The new reading, "Why the Future does not need us" is one about the dangers of human's advancements in technology. Joy's thesis is that with the current rapid rate of improvements in technology and science, humanity could be in danger. He suggests that robots could easily take control over human beings, or that human beings will become useless, and therefore go into extinction. Joy offers only a couple of solutions to this pressing problem. One is for humans, especially scientists, to become aware of this threat before it is too late and nothing can be done to change anything.
Both Huxley and Orwell would agree that the future can be very dangerous and bleak for the human race if action is not taken right now. Huxley, in his novel BNW, also warns against the threat that advancing science may cause. In BNW Huxley uses tragedy to show that the genetic manipulation and control may result in the end of humanity, just as Joy suggests. In an intriguing conversation between the two like minds, they would very likely discuss the faults of humans, their science, and their dependence on science. Such a conversation would be very interesting since the subjects are so closely related. However, Joy only refers to genetic science in a general sense, while Huxely's entire novel is based on the dangers of genetics. So, Huxely would agree with a lot of what Joy explains in this article, but he would probably stress the genetics problem as being more important than the possible overrun of the human race by robots.
Joy is not a fear monger, but a concerned person for the future. True, he does seem very enthusiastically afraid of what could occur centuries from now, but this is just what he happens to be passionate about.
Joy uses the first person throughout the story, making it seem more of an informed stream of conciousness. It is as if he is writing to a friend of his thoughts. This approach makes the piece much less formal and takes away from the credidentials of it. Joy spent a lot of time off task describing his accomplishments, which delude from the impact of the story as well. In all, this article had very good ideas, but if it was executed in a more formal way then the impact would have been much stronger and would have had an easier time convincing the reader of the problem's urgency.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment