Futuristic Scenarios

zie link voor pdf document:


Futuristic Scenarios and Human Nature
Ullica Segerstrale
Professor of Sociology, Illinois Institute of Technology;
Fellow, World Academy of Art and Science
This article discusses current developments in information technology and artificial intelli
gence and their projected implications for humankind. It examines the arguments and pro
jections of some contemporary technological pessimists and optimists in the light of histor
ical insights about technological development and asks what kind of situation we are in at
present. Should we believe, with extreme technological optimists, that we will soon reach a
point, the Singularity, where it will be possible to “upload” a person in a computer, making
him/her in this way immortal? Is it true that technology has a life-like nature and “wants”
to evolve? The extreme arguments, however, are based on an outdated view of technology
as information. They also involve an unrealistic view of human nature: humans cannot be
reduced to information. We are in need of new models. Moreover, as we learn from a Silicon
Valley insider, the Internet was never intended to be used to make some people rich through
gathering and aggregating data about others. A new digital humanism would help diminish
the fast growing global inequality and restore respect for the creative individual.
Is technology an autonomous force that drives social change, or is the use of technology
dependent on human choices? Do we have a scenario of technological determinism or tech
nological voluntarism (or what some call constructivism)? And what are the consequences of
choosing one or the other to explain the direction of society? The framing of what is going
on and the use of language are not neutral but important tools in a cultural struggle with vast
consequences. (Think for instance about the word ‘sharing’). Moreover, these perspectives
are not obviously connected to either an optimistic or pessimistic outlook on technology, but
can be combined with both.
In the following sections, I will briefly discuss these issues in relation to the current situ
ation in digital technology, taking a look at some recent opinions by prominent individuals in
the field. We will see different predictions and suggested solutions. The views will vary from
cyber-hype to cautious optimism and realistic warnings to outright scares. The solutions are
typically connected to an assessment of where we are right now in regard to technological
development, and here the diagnosis depends on one’s historical perspective as well as belief
in the future of digital power.
1. Changing Views of the History of Technology
Over the last few decades, the traditional “heroic view” of individual inventors has in
creasingly given way to a view that is more systems and process oriented. This is largely due
World Academy of Art & Science
Eruditio, Issue 5 – Part 2, September 2014
Futuristic Scenarios and Human Nature
Ullica Segerstrale
to a more complex historical analysis of the way in
which technological progress actually took place.
A closer look at the detailed background history
of many inventions shows that they in fact came
about through the accumulation of many small in-
crements over time. Also, much more attention is
being paid to such things as the availability and
willingness of financial entrepreneurs to support
an invention, the availability of suitable support-
ive technology, and the social need or desire for
a particular invention – which may not at all have
been obvious at the time.
There was often a considerable difference between the original intent of the invention and
the way in which it was finally used (a good example is the phonograph of Thomas Edison,
which was first developed to record the dying wishes of important men; instead, it was used
for music recording and mass entertainment). In fact, customer interest was often a driving
force for the development of a new technology, and constant feedback from customers led to
continuous corrections of mistakes and improvement of performance of a new technology.
These kinds of observations make technology seem more like a product of a social process
than something invented by single geniuses.
2. The Current Situation – Uncontrolled Buildup of Control
Where are we now? Are we at the beginning of an era of unprecedented technological
innovation and development? Or are we rather at the tail end of an era that started some 70
years ago? Let’s see what some techno-gurus and innovators think. But first, a snapshot of
recent developments in artificial intelligence and information technology
Research in AI is developing rapidly, as indicated by such recent products as self-driving
cars and personal assistants like Siri and Google Now. A computer recently won a game of
Jeopardy! (Remember when the computer Deep Blue beat the world chess champion Garry
Kasparov in 1997?). According to Stephen Hawking, we are now developing the kind of
artificial intelligence that is familiar from science fiction movies. Enormous investments are
made in information technology and these are bigger than ever before; it can be likened to an
arms race. New AI startups are created all the time and receive the financing needed for in
novation. Google and other major companies are acquiring artificial intelligence and robotics
companies. We could soon have smart robots roaming our streets.
