Home > Work > Here Be Dragons: Science, Technology and the Future of Humanity
1 " Since the notion of quality, as understood by [the Swedish Research Council], is supposed to ignore practical applicability, quality as the sole selection criterion means that we value the production of new knowledge and its own right, rather than just a means towards attaining other goals. I have long been – and still am – highly sympathetic to this romantic view of knowledge and intellectual achievements. To improve our understanding of the world we live in really is one of the most magnificent and worthy the goals of human activity one can think of. And yet, it is not the only worthy goal. A bright future for humanity, where everyone has the best possible prospects of leading a happy and prosperous life, and where such things as poverty, pain and misery are reduced to a minimum, seems like another goal worth striving for, at least as important as the quest for ever-increasing knowledge. "
― , Here Be Dragons: Science, Technology and the Future of Humanity
2 " We urgently need to find ways to push scientific and technological progress in directions that are likely to bring us good, and away from those directions that spell doom. This cannot be done if we stick to the erroneous view that all such progress is good for us. The first thing we need is to be able to distinguish those advances whose potential is most in the direction of prosperity and human flourishing from those whose potential is more in the direction of destruction and doom, and we need to find safe ways to handle those technologies that come with elements of both. Our ability to do so today is very limited, my ambition with this book is to draw attention to the problem, so that we can work together to improve, and avoid running blindfolded at full speed into a dangerous future. "
3 " But there is a huge difference between, on one hand, admitting that there severe difficulties, and, on the other, throwing our hands in the air and fatalistically declaring the problem to be unsolvable. We don't know that they are in solvable until we tried, and tried really hard. Given the magnitude of what's at stake, just giving up on the problem is in my opinion unacceptable. The extent to which we are currently neglecting the problem is shocking. Nick Bostrom, in a recent paper, illustrates this with a diagram showing how the number of academic publications on snowboarding outnumbers those on risks of human extinction by a factor of 20 or so, while those on dung beetles beat those on snowboarding by another factor of 2. This should not be taken as a suggestion that too much effort is spent on academic studies of snowboarding and dung beetles, but rather as an indication that current efforts into the study of existential risks to humanity could easily be significantly scaled up without major destruction to the current academic landscape as a whole. "
4 " But there is a huge difference between, on one hand, admitting that there are severe difficulties, and, on the other, throwing our hands in the air and fatalistically declaring the problem to be unsolvable. We don't know that they are in solvable until we tried, and tried really hard. Given the magnitude of what's at stake, just giving up on the problem is in my opinion unacceptable. The extent to which we are currently neglecting the problem is shocking. Nick Bostrom, in a recent paper, illustrates this with a diagram showing how the number of academic publications on snowboarding outnumbers those on risks of human extinction by a factor of 20 or so, while those on dung beetles beat those on snowboarding by another factor of 2. This should not be taken as a suggestion that too much effort is spent on academic studies of snowboarding and dung beetles, but rather as an indication that current efforts into the study of existential risks to humanity could easily be significantly scaled up without major destruction to the current academic landscape as a whole. "
5 " No science and no analysis of the future consequences of various actions taken today can in itself tell us what to do. We need, in addition, to factor in what kind of future we value, and to what extent we care at all about the future compared to more immediate concerns here and now. The later aspect is usually modeled and economics by the so-called discount rate, which has played a prominent role in discussions of climate change on a decadal and centennial time scale, but hardly at all in the context of longer perspectives or the various radical technologies[.] We are less used to thinking about ethical issues on long time scales, so our intuitions trying to fail us and lead to paradoxes. These issues need to be resolved, because dodging the bullet would in my opinion be unacceptably irresponsible. "
