big Brother states) or leveraging even greater military superiority? Could a government encourage the banning of these new technologies, whilst in the background military research continues unchecked? As we stand today, the H+ movement is largely ill-prepared to deal with the media. If the issues are distorted for whatever reason, then banning or technological slow-downs might become law. Those seeking to ban research or turn back the clock would only succeed in banning the cure along with the technology. Underground or state-sponsored research will carry on regardless and without integrated defence the consequences are unthinkable. All new technology includes risk and these new technologies are certainly no different. I see this movement as being the only one seriously considering how to implement and at the same time, safeguard these advances. |
 |
|
What about our morals? Should we improve ourselves beyond the limitations of our current genetics? Then again, should we have used vaccinations to protect ourselves from disease, should we eat a healthy diet to live longer? I imagine that our ancestors may have considered it an attempt to cheat God by using our 20th Century medicine. These 21st Century technologies will certainly carry out our wish to live a healthy and long life. I cannot see this as wrong, but I can see that it will provide a challenge for our modern societies to come to terms with. Artists are both critical thinkers and mediators and these issues will be the hot topics of the next decade. Your help is greatly needed to push forward. I realise it takes a while to fully absorb the various sides of the debate but I hope you will see that this important and exciting stage of history really needs your input. Yours Sincerely Russell Rukin |
|
LINKS PAGE lists
H+ webpages on the internet for further reading
|
 |
|
Links to
other pages on the net that |
||
| The World’s Most Dangerous Idea? | ||
| Neo-luddism wiki |
 |
©
Copyright 2006, Hplusart.org. All Rights Reserved
|