As Bill Joy (2000) suggests the humanity
should practice relinquishment in case of some particular technology cannot be
supported by me and I am loath to believe that although some thoughts of the
reasons behind relinquishment is true, the total abandonment of a technological
development is the answer to our problem. The humanity is now days dependent on
the technology for many aspects of our life. Some developments like the
nuclear, biotechnology and chemicals has limited scope but the scope for the
gene manipulation, nanotechnology and robotics have infinite scope for the
future of humanity.
Like
whether the cloning of animals should progress to humans or not, although the
question of morality is raised, the benefits of such developments cannot be
overlooked anymore. “The gene manipulation can produce monsters so
it should be abandoned”, this is a baseless and backward thought as what can be
done can also be undone. What would anyone who believes the statement say when
some new disease kills all livestock and gene manipulation is the only way to
provide livestock resilient to the disease. This example only proves the fact
that the intent is the main concern about the technological breakthroughs and
only human nature and intent can be responsible for disaster. The technology
itself has vast potential of doing good or bad based on the intent of the user.
The only way to stop this is not
relinquishment as Bill Joy suggests, as it would stop human development in its
tracks. The proper monitoring and control over the technology is what is
needed. If someone is to blame for the disasters caused by technology it is the
person intended the use. Therefore, the person should be held responsible for
the disaster. It can be said that the technology is the tool and the human is
the wielder of the weapon who decides on whether to destroy or create the
future of humanity.
.Joy, B. (2000). Why the future doesn’t need
us. Nanoethics. The Ethical and Social Implications of Nanotechnology, 17-30.