Another source reports: “Over the past year, Google has bought seven robotics compa
nies…It has bought firms that specialize in natural language processing, gesture recognition,
and more recently in machine learning…. If Silicon Valley’s best minds succeed, their soft-
ware will not only be listening, it will be understanding and anticipating.”
Indeed, AI is everywhere in some form. Every time you plug into the internet, someone
is there to spy on you and track your behavior. It is almost impossible to avoid being tracked.
New face recognition software can now identify you to the authorities whenever you are
close to one of the many information gathering devices – including a police constable, who
“A closer look at the de-
tailed background history
of many inventions shows
that they in fact came
about through the accu-
mulation of many small
increments over time.”
World Academy of Art & Science
Eruditio, Issue 5 – Part 2, September 2014
Futuristic Scenarios and Human Nature
Ullica Segerstrale
doesn’t even need your name if he has your face identity. And devices are everywhere. New
wearable computers of various kinds are being developed. The most intrusive seeming futur
istic spyware would be “smart dust” flowing around you, taking pictures of you or measuring
your bodily proportions. A picture of your key chain lying on a table in a coffee shop may
provide sufficient information to copy your keys, suggests Lanier
But is all this spying and control actually legal? IIT lawyer and author Lori Andrews has
been looking into this. She finds that in the US, at least, there is no law actually forbidding
this spying (Which may or may not indicate that the law lags behind technological develop-
ment and would need to catch up quickly). She has been addressing the issue of smart phones
– in fact portable mini-computers, which are providing information about our conversations
and movements in real time. In a cleverly titled piece, she asks, “Is your cell phone listening
in on you?” Yes, it is
and if it has the hidden program Carrier IQ, it can also read your text
messages and emails as you write them. That is one of the many programs installed without
your permission; other spy programs you may just unwittingly download together with some
legitimate smartphone application. The problem is the existing Wiretap Act. Your consent is
not required if your wireless carrier decides that marketing companies are allowed to collect
and transmit your personal information.
3. Optimists and Pessimists among the Tech Insiders
Technological optimists see fantastic possibilities of realizing long-held dreams. They
believe that it is possible to increase human intelligence and sensory powers so as to create
super-humans of some sort. They believe in an extended human life span. There are those
who welcome increasingly “cyber-like” humans. The so-called Transhumanists are the most
extreme. Technological pessimists point to unforeseen technological problems and danger
ous social consequences. Their views may in fact not be particularly pessimistic, just realistic
checks on the situation…
But an important question has to do with how we assess the current situation in the history
of humankind. Where are we now? Are we in a historically unique period of unprecedented
growth and innovation, and open-ended promise (this is clearly the basic assumption of the
tech leaders and investors)? Or are we rather at the end of an earlier historical period, picking
the last of the “low hanging fruit” of earlier important innovations? This may sound counter
intuitive on the face of it, but it is the recent view of at least one technological pessimist, the
economist Robert Gordon, to whom I will now turn.
At the 2013 annual Innovation Forum organized by the
at UC Berkeley,
Gordon provocatively suggested that “long-term economic growth may grind to a halt”, es-
pecially in economies with advanced technology. Looking backward in history he concluded:
“Two and a half centuries of rising per-capita incomes could well turn out to be a unique
episode in human history”.
Another technological pessimist is the author of
The Big Stagnation,
Tyler Cowen.
uses the idea of “low hanging fruit” quite effectively, arguing that after the Second World
War and the “Sputnik effect” (which triggered a campaign for massive education and inno-
vation in science and technology in the US), there have actually been very few significant
innovations. The potential from existing innovations after Sputnik (e.g., the computer,
World Academy of Art & Science
Eruditio, Issue 5 – Part 2, September 2014
Futuristic Scenarios and Human Nature
Ullica Segerstrale
telecommunications) has already been extracted, which is why economic growth is slow.
