<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: A fine collection of essays on "the genie"
Review: "Living with the Genie" is an excellent, important, timely, thought provoking book on human's complex relationship with science and technology. As with any collection of essays, the quality level varies, with a few essays really standing out, although not one of them is bad. The main theme here is not pro-or anti-technology per se, but simply that rapid technological and scientific progress has huge implications for humans, so we'd better give the issue some serious thought. The overarching question, as alluded to by the title, is how we live with the "genie" of rapid technological change, now that it's out of the bottle.
Perhaps my favorite essay is the one by Richard Powers, which actually had me rather rattled. Even at the end of Powers' piece, I couldn't decide if what he described really happened to him, or if it was the basis for a new, Matrix-like sci-fi plot on Artificial Intelligence run amok. In addition to Powers, the chapter by Ray Kurzweil is also fascinating, although a bit repetitive if you've read Kurzweil's book, "The Age of Spiritual Machines." Still, Kurzweil's musings are fascinating, as he ponders whether or not the combination of robotics, biotechnology, and nanotech might be the doom of us all, or whether instead it might lead to a new age in which humans evolve into a hybrid man-machine species like the Borg in Star Trek.
Other chapters in the book present further riffs on various aspects of technology and science. D. Michelle Addington writes an intriguing, if somewhat confusing, chapter on one particular technology -- HVAC -- to illustrate how "our technological world is constructed by our beliefs and not necessarily by progress or science." Lori Andrews discusses genetic engineering of humans and a world in which "people may be treated as products." Gregor Wolbring contributes a well executed chapter on technology and the concept of "disability." Philip Kitcher discusses the types of science that "should be done." Christina Desser's chapter provides a literary meditation on technology and human "connectedness." Finally, Alan Lightman discusses the feeling that technology is intruding into the most private aspects of life, interfering even with the ability to think quietly, to "waste time," and to connect (that word again) with one's soul.
All in all, this is a fine collection of essays, well worth reading in today's world of tremendous technological promise -- and threat.
Rating: 
Summary: A collection of nervous viewpoints.
Review: Commentary on the future of science and technology is now very popular, and there have been dozens of books in recent years that are very supportive of it, and in fact engage in uncritical examination of its consequences. There are also those that criticize it vociferously, engaging in dialog and vituperation that go far beyond any standards of rational conduct. One could argue that both of these extreme views "balance each other out", but what is really needed in these books is a rational, critical view of science and technology that is supported by hard evidence, or when that is lacking, by appropriate models that shed more light on what might be coming in the future. The articles in this book are not quite as extreme as the usual ones that you find in the literature today, but all of them express varying degrees of anxiety about the future of technology that they do not really justify with any evidence or sound argumentation. In reading them one must of course not confuse the intent that the authors had for writing the articles with their content. Too often the knowledge (which is usually imputed) of the author's motivations gets in the way of an objective analysis of their works. It does not matter if the author's reasons for writing the article were to market their company, expand their careers, or to draw attention to themselves. All that matters is whether their ideas are substantiated by sound evidence or not. Space does not permit a detailed review of all the articles in the book, and so only two articles that this reviewer found most provocative will be discussed. One of them is the article "Promise and Peril" by Ray Kurzweil, who is certainly one of the most optimistic of all futurists. His ideas have been given ample discussion on his website, which many of us go to daily, and find it to be more uplifting than morning coffee. However optimistic his ideas, they need to eventually find more justification from a rigorous scientific point of view. Indeed, his claims on the feasibility of intelligent, self-replicating nanobot technology are completely unsubstantiated. He does quote some papers that are written by researchers that might on the surface offer some support to his assertions, but more is needed if decision-makers are going to input the financing to make this technology a reality. One method that Kurzweil could use is modeling, for when a field is in its youth, it is frequently advantageous to engage in modeling in order to assist one's intuition about what is possible. Physical and mathematical models could be constructed of the nanobot technology that would give more confidence in its feasibility. An example of this is given by the theory of molecular motors, wherein many models have been developed that illustrate their behavior, their thermodynamics, and other properties of interest. Such an approach would work well for the nanobot technology that Kurzweil insists will become a reality. Their use would certainly help his case for nanotechnology. In addition, Kurzweil claims that the hundreds of predictions he made in one of his early books have held up well, but a detailed listing of these is not given, unfortunately. Further, his prediction of the rise of machines that greatly exceed the intelligence of humans in the next few decades in unjustified. Indeed, in none of his works does he quantify his notion of intelligence, which would be needed in order to judge whether machine intelligence has indeed surpassed human intelligence. Is machine intelligence really increasing exponentially? If so, where is the data that shows this explicitly? What intelligence tests exist that will provide a quantitative measure of machine intelligence? Another interesting article is the one entitled "The World Is Too Much With Me" by Alan Lightman, which could be summarized as a polemic on everyday life in the twenty-first century. Lightman's viewpoint is purely anecdotal, and he admits this, but he also claims that despite the fact that he "cannot document any general conclusions," he asserts that his personal experiences are common to everyone. Life is too fast he complains, and people are feeling a "vague fear of not being plugged in". People are suffering from an information overload, are too obsessed with material wealth, and transforming themselves into false identities on the Internet, in order to escape an overbearing sense of loneliness. Lightman has lost touch with his "inner self", by which he means the part of him that imagines and dreams, and is the source of "true freedom". Lightman wants the human being to always come first, and his nostalgia for the past takes him to the New Atlantis of Bacon, and to the quaintness of Benjamin Franklin. But Lightman does not discuss any alternative views, and does not acknowledge the existence of any who do not think like him. He does not notice the many who feel a sense of exhilaration in the motion of the twenty-first century. The new technologies, the new scientific discoveries, the new tools, the new machines, the new entertainment, the new architecture, and the overabundance of information and knowledge: all of these put these individuals into intellectual and personal hyperdrive. Confident and proud of their humanity, their inner selves are in delightful symbiosis with the moods of the twenty-first century. They welcome change with eager anticipation, and their fingers are crossed that the world of Kurzweil will indeed be realized: a world of machines with IQs measured in the millions; a world full of hundreds of new transgenic animals and plants; a world whose tools, vehicles, and buildings arise from automated molecular manufacturing....and best of all, a world populated by confident, rational human beings (as they always have been).
