Comments on: MIT’s Dertouzos replies to Bill Joy http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=264 examining transformative technology Wed, 03 Apr 2013 18:23:47 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.4 By: redbird http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=264#comment-671 redbird Wed, 25 Oct 2000 00:27:16 +0000 http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=264#comment-671 <p><strong>Huh?</strong></p> <p>What does this response have to do with Joy's article? Joy wrote about how the future was going to be a dystopia and the only way to stop it would be to stop technology, since the status quo can't get anyworse (actually, it can (e.g. social security, if it continues as it has, will get worse as time progresses), but this is Joy's logic). This guy writes about having faith (as in lets forget about reason and just trust that everything is going to aokay) and that whatever happens, happens, so there is no way to stop it. This guy just goes on like Joy does, making little sense, only he has different ideas than Joy.</p> Huh?

What does this response have to do with Joy's article? Joy wrote about how the future was going to be a dystopia and the only way to stop it would be to stop technology, since the status quo can't get anyworse (actually, it can (e.g. social security, if it continues as it has, will get worse as time progresses), but this is Joy's logic). This guy writes about having faith (as in lets forget about reason and just trust that everything is going to aokay) and that whatever happens, happens, so there is no way to stop it. This guy just goes on like Joy does, making little sense, only he has different ideas than Joy.

]]> By: PatGratton http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=264#comment-670 PatGratton Tue, 24 Oct 2000 02:01:40 +0000 http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=264#comment-670 <p><strong>Faith in Technology</strong></p> <p>I've heard the phrase "faith in technology" before, but never have I seen it so explicitly espoused. Excerpts:</p> <ul> <li>"Not by Reason Alone" (Title)</li> <li>"...it is not fashionable to pay attention to forces outside reason. We should reconsider."</li> <li>"Let us have faith in ourselves, our fellow human beings and our universe."</li> </ul> <p>This is clear advocacy of irrationality.</p> <p>If you ignore the faith-in-technology message, then you're left with his denial of our ability to predict the future, <em>What troubles me with this argument [Bill Joy's argument for relinquishment] is the arrogant notion that human logic can anticipate the effects of intended or unintended acts, and the more arrogant notion that human reasoning can determine the course of the universe.</em> He offers no real argument for this claim aside from some made up assertions about earlier predictions about technology (whoever claimed that that radar would only be used for military applications?).</p> <p>This denial in our ability to predict the future is strangely at odds with faith in technology - perhaps he means <em>We can't predict the future, but whatever we do will turn out well.</em> But that would be inconsistent with his decision not to fly with a particular aircraft carrier because of their lousy safety record (surely this is an arrogant use of human logic to anticipate the effects of intended or unintended acts). I really can't tell what he means here - he seems quite inconsistent.</p> <p>Whatever is being said here, it's not useful to either side of the argument over relinquishment.</p> Faith in Technology

I've heard the phrase "faith in technology" before, but never have I seen it so explicitly espoused. Excerpts:

  • "Not by Reason Alone" (Title)
  • "…it is not fashionable to pay attention to forces outside reason. We should reconsider."
  • "Let us have faith in ourselves, our fellow human beings and our universe."

This is clear advocacy of irrationality.

If you ignore the faith-in-technology message, then you're left with his denial of our ability to predict the future, What troubles me with this argument [Bill Joy's argument for relinquishment] is the arrogant notion that human logic can anticipate the effects of intended or unintended acts, and the more arrogant notion that human reasoning can determine the course of the universe. He offers no real argument for this claim aside from some made up assertions about earlier predictions about technology (whoever claimed that that radar would only be used for military applications?).

This denial in our ability to predict the future is strangely at odds with faith in technology – perhaps he means We can't predict the future, but whatever we do will turn out well. But that would be inconsistent with his decision not to fly with a particular aircraft carrier because of their lousy safety record (surely this is an arrogant use of human logic to anticipate the effects of intended or unintended acts). I really can't tell what he means here – he seems quite inconsistent.

Whatever is being said here, it's not useful to either side of the argument over relinquishment.

]]>