Although Cowen recognizes the Internet, he argues that much of the activity on the net is
free and, if anything, the internet rather displaces jobs than create new ones, and he does not
count innovations in fields like health-care and finance as having created significant benefits
for people in general.
Moreover, he points to a number of very special circumstances that favored the growth of
America – earlier types of “low hanging fruit”, such as available land, an inflow of immigrant
workers, available education, and scientific and technological progress. So what is driving
the Great Stagnation? He says he can formulate it in one sentence: “Recent and current
innovation is more geared to private goods than to public goods. That simple observation
ties together the three major macroeconomic trends of our time: growing income inequality,
stagnant median income, and…the financial crisis.”
Technological optimists have a different view of the situation. For example, the authors
The Second Machine Age
, one, the director of MIT’s Center for Digital Business, and
the other, a research scientist at that center, argue that digital technologies are dramatical
ly changing our world and economy: as more and more goods and services are produced,
they will become increasingly cheaper. At the same time they admit that computers will
increasingly take over human labor, which will cause rising inequality. But the solution is to
be found in a new kind of collective intelligence, consisting of networked brains as well as
strongly connected intelligent machines.
Chris Anderson, the editor of
magazine with his bestselling book
Makers: The New
Industrial Revolution,
introduces his readers to the new way in which digital technology is
now impacting the production of goods as well, and transforming mass production into small
scale or even home manufacturing.
Digital manufacturing will involve among other things
3D printing which is improving all the time. It will also involve different types of financ
ing (e.g. Kickstarter, which is an online platform for funding seed capital for launching a
new business). With the new digital technology for production it will be possible for people
to follow the “do it yourself” strategy. The “Makers” has already become a movement.
Anderson keeps the door open for impact on other fields too, such as health and education.
Two other insiders have an alternative approach. They recognize today’s huge global
challenges involving such things as population, food, water, energy, education, and health-
care and want to tackle these problems head on on huge market opportunities! These are the
authors of the book
Abundance: The Future is Better than you Think
, Peter Diamandis and
Steven Kotler.
This book, published in 2012, can be seen as a response to Cowen’s pessi-
mism. Peter Diamandis has degrees in molecular genetics and aerospace engineering from
MIT and a medical doctorate from Harvard and is the founder of more than a dozen tech com
panies. He is also in charge of the XPrize Foundation, which provides support to young social
entrepreneurs’ innovative ideas and awards them. Kotler is a journalist and book author.
Together they suggest that we take the initiative away from slow-moving governments and
encourage small innovative teams instead to solve the big challenges facing humankind.
An even more impressive voice is that of the billionaire Naveen Jain, founder of the
World Innovation Institute, who similarly concentrates on finding solutions to difficult global
problems with great impact on the quality of life. Health, energy, environment, and education
World Academy of Art & Science
Eruditio, Issue 5 – Part 2, September 2014
Futuristic Scenarios and Human Nature
Ullica Segerstrale
are some of his core areas. For Jain the true measure of progress is not economic productiv-
ity but rather improvement of the quality of life. In other words, he is advocating a type of
social entrepreneurship, which he is supporting through his institute. Just like the authors of
, he believes the solution lies in creative new applications of information tech
nology, and that major innovations are just around the corner. He is an innovator himself, a
developer of Windows and other Microsoft products.
4. The Promise and Scare of Artificial Intelligence and the Singularity
The possibility of highly intelligent machines has existed a long time in science fiction
and in movies. The tension is typically between machine power and human power and the
question is the extent to which machine power will come to dominate humans.
Using technology to enhance or modify our human nature is already a reality
For technological optimists, the benefits of AI are obviously enormous. In fact, it seems
that they take a future involving highly intelligent machines for granted. This is clear from
the attitudes and jargon among some leaders in Silicon Valley.
