

When should we consider the long-term ramifications of technological developments? - robg
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/12/science/12ethics.html?8dpc=&pagewanted=all

======
stcredzero
Always, but we should also be realistic. We're going to be wrong about this
stuff again and again.

Technology itself is something of an exponential process. Basically, we're
fuel in a kind of conflagration. If we care about the survival of our species,
we need to get off this planet. Right now, we're all in the same basket. The
biosphere links us all together in ways that are way too complex for a human
being to comprehend. The only sensible engineering solution involves
decoupling and redundancy.

~~~
cousin_it
How about colonizing the north of Russia or Canada, the ice caps, the deserts,
the oceans? All those are much easier than space, and more useful.

Humanity hasn't had an outward frontier since the initial spread. The real
frontier is technological and faces inward (Moore's law). The engineering
solution is refactoring away the bloat of our bodies, when all we need is the
minds. Become smaller, become faster, amplify intelligence, virtualize. This
universe is cold, lifeless and slow - let's find a new universe in every atom,
that's much more interesting.

</wild-speculation>

~~~
stcredzero
We've already seen how the ice caps are coupled to the rest of the world.

Femtotech is a dandy idea, but still speculation. We know colonizing space is
technically feasible. Once we're there, we know there can be a self sustaining
economy. The problem is getting there with one.

~~~
robg
Serious question: How do "we know there can be a self sustaining economy"?

~~~
stcredzero
We have good reason to suspect that we can grow food and have access to all of
the materials we need out there to build an industrial infrastructure.

------
jackchristopher
Now.

It's too easy to write this off. And you're called a nutter if you argue that
anything bigger _could_ happen soon.

And technology seems to be accelerating, but whether it is, or not, we should
_at least_ err on the side of caution, and have some formal way we integrate
new things into society.

Whether it will be a force for good, or ill depends on man.

------
anamax
> And technology seems to be accelerating, but whether it is, or not, we
> should at least err on the side of caution, and have some formal way we
> integrate new things into society.

How big an error is acceptable?

It's unclear why the arguments in favor are any stronger today than they were,
say, 1000 years ago. If we'd "err'd on the side of caution" then, where would
we be?

What is the actual track record of folks who think that they should have a
veto?

------
baz
I think our technologicies are advancing at a much faster rate than our
collective inner wisdom and interpersonal relationships. Without much greater
attention paid to this aspect of our lives, it appears evident that our
technologies (however wonderful) will become truly awe-full and unfortunately
be used to place great portions (if not all) of our species at significant
risk for survival.

------
gaius
_Engineers, scientists, philosophers, ethicists and lawyers are taking up the
issue_

Seriously, what? Are the lawyers planning to sue the climate for changing? Are
the philosophers planning to convince the planet otherwise through pure
rhetoric? Non-practitioners have nothing to contribute to this discussion.

------
pongle
I have yet to see a viable business model for any geoengineering company, but
when one does come along it will definitely be Interesting Times.

~~~
MaysonL
Government subsidy.

~~~
pongle
Governments probably aren't going to get their act together for a while, and
when they do they are at least reasonably accountable to the populous.

Perhaps if the geoengineering is part of a miltiary, farming or energy
offering, but otherwise I doubt they will get long-term subsidy...

EDIT: add "in my opinion" to all of the above :)

