In many ways, we are today reaching a critical juncture in the history of our species. We have seen more progress (technologically, politically, and socially) in the last few hundred years alone than in most of the rest of human history. Are we reaching a period of exponential growth — a point of no return? What does this unprecedented progress mean for our future?
In his book The Singularity Is Near, Author Ray Kurzweil popularizes the idea of a so-called Techological Singularity — a theorized time during which technological and scientific progress reaches a point of exponential growth, and accelerates beyond our capacity to predict it. Critics have called the singularity a blind application of statistics, and have made the point that this may well be a problem too complicated — with far too many contributing factors — to be modeled mathematically.
The recent rapid acceleration of progress (technological and otherwise) has been attributed mainly to a few key paradigm shifts — The Italian renaissance, the Industrial Revolution, etc. — but just as important in this discussion are the ramifications of the paradigm shifts that may be borne out of this ‘singularity.’
As scientific progress advances at an ever-increasing rate, will society’s perturbation with it do the same? For the sake of an example, let’s look at the recent debate over stem cell research. President Bush, as one of his first acts in office, made illegal any government funding earmarked for the production or perpetuation of embryonic stem cell lines.
This delivered a great blow to an area of research that shows much promise in curing many diseases, and potentially saving millions of lives. The reason for this, essentially, is that the President was concerned about the destruction of potential human life (a group of ~100 cells in a petry dish). Since then, he has thwarted (by means of a veto) several similar attempts to pass what seem to be wholly reasonable bills through congress.
Why?
Part of the blame can be placed on politicians and the mainstream media for their blatant misrepresentation (whether intentional or not) of the implications of stem cell research, and what it entails. It can also be explained, however, by the inability of our cultural institutions (religious, moral, etc.) to keep up with scientific progress. This problem will likely be exacerbated as more misunderstandings arise from the ever-widening chasm between scientific and social progress.
The emerging field of bioethics attempts to address some of these problems. As biotechnology such as genetically modified crops become more and more commonplace, it has become necessary to look the ethical dilemmas that sometimes arise through the lens of the scientific outlook. Scientists must play a central role in such debates — shedding light on complicated topics that may otherwise be used simply as pornography for political masturbation.
Beyond the debate surrounding stem cells, there is the issue of nuclear arms. In an age when the total annihilation of the human race is so readily within our grasp, it seems to me deeply troubling that there exist today groups of people who, if given the opportunity, would gladly initiate a nuclear conflict with the United States.
It is for this reason that Radical Islam poses an immediate and very real threat to the human species as a whole. Not only do the ideologues of the Muslim world harbour a fervent hatred for the country with the world’s largest stockpile of nuclear weapons, but they also — because of their religious beliefs — do not fear retaliation. According to the Qur’an, any Muslim who dies in battle with the infidels is given the status of shahid (martyr), who in the paradise will receive 72 virgins and a special place next to Allah.
And so we are at a crossroads. We can either use our technology to improve life and advance the species, or, as Carl Sagan put it, “squander our 15 billion year heritage in meaningless self-destruction.”
Are we on the shore of a vast ocean of prosperity — a world free from hunger, disease, and oppression — or the brink of something much, much worse?
Only time will tell.