A couple of articles from May 2014 describing the culture of Silicon Valley bring this
point home; the titles already tell the story: “Silicon Valley: an army of geeks and ‘coders’
shaping our future”, and “In the future, the robots may control you, and Silicon Valley will
control them.” We learn about lots of young people working 80 hour weeks without taking
weekends off and a startup company “incubator” called Hacker DoJo where anyone can
come and work for free on his own project and meanwhile be in close proximity to others
with whom they may later form a team. The language of the Valley, interestingly, is full of
expressions like “changing the world” and “disruption”, deriving from a certain counter-cul-
tural rhetoric from the sixties and seventies. The place is also said to sustain a spirit that
regards failing as acceptable and part of the process, as long as one learns from it.
The people in the Valley naturally conceive of an unfolding future of AI with an open
horizon towards superhuman intelligence. What is more, to the extent the machines become
self-replicating or self-improving – which is also expected to happen – they could effec-
tuate a sudden transition, the situation that techno-wizard Ray Kurzweil famously calls
For Kurzweil, this is an event that is bound to happen, and soon, because following
Moore’s Law, the power of information technology rapidly and inevitably increases in so-
phistication, doubling every 18 months. When this happens, the expectation is for human
intelligence to merge with machine intelligence, making it possible to “upload” a person’s
digitalized personality for preservation and access in the future, achieving a sort of immortal
ity in this regard. There is a tremendous attraction to this kind of thing, it seems, for some of
the leaders in information technology, and also for other techno-enthusiasts. (Experiments at
a milder scale are already underway, for instance the possibility of exchanging emails with a
deceased person, based on this person’s typical answering pattern).
Is it true that
The Singularity is Near
, as Kurzweil’s famous book with the same name
suggests? Well, it is coming nearer at least in the form of the 2014 blockbuster movie
World Academy of Art & Science
Eruditio, Issue 5 – Part 2, September 2014
Futuristic Scenarios and Human Nature
Ullica Segerstrale
, depicting such a state. This will now spread one of the weirdest ideas of
the Silicon Valley to the general public. Here is a short description of what is involved by a
fellow tech guru who has followed Kurzweil closely:
“The Singularity, recall, is the idea that not only is technology improving, but the speed
of improvement is increasing as well…We ordinary humans are supposedly staying the same
… while our technology is an autonomous, self-transforming supercreature, and its self-im
provement is accelerating. That means it will one day pass us in a great whoosh. In the blink
of an eye we will become obsolete. We might then be instantly dead, because the new artifi
cial superintelligence will need our molecules for a much higher purpose. Or maybe we will
be kept as pets.”
We are also informed that Kurzweil “awaits a Virtual Reality heaven that all our brains
will be sucked up into as the Singularity occurs, which will be ‘soon’. There we will experi
ence ‘any’ scenario, any joy.” Here we encounter a clearly religion-like atmosphere, which
presumably also permeates the Singularity University, which Kurzweil helped found, located
next to Google.
Some time ago another technophile, Bill Joy, after first being enthusiastic, reflected on
(an early version of) Kurzweil’s optimistic interpretation of the future development of tech
nology. He came to a negative conclusion. “The future doesn’t need us,” was his alarming
realization, and the title of a famous long article of his. Joy could not see how humanity could
avoid the possibilities for destruction on a mass scale.
The real scare of AI was expressed most recently by a group of scientists including
Stephen Hawking. The fear is that AI technology will end up not only surpassing humans in
inventions, but producing things that humans cannot understand, while outsmarting them in
various ways. “Success in creating AI would be the biggest event in human history,” Stephen
Hawking recently wrote in an op-ed in
The Independent
. “Unfortunately, it may also be the
last”. He continued: “Whereas the short-term impact of AI depends on who controls it, the
long-term impact depends on whether it can be controlled at all.”
