Bill Joy is an American computer scientist who has performed early development work and has invented much in technology. In his article “Why the Future Does Not Need Us”, he argues on how technology has changed many things thus endangering human beings’ capability. The paper will discuss the argument of Bill Joy’s article on technology.
According to Bill Joy’s essay, the greatest fear is that the technology is changing very fast with the invention of intelligent robots, genetic engineering, and nanotechnology. Therefore, the work of human beings in many sectors has become minimal. It is because the invented machines work better compared to human beings. Eventually, if we continue to use machines, less human labor will be needed. This argument is based on the information that machines are better in giving results once allowed to make decisions in comparison with human beings.
The utmost challenge is that if the equipment is allowed to make all decisions, human beings will not be able to cope and be reliable without them. Upon reaching the stage, there is a possibility that at some point the system to keep the machine going will be needed or upgraded. That might be so difficult that human beings will not be able to make such decisions since they will require a higher level of intelligence. However, if that is the case, machines will take a total control (Khushf 31). His major concern was that when these machines take a full control, people’s existence will become scarce. That is why he suggested that we, human beings, either minimize the use of technology or completely abandon it to prevent the occurrence of such unknown disasters.
Bill Joy had based this argument on the knowledge he had gained since he started his journey of inventing new technology. He has also borrowed some passages from the well-¬ known influential scientists who contributed to the development of technology. He has quoted passages from the people including Ray Kurzweil, Hans Moravec', and Arthur C. Clarke just to mention but a few. All these writers were concerned with the invention of machines that were at some point going to take over human thinking. Quoting relevant passages from these authors supported Joy’s argument and vision of the end of human errors and a takeover by machines. That gives his arguments meaning given that the dispute has not been seen as someone’s unrealistic thoughts.
The author further tries to support his argument by citing two examples; one is where he compares species that existed in North and South America and were separated only by a sunken Panama isthmus. Over time, species from the North America whose nervous system, rate of production, and metabolism were more developed took over the less developed forms of the southern America species to almost eliminating them. This is a case he used to affirm his argument that biological species can never survive the most upcoming superior competitors just like the old technology cannot be able to survive the new upgraded one (Khushf 32). He also tried to compare the technologies used in making weapons in the 20th and 21st centuries. In the 20th century, people resorted to nuclear, biological, chemical weapon, and the weapons used in the 21st century include genetics, nanotechnology, and robotics. Developing nuclear weapons in the 20th century required the protection of information and the raw materials needed were difficult to find. However, the machines were very powerful and helpful in difficult activities. Compared to the 21st century technological weapons, the differences between the weapons are apparent. The raw materials for the 21st century weapons are readily available as compared to the 21st century. You only need to know how to run them. Besides, they do not require great facilities to work and, above all, they are very powerful. It is also clear that genetic engineering may before long develop available treatments though not necessarily an absolute cure for a good number of diseases; also, many problems are addressed by both nanomedicine and nanotechnology. Generally, they can drastically increase our average life span and improve our lives. However, with each of these technologies, the influence of small individual reasonable advances leads to an increase of grand power.
In conclusion, I am concerned rather than optimistic about the further advancement of the technology. In that case, if the situation is not taken into consideration and we continue to follow the route of new inventions, human power or energy will at some point be minimally required. However, I disagree with the author in his view that human beings can be completely substituted with the machines. It is because they require human involvement for them to operate. In the first place, they were created by human brains; therefore, their existence is simply broadening human brains that results in more precise decision-making. Secondly, these machines will require to be upgraded by the human beings.