The Technological Reformation
When "Can We?" Becomes "Should We?"
This began as a science-fiction question. It became something else.
I have been working, off and on, on a science-fiction story. It's set far enough into the future that one of the real challenges of writing it is imagining what technology might realistically exist by then.
That's harder than it sounds.
Try imagining the world 150 years from now. Now consider how difficult it would have been for someone living in 1875 to imagine our world today — not just our machines, but computers, satellites, nuclear weapons, genetic engineering, instantaneous global communication, artificial intelligence, and the enormous technological infrastructure underlying everyday life.
Now consider that technological development appears to be accelerating.
While thinking about what technology might exist in the universe of Horizon Lost, I found myself asking a different question. Not:
What will humanity be capable of doing?
But:
Will humanity be able to keep pace with everything it becomes capable of doing?
That question has stayed with me. And it led me to an idea I've begun thinking of as a Technological Reformation.
I don't know whether such a thing will ever happen, and I'm not proposing a particular regulatory system or arguing that technological development should stop. Quite the opposite — technology has enormously improved human life, and continued development will almost certainly be necessary to address many of the challenges humanity faces.
But perhaps another question increasingly needs to accompany it:
Just because we can do something, does that mean we should?
When Capability Changed
Human beings have always developed technology. We learned to control fire, cultivate crops, construct buildings, make tools, harness animals, navigate oceans, and eventually harness steam and electricity.
For most of human history, technological advancement meant expanding relatively limited human capabilities.
Then something changed. Technology began giving humanity capabilities whose consequences were no longer merely local, or even national, but potentially civilizational.
Perhaps the clearest example is nuclear weapons.
On July 16, 1945, the Manhattan Project detonated the world's first nuclear device during the Trinity test in New Mexico. Humanity had demonstrated that it could release nuclear energy in a weapon of previously unimaginable destructive power.
The scientific achievement was extraordinary. So were the implications.
Within weeks, atomic bombs had been used against Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The world entered an era in which humanity possessed, for the first time, weapons capable of destruction on a scale that fundamentally changed warfare — and eventually made the possibility of civilization-ending conflict conceivable.
We had discovered something remarkable. And almost immediately we faced another problem: how do we control what we've discovered?
That distinction interests me. The science came first. The capability came next. The struggle to govern the consequences followed.
In other words: capability preceded governance.
For nuclear weapons, humanity subsequently developed treaties, command structures, deterrence strategies, monitoring systems, nonproliferation efforts, and elaborate safeguards. Much of that infrastructure exists precisely because we understand how consequential their use could be. We created an extraordinary capability — and then spent generations trying to make certain we could live with it.
That may have been an early glimpse of a much larger problem.
Jurassic Park Wasn't Really About Dinosaurs
Michael Crichton explored a similar idea brilliantly in Jurassic Park.
Dinosaurs make the story entertaining, but the deeper subject is technological power, and the human confidence that we can control complex systems simply because we've acquired the ability to manipulate them.
The scientists of Jurassic Park accomplish something astonishing: they bring extinct animals back to life. The question Crichton forces on the reader isn't whether that accomplishment is impressive. Of course it is. The question is whether possessing the ability to do something is sufficient reason for actually doing it. The novel keeps returning to the same challenge — that sophisticated technology doesn't necessarily bring sophisticated understanding, or control.
That question seems considerably less fictional today.
We can manipulate genes. We can alter characteristics of pathogens. We're developing increasingly capable artificial intelligence. We can build autonomous weapons. We're considering technologies capable of deliberately influencing planetary climate systems. We may eventually alter human heredity, substantially extend human life, connect human cognition directly to machines, engineer new organisms, or develop technologies we can't yet imagine.
Some of these developments may produce tremendous benefits. Some may prove essential. But increasingly, the question may not simply be can we do it?
It may also need to be: should we?
And perhaps just as importantly: should we do it yet?
The Problem May Be Speed
This is where my original science-fiction question became something more interesting to me.
The danger may not be technological advancement itself. It may be the rate of technological advancement.
Human civilization requires time to adapt. Laws take time to develop. Institutions take time to change. Courts need time to establish precedent. Educational systems need time to adjust. Markets need time to respond. Cultural norms take generations to evolve. Environmental consequences sometimes take decades to become apparent. And human beings themselves need time to understand how new technologies affect our work, relationships, communities, expectations, and sense of purpose.
Technology doesn't necessarily operate on that timetable.