Equally extreme is the idea of a life-like direction to technological progress, argued by
the founder and first editor of
magazine, Kevin Kelly, in the book
What Technology
The main thesis of the book is that technology “wants” to evolve. It is a process
similar to evolution, which at the same time follows Moore’s Law. This “want” of technology
is supposedly so great that humans become just bothersome obstacles to what technology
wants. Therefore, it is natural for technology to “want” to transcend humans; we are just its
temporary vehicles.
This relative contempt for human beings in favor of technology – or is it concern for
humans, it is hard to tell! – can be taken even further. We humans are not only not good
enough intellectually, but also morally, according to a book called
Unfit for the Future:
The Need for Moral Enhancement
The authors suggest that we do something to radically
enhance human nature – we are not up to the responsibilities that come with the future of
technology and the new challenges we will face. We are too morally weak and our traditional
methods of transmitting morality are too inefficient. Therefore, in order to guarantee our
World Academy of Art & Science
Eruditio, Issue 5 – Part 2, September 2014
Futuristic Scenarios and Human Nature
Ullica Segerstrale
survival as a civilization we should provide ourselves with more adequate moral capabilities.
This is being argued by the Director and Research Fellow of the Program on Ethics and the
New Biosciences at Oxford University.
5. What happened to Human Nature?
But what happened to human nature in these last
projections? It seems that great liberties are being
taken with assumptions of who we are. The first two
extreme arguments appear to see humans as bundles of
The Singularity scenario appears to involve a
would-be religious view of information as the essence
of what it means to be human. Information was, inci
dentally, a metaphor also used by molecular biologists
– all those scientists (such as Jim Watson, first Director
of the Human Genome Project) who early on wanted to
persuade us about the importance of the human genome
project and how it would reveal to us our “blueprint” or
“the very essence of being human”.
The second case uses the same conception of technology as information, this time ac-
tively evolving by itself. But the information model is not of a living organism adapting to
its (changing) environment, it is only of its DNA. The claim is entirely dependent on the
validity of the information model of the gene. This is particularly ironical today, since it has
been recently realized that all those earlier assumptions about DNA as an information code
were too simple. They ignored DNA’s ongoing requirements for appropriate stereochemical
and environmental conditions for it to function at all. DNA is alive, it is not just a code, and
it is far more complex than previously assumed. Also, it turns out to be hard to find simply
identifiable “genes for” most human traits.
The biggest problem with these futuristic scenarios may be the unrealistic way in which
they conceptualize human nature. Humans cannot be reduced to information; we have bodies
and emotions, and are from birth absolutely dependent on nonverbal interaction. Also, even
the most extreme information capabilities will not take care of the many inbuilt biases that
affect the decision-making of our evolved human minds. We will continue jumping to con-
clusions, confuse correlation with causality, select cases that support our views, believe in
self-fulfilling prophecies, sustain a good image of ourselves through various self-serving
biases, etc. (Of course since we know this better now, we should also be better at counter
acting it).
In fact, evolutionists have already for some time been concerned about the discrepancy
between the speed of technological development and the biological adaptability of humans –
exactly because we are not machines!
What about the third extreme suggestion, that of enhancing human morality? The authors’
perception of the necessity for this measure is postulated on their assumptions that humans do
“The biggest problem
with these futuristic
scenarios may be the
unrealistic way in
which they conceptu
alize human nature.
Humans cannot be
reduced to informa
World Academy of Art & Science
Eruditio, Issue 5 – Part 2, September 2014
Futuristic Scenarios and Human Nature
Ullica Segerstrale
in his classical book
He went through the various potential uses of information
technology and worried among other things that the Internet might promote such undesirable
phenomena as “group think” on a mass scale).
Yet another criticism has been that “open culture” sites such as Wikipedia undervalue
achievements by human individuals and overvalue the collectivist spirit and anonymity of a
crowd community. Lanier’s argument here is that important inventions are not mass phenom-
ena but connected to individuals who struggle and persist, and test and modify their products.
The current emphasis is on quantity when it should be on quality!
