This is part of IEEE Spectrum's SPECIAL
REPORT: THE SINGULARITY
Take the idea
of exponential technological growth, work it through to
its logical conclusion, and there you have the
singularity. Its bold incredibility pushes aside
incredulity, as it challenges us to confront all the
things we thought could never come true—the creation of
superintelligent, conscious organisms, nanorobots that
can swim in our bloodstreams and fix what ails us, and
direct communication from mind to mind. And the pièce de
résistance: a posthuman existence of disembodied
uploaded minds, living on indefinitely without fear,
sickness, or want in a virtual paradise ingeniously
designed to delight, thrill, and stimulate.
This vision argues that machines will become conscious
and then perfect themselves, as described elsewhere in
this issue. Yet for all its show of tough-minded
audacity, the argument is shot through with sloppy
reasoning, wishful thinking, and irresponsibility.
Infatuated with statistics and seduced by the power of
extrapolation, singularitarians abduct the moral
imagination into a speculative no-man’s-land. To be
sure, they are hardly the first to spread fanciful
technological prophecies, but among enthusiasts and
doomsayers alike their proposition enjoys an
inexplicable popularity. Perhaps the real question is
how they have gotten away with it.
The trouble
begins with the singularitarians’ assumption
that . I’d argue that I have
seen less technological progress than my parents did,
let alone my grandparents. Born in 1956, I can testify
primarily to the development of the information age,
fueled by the doubling of computing power every 18 to 24
months, as described by Moore’s Law. The birth-control
pill and other reproductive technologies have had an
equally profound impact, on the culture if not the
economy, but they are not developing at an accelerating
speed. Beyond that, I saw men walk on the moon, with
little to come of it, and I am surrounded by bio- and
nanotechnologies that so far haven’t affected my life at
all. Medical research has developed treatments that make
a difference in our lives, particularly at the end of
them. But despite daily announcements of one
breakthrough or another, morbidity and mortality from
cancer and stroke continue practically unabated, even in
developed countries.
Now consider the life of someone who was born in the
1880s and died in the 1960s—my grandmother, for
instance. She witnessed the introduction of electric
light and telephones, of automobiles and airplanes, the
atomic bomb and nuclear power, vacuum electronics and
semiconductor electronics, plastics and the computer,
most vaccines and all antibiotics. All of those things
mattered greatly in human terms, as can be seen in a
single statistic: child mortality in industrialized
countries dropped by 80 percent in those years.
So on what do intelligent people base the idea that
technological progress is moving faster than ever
before? It’s simple: a chart of productivity from the
dawn of humanity to the present day. It shows a line
that inclines very gradually until around 1750, when it
suddenly shoots almost straight up.
But that’s hardly surprising. Since around 1750 the
world has witnessed the spread of an economic system, by
the name of capitalism, that is predicated on economic
growth. And how the economy has grown since then! But
surely the creation of new markets and the increasingly
fine division of labor cannot be equated with
technological progress, as every consumer knows.
|
|
Age of Invention: Technological optimists maintain that the
impact of innovation on our lives is increasing,
but the evidence goes the other way. The
author’s grand mother [see photo] lived from the
1880s through the 1960s and witnessed the
adoption of electricity, phonographs,
telephones, radio, television, airplanes,
antibiotics, vacuum tubes, transistors, and the
automobile. In 1924 she became one of the first
in her neighborhood to own a car. The author
contends that the inventions unveiled in his own
lifetime have made a far smaller difference.
Technological optimists maintain that the
impact of innovation on our lives is increasing,
but the evidence goes the other way. The
author’s grand mother [see photo] lived from the
1880s through the 1960s and witnessed the
adoption of electricity, phonographs,
telephones, radio, television, airplanes,
antibiotics, vacuum tubes, transistors, and the
automobile. In 1924 she became one of the first
in her neighborhood to own a car. The author
contends that the inventions unveiled in his own
lifetime have made a far smaller difference.
Click
here for a large version of this timeline
[PDF format].
|