Centerblue.org

It is an unfortunate fact of life that politics and technology are often intertwined. While the scientific ideal may be that research and scientific breakthroughs should be allowed to occur unfettered by political considerations, the truth is that a lot of what is happening in the scientific community today is pushing up against the comfort zones of some religious conservatives, which immediately makes it a political issue.

Two widely known examples are stem cell research and cloning. Both of these technologies offer a huge amount of promise in curing problems that afflict the human condition, but some aspects of the technology currently rely on embryos. That puts the technology in the cross-hairs of the Religious Right, since in their view the use of embryos in such a manner is akin to murder. Never mind that the embryos being used were headed for a dumpster behind a fertility clinic anyway; they must think it better to stand on principle and let humanity suffer from ailments like paralysis or organ damage rather than use embryos that were destined for disposal anyway. Thankfully, most Americans don’t see the issue this way.

This is not all to say that emerging trends in science should not be subjected to an examination of its ethics. Writers and technologists like Ray Kurzweil predict an imminent acceleration of science in nanotechnology, biotechnology, and robotics that in just a few decades will fundamentally alter the very definition of what it means to be human. As described in his book, “The Singularity Is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology,” we are headed towards of a future of sentient computers, ever-lasting life, a clean environment, and a merging of humans with machines. Such a future is both exciting and frightening, but undoubtedly fraught with much ethical peril. Kurzweil himself admits that these emerging technologies could also be used to extinguish all life on the planet far more efficiently than anything available today.

The ethical question to ask, then, is what we should do with such dangerous technology–and whether its benefits outweigh its potential dangers. That’s a different question from asking whether the technology offends the religious sensibilities of some people, especially over as unanswerable a question as whether life begins at birth or at conception.

Bill Joy, the founder of Sun Microsystems, has nightmares about Kurzweil’s future, which caused him to write his seminal article in Wired titled “Why The Future Doesn’t Need Us.” He examined the probable end result of emerging technology and concluded that it is so dangerous that humanity should relinquish it:

These possibilities are all thus either undesirable or unachievable or both. The only realistic alternative I see is relinquishment: to limit development of the technologies that are too dangerous, by limiting our pursuit of certain kinds of knowledge…The new Pandora’s boxes of genetics, nanotechnology, and robotics are almost open, yet we seem hardly to have noticed. Ideas can’t be put back in a box; unlike uranium or plutonium, they don’t need to be mined and refined, and they can be freely copied. Once they are out, they are out. Churchill remarked, in a famous left-handed compliment, that the American people and their leaders “invariably do the right thing, after they have examined every other alternative.” In this case, however, we must act more presciently, as to do the right thing only at last may be to lose the chance to do it at all.

Relinquishment may or may not be a pipe dream–has humanity ever NOT researched a potential area of study? But at least Joy and people like him are asking the right questions: what are the implications of the technology for the human race and the planetary environment? Will the problems caused outweigh the potential benefits? Does the fact that industry rather than government will have control of these new technologies (unlike nuclear weapons) give greater cause for concern? Will we increase the divide between the “haves” and “have nots” because of the expense of adopting new technology?

Politicians are not competent to answer these questions, especially those driven by the religious beliefs of a few. They generally lack the background in philosophy, ethics, and technology required. Even if they attempt to control the technology’s development they are bound to fail and only end up harming their own constituencies. The only result of Bush’s ban on use of government funding on stem cell research using human embryos is that the United States is falling behind the curve compared to other nations who are continuing their research. Thankfully, privately funded efforts like the new Harvard Stem Cell Institute are filling some of the gap, but it is shameful that our government is not fully behind this important research.

The job of politicians is to understand the profound impact that new technology has on improving the economy and enhancing our standard of living, and to promote the education needed to maintain our technological edge in these fields. They should also implement safeguards against the known dangers of new technology, such as the FDA’s proposed regulation of nanotechnology materials. It is not their job to engage in grandstanding and adopt moral principles based on religious values not shared by all. Scientific communities like the Harvard Stem Cell Institute and the Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence are well aware of the ethical and philosophical implications of their work and are best suited to bringing the necessary experts together to devise ethical guidelines for other researchers to follow. A general consensus on the part of our citizens is also important–a solid majority of people approve of stem cell research, for example.