Software can spread globally almost instantly. Artificial intelligence systems can reach hundreds of millions of people extraordinarily quickly. Scientific knowledge can move around the planet at the speed of a network connection. And one technological advancement can accelerate another — artificial intelligence may accelerate biotechnology, advanced computing may accelerate materials science, automation may accelerate manufacturing. One breakthrough increasingly becomes the tool used to create the next one.
Eventually we may face an important mismatch: the rate at which humanity can create technological change may exceed the rate at which humanity can safely absorb it.
That possibility, more than technology itself, is what interests me.
A Civilization Has Limits Too
In environmental science we understand the concept of carrying capacity — an ecosystem can absorb change, but not unlimited change at unlimited speed.
Perhaps civilization has something analogous. Call it, for the sake of discussion, a Societal Technological Carrying Capacity: the amount and rate of technological change a society can absorb without exceeding its institutional, cultural, psychological, environmental, and governance capacity to adapt.
I don't pretend such a thing could be precisely calculated. It's a thought experiment. But consider it.
Suppose a new technology is relatively safe in isolation. Then another arrives. Then another. Artificial intelligence transforms employment and information while biotechnology transforms medicine, automation transforms production, autonomous systems transform warfare, and new energy technologies transform infrastructure.
Each may be beneficial. Each may be manageable. But society isn't adapting to them individually. It's adapting to all of them at once.
At what point does the cumulative rate of change become part of the risk itself?
I don't know. But I think it's a question worth asking.
The Technological Reformation
This brings me to what I mean by a Technological Reformation.
I'm not describing a rejection of technology, or advocating stagnation, and I'm certainly not suggesting governments should simply decide what humanity is permitted to discover. History gives us plenty of reasons to be cautious about that idea too.
Rather, I'm wondering whether humanity might eventually undergo a cultural and philosophical shift in how we understand technological progress.
For much of modern history, technological advancement has carried an almost implicit assumption: if something can be invented, someone eventually will invent it — and usually someone will attempt to commercialize, weaponize, or otherwise deploy it.
Perhaps at some point humanity begins questioning that assumption. Not because we've become frightened of technology, but because technology has become powerful enough that responsible progress requires something more than capability.
A Technological Reformation, as I'm imagining it, would be a gradual cultural, philosophical, and perhaps eventually legal transformation in which humanity begins treating technological development as something requiring deliberate stewardship.
The question changes from how quickly can we develop this? to how quickly can we responsibly develop this?
From is this possible? to is this necessary, beneficial, and reasonably controllable?
And ultimately from can we? to should we?
But Who Decides?
This immediately creates problems of its own.
Who determines what technological risks are acceptable? Governments? Scientists? Corporations? International institutions? The public?
What happens when one nation exercises restraint and another doesn't? What happens when preventing research creates its own danger, because an adversary may continue that research anyway? What happens when potentially dangerous research could also cure disease, prevent famine, or solve an environmental problem? How much risk should humanity accept in exchange for progress?
And perhaps most troubling: does humanity ever have the right to decide that certain knowledge shouldn't be pursued at all?
I don't have answers to those questions. In fact, I distrust anyone who claims to. The purpose of this Thought Project isn't to propose a system. It's to consider whether the questions themselves may be becoming more important.
Perhaps Progress Needs Another Measure
For centuries we've largely measured technological progress by increasing capability. Faster. Farther. Smaller. Larger. More powerful. More efficient. More intelligent. More connected.
Those are legitimate measures of advancement. But perhaps a technologically mature civilization eventually develops another: wisdom.
Not wisdom in some mystical sense. Simply the maturity to recognize that possessing a capability and exercising it are two different decisions.
There may be technologies we should enthusiastically pursue. Others we should pursue cautiously. Some we should delay until we understand them better. And perhaps there are things humanity will eventually become capable of doing that we collectively decide we simply shouldn't do.
I don't know whether humanity will ever experience anything resembling the Technological Reformation I'm imagining. Perhaps technological advancement will continue largely as it does today. Perhaps market forces, existing institutions, and ordinary regulation will prove perfectly capable of managing whatever comes next. Perhaps my concern is misplaced.
But when I consider the extraordinary technological capabilities humanity has acquired in only the last century — and then try to imagine another century of accelerating development — I find the question increasingly difficult to dismiss.
The great technological question of the past was: what can humanity learn to do?
Perhaps one of the great questions of the future will be: what should humanity choose to do with everything it has learned?
And perhaps the next great advancement in technological civilization won't be another machine, another algorithm, or another scientific breakthrough. Perhaps it will be the development of the wisdom necessary to decide when to proceed — and when not to.
That is the idea I mean by a Technological Reformation.
~ Eric
Find Part Two <here>
Comments