Rating: 
Summary: A critical, positive assessment of technology in society
Review: Many critics of writings on the relationship between society and its technologies presume that any "negative" assessment (that a technology is inappropriate, that it is moving too fast, that it is too expensive, etc.) indicates the authors are anti-technology Luddites, or just too dense to "get it." It would not surprise me if this happens with this collection of essays as well, and that is unfortunate, as the feeling one takes away at the end of the book is anything but negative in regard to technology and society. Each of the essays is individually valuable (and quite well-written; some are quite nuanced and require careful reading), but I found them most powerful taken as a whole: science, technology, engineering, innovation...these are good: both good as values in themselves and good for society as a whole. The message that the authors are collectively trying to communicate is that technology (and thus its creators, scientists and engineers) is *part of* the social fabric, not something outside or overarching. The authors ask us to think critically about the use of specific technologies in society, and about the processes we use to shepherd these technologies into everyday use. This is not a reaction to feeling powerless in the face of technology. It is a positive, proactive approach to outlining what kinds of technologies might best let us realize our potentials, both as inviduals and as society as a whole; and to begin to attack the more difficult problem of determining when a problem can be technologically solved, and when it requires other kinds of expertise. While the questioning of invention, development, and introduction of new technologies per se into everyday use might never be acceptable to those with an absolute belief that technology, science, engineering, etc., are "good", for everyone else, this kind of questioning should be thought of as a net positive: by introducing the right kinds of technology at the right time in the right place, all technologies are potentially more useful and more readily acceptable. For anyone who has been thinking about the fascinating, complex relationship between society and technology, this book will have you both nodding in agreement and questioning long-held views.
Rating:
Summary: A critical, positive assessment of technology in society
Review: Many critics of writings on the relationship between society and its technologies presume that any "negative" assessment (that a technology is inappropriate, that it is moving too fast, that it is too expensive, etc.) indicates the authors are anti-technology Luddites, or just too dense to "get it." It would not surprise me if this happens with this collection of essays as well, and that is unfortunate, as the feeling one takes away at the end of the book is anything but negative in regard to technology and society. Each of the essays is individually valuable (and quite well-written; some are quite nuanced and require careful reading), but I found them most powerful taken as a whole: science, technology, engineering, innovation...these are good: both good as values in themselves and good for society as a whole. The message that the authors are collectively trying to communicate is that technology (and thus its creators, scientists and engineers) is *part of* the social fabric, not something outside or overarching. The authors ask us to think critically about the use of specific technologies in society, and about the processes we use to shepherd these technologies into everyday use. This is not a reaction to feeling powerless in the face of technology. It is a positive, proactive approach to outlining what kinds of technologies might best let us realize our potentials, both as inviduals and as society as a whole; and to begin to attack the more difficult problem of determining when a problem can be technologically solved, and when it requires other kinds of expertise. While the questioning of invention, development, and introduction of new technologies per se into everyday use might never be acceptable to those with an absolute belief that technology, science, engineering, etc., are "good", for everyone else, this kind of questioning should be thought of as a net positive: by introducing the right kinds of technology at the right time in the right place, all technologies are potentially more useful and more readily acceptable. For anyone who has been thinking about the fascinating, complex relationship between society and technology, this book will have you both nodding in agreement and questioning long-held views.
Rating:
Summary: Taming Technology?
Review: This is a supurb book. Science and technology threaten to recreate both nature outside and nature within--our minds, our bodies, society, and the physical world. This book takes a balanced look at these contentious topics--with essays from a wide range of luminaries--raising questions that are sure to become more important over the next few years.
The book is ideally suited for undergraduate courses in science and society, sociology, and policy. It also makes for an entertaining read for scientists and citizens who are concerned about the future of humanity.
Rating:
Summary: Living with the Genie
Review: This is a thoughtful and thought-provoking collection of essays of the pros and cons of science and technology, from an interesting range of scientists. Unlike many books on this subject, it's a fast read, because it's beautifully written. You can hear the wise voices of the authors. We should listen to them.
Rating:
Summary: Living with the Genie
Review: This is a thoughtful and thought-provoking collection of essays of the pros and cons of science and technology, from an interesting range of scientists. Unlike many books on this subject, it's a fast read, because it's beautifully written. You can hear the wise voices of the authors. We should listen to them.
<< 1 >>
|