I’ll be writing about new advances in technology in this otherwise mostly-political blog, because I’m a strong believer in the power of technology to improve the human condition, the environment, and our economy. The rise of global competition makes it more important than ever that the US maintain its creative edge and scientific prowess. As such it is imperative that we understand what’s going on in scientific circles and pressure our politicians to facilitate rather than block these wonderful new technologies in a responsible manner, guarding the safety of humans and the environment with the minimum amount of regulation possible.

The Washington Post reports today that the large amounts of carbon dioxide humanity is spewing into the atmosphere is causing the acidification of the oceans as they interact with greater amounts of the gas. If left unmitigated it is likely that this process will decimate or destroy all of the world’s coral reefs and other organisms at the bottom of the ocean’s food chain by the end of the century, with attendant catastrophic consequences for all marine life.

To put the damage we’re doing in perspective, the negative effects we inflict on the world’s oceans in the next couple of decades will shape the direction of marine life (or non-life) for millions of years, according to the article.

It really angers me to read the perspectives of people like Robert J. Samuelson, who wrote a piece on global warming for the Washington Post today titled “Global Warming’s Real Inconvenient Truth.” His argument is essentially this: global warming is an engineering problem, not a moral problem. Nothing we do short of stopping most economic activity will eliminate global warming, it will at best reduce carbon emissions. Our only hope is advanced technology, perhaps something that will remove carbon from the atmosphere. In the meantime we might as well not do anything about it.

I disagree, Mr. Samuelson.

–When the melting of the glaciers threatens to submerge entire countries like the Maldives or the Netherlands, and threatens to displace hundreds of millions of people in places like Bangladesh, then global warming becomes a global moral problem.

–When millions of people (including eventually here in the United States but mostly in developing nations) go thirsty or hungry because the mountain glaciers that provide life-giving river waters disappear into nothingness, then that becomes a global moral problem.

–When we as a civilization believe in our arrogance that we have dominion over the entire world, to destroy as we please in the name of “progress” without due regard for a world devoid of life or a planet even capable of supporting us that will be inherited by our children, then that becomes a global moral problem.

–When the United States spews 30% of the world’s pollution but accounts for only 5% of its population, then that becomes a uniquely American moral problem.

–When irresponsible journalists try to convince the populace that it’s best to do nothing because anything we do “won’t matter”, then that is nothing short of moral bankruptcy.

The evidence is incontrovertible, and almost unanimously agreed to by the scientific community, that levels of CO2 unlike any seen on the planet for millions of years are threatening the foundations of our environment and consequently our own future as a species. When that is true, we have a moral obligation to do whatever is necessary to minimize the damage. We as Americans also have a moral obligation, especially in light of our profligate use of energy, to join other nations fighting the problem by becoming part of the Kyoto Protocol.

If all our efforts mean that only half as much damage might occur compared to sitting around and doing nothing but wasting the environment further, then I’ll take what we can get. Every little bit matters. Every little bit can mean the difference between life and extinction for the millions of species of animals and plants currently threatened by our activities.

I agree with Samuelson that technology MAY eventually provide a solution. Scientist/futurist Ray Kurzweil believes that emerging nanotechnology and its ability to create matter at the atomic level will turn carbon into a valuable commodity. As such we may eventually discover ways of literally sucking carbon out of the atmosphere, similar to the hope Samuelson expresses at the end of his piece. Such potential underscores why economic prosperity and environmentalism need not be mutually exclusive, as new industries and many jobs can be created when we directly or indirectly protect our environment.

A technological solution assumes, of course, that we haven’t already done so much damage that it’s beyond repair. Until that solution comes along we have a duty to do absolutely everything we can to keep the damage to an absolute minimum. Our children would demand no less when they inherit the planet we give them.