But this is not a logical consequence, Lanier protests. The internet does not
to be
used this way. New radical technologies do not
to deny the uniqueness of the individu
al. Collectivism is not inherent in the Internet or the Web. The actual challenge will be, and
should be, to develop a new digital humanism that can accommodate creative and innovative
Lanier was recently interviewed on television about his most recent book,
Owns the Future?
The information networks have taken an unexpected turn towards
reducing human participation in the economy, he explained. This was not the intent!
Lanier himself was part of this when it started: “We wanted to make the system
more open and self-regulating,” he said. Instead, big companies with strong com-
puters started aggregating information about humans, trying to learn about them.
However, computers can only generate a statistical picture of the world. They don’t know and
cannot see physical limits. Lanier gave the example of automated machine translation. Back
in the 1950s there was a belief that a formula could be created for computers to translate one
language into another. Total automation would be achieved. This turned out to be impossi-
ble. In fact, computers that do language translation today actually rely on human translators.
Computers scan the Internet for examples of language usage and based on this create a statis-
tical picture of translation from one language to another. This automated translation can stay
close to reality as long as there are professional human translators whose work the machine can
keep aggregating. However, automation lowers the price of translation, and human translators
cannot make a living. Today, translators do translations as a side job. Should they quit in larger
numbers, there will be no reference base and machine translation will collapse completely!
Lanier used this case as an example of what is going on in other fields too, such as finance,
insurance, and other areas where Big Data is involved. According to him, the process of au-
tomation has a limit. If people are laid off, the economy will have no workers. His solution
is to subdivide the information tasks so that humans will play a role in this. He believes that
a new middle class can be created this way. He also believes that there should be a system of
micro-payments: every time someone uses data about you, you get paid by them.
Lanier invented virtual reality, but at the same time he is a musician, and has a strong
feeling for the creativity of the individual. He also strongly emphasizes the need for people
to be paid for their creations. The aggregation of data about people is stealing from them, just
as “mash-ups” of pieces of music are not giving royalties to the individual musician. The big
mistake that was made with the idea of open source and sharing was that not everybody has
the same computer power. Lanier says:
World Academy of Art & Science
Eruditio, Issue 5 – Part 2, September 2014
Futuristic Scenarios and Human Nature
Ullica Segerstrale
“The old ideas about information being free in the information age ended up screwing
over everybody except the owners of the very biggest computers. The biggest computers
turned into spying and behavior modification operations, which concentrated wealth and
Sharing information freely, without traditional rewards like royalties or paychecks, was
supposed to create opportunities for brave, creative individuals. Instead, I have watched each
successive generation of young journalists, artists, musicians, photographers, and writers
face harsher and harsher odds. The perverse effect of opening up information has been that
the status of a young person’s parents matters more and more, since it’s so hard to make one’s
So, who owns the future, or rather, who should own it?
“If we keep on doing things as we are, the answer is clear: The future will be narrowly
owned by the people who run the biggest, best connected computers, which will usually be
found in giant, remote cloud computing farms.
The answer I am promoting instead is that the future should be owned broadly by ev-
eryone who contributes data to the cloud, as robots and other machines animated by cloud
software start to drive our vehicles, care for us when we’re sick, mine our natural resources,
create the physical objects we use, and so on, as the 21
century progresses.
Right now, most people are only gaining
benefits from advances in technology,
like free internet services, while those who own the biggest computers are concentrating
benefits to an unsustainable degree.”
In other words, Lanier is here addressing a central problem that others have also com-
mented on and found explanations for: the increase in inequality that is taking place. He
approaches it from the point of view of having the technological power to make money. He
uses the term “Siren Servers” (for e.g. Google) to indicate the temptations they present to in-
dividuals to submit to an ever increasing connectivity and data collection on themselves. He
might add that it has been shown that digital media, especially cell phones, can easily become
addictive – just as in the case of addiction, a reward center in the brain is being stimulated.
The rising inequality is a serious and fundamental social problem, even without the tech
nological development that hugely magnifies its impact. As the French economist Thomas
Piketty has shown in his massively documented and bestselling
Capital in the 21
more and more wealth is being concentrated in the hands of the few. According to him, this
“As the French economist Thomas Piketty has shown in his
massively documented and bestselling Capital in the 21
Century, more and more wealth is being concentrated in the
hands of the few. According to him, this tendency is inbuilt in
World Academy of Art & Science
Eruditio, Issue 5 – Part 2, September 2014
Futuristic Scenarios and Human Nature
Ullica Segerstrale
tendency is inbuilt in capitalism.
He suggests that we are in fact on the way to a ‘patrimo
nial society’ where inherited wealth (rather than talent and merit) will increasingly come to
dominate the economy which can result in political upheaval. That is, if the government does
not do something. In other words, beyond all the tech talk and AI hype, in the 21
century we
are back to the very basic problems of political economy.
Author Contact Information
Rudi Volti,
Society and Technological Change
edition (New York: Worth Publishers, 2014).
Society and Technological Change.
Carina Kolodny, “Stephen Hawking is terrified of artificial intelligence,”
The Huffington Post,
May 2014
Juliette Garside, “Google, Facebook and Amazon race to blur lines between man and machine,”
The Guardian,
April 2014
Jaron Lanier,
Who Owns the Future?
(New York: Simon and Schuster, 2013)
Lori Andrews, “Is your cell phone listening in on you?”
, 15
December 2011
Robert J. Gordon, “Is US economic growth over? Faltering innovation confronts the six,”
11 September 2012
Tyler Cowen,
The Great Stagnation: How America Ate All the Low-Hanging Fruit of Modern History, Got Sick, and Will
(Eventually) Feel Better
(New York: Penguin Group, 2011).
The Great Stagnation.
Erik Brynjolfson and Andrew McAfee,
The Second Machine Age: Work, Progress, and Prosperity in a Time of Brilliant Tech-
(New York: W.W.Norton, 2014).
Chris Anderson,
Makers: The New Industrial Revolution
(New York: Crown Business, 2014).
Peter Diamandis and Steven Kotler,
Abundance: The Future is Better than You Think
(New York: Free Press, 2012).
Doug Henton, “The Optimism/Pessimism Debate: Whither Technology” March 29, 2013
Henton, “The Optimism/Pessimism Debate”.
Andrew Smith, “Silicon Valley: an army of geeks and ‘coders’ shaping our future,”
The Observer
May 2014
Ray Kurtzweil,
The Singularity is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology
(New York: Penguin Group, 2005).
Who Owns the Future?
, 325
Bill Joy, “Why the Future Doesn’t Need Us,”
Wired magazine,
April 2000
Kolodny, “Stephen Hawking is terrified of artificial intelligence”.
Kevin Kelly,
What Technology Wants
(New York: Penguin Books, 2010).
Ingmar Persson and Julian Savulescu,
Unfit for the Future: The Need for Moral Enhancement
(Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2012).
Daniel Kevles and Leroy Hood,
The Code of Codes: Scientific and Social Issues in the Human Genome Project
Harvard University Press, 1992).
Frans De Waal,
Primates and Philosophers
(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2009).
Frans De Waal,
The Age of Empathy
(New York: Harmony Press, 2009).
Robert Wright,
The Moral Animal
(New York: Random House, 1994).
Jaron Lanier,
You Are Not A Gadget
(New York: Simon and Schuster, 2010).
Cass Sunstein,
Infotopia: How Many Minds Produce Knowledge
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006).
Thomas Piketty,
Capital in the Twenty-First Century
(Cambridge: Belknap Press, 2014).

Geef een reactie

Vul je gegevens in of klik op een icoon om in te loggen.

WordPress.com logo

Je reageert onder je WordPress.com account. Log uit /  Bijwerken )


Je reageert onder je Twitter account. Log uit /  Bijwerken )

Facebook foto

Je reageert onder je Facebook account. Log uit /  Bijwerken )

Verbinden met %s