Sweet!
We say this to communicate fine agreement. All these agreement-related meanings derive originally from a satisfaction in tasting particular foods and beverages; ‘sweet’ is originally the bare taste of sweetness.
But there is also the drawback of suffering negative long term health problems from the frequent enjoyment of sweets. And there are always the conflicts between shorter-term and longer-term gains, aren’t there.
In computerese, we have the term “cookies”. These are, loosely understood, individual listings of page requests to a computer server. Computers have older and familiar terms such as this one, but there are newer terms and concepts arriving. And some of these newer concepts and innovations bring to our consciousness an ilk of scariness that makes us think about them (the innovations) very little; it isn’t fun to think about one’s likely demise. There is axiomatic usefulness. We use something because it works in the moment. But one moment adds to another and another, and then we eventually find that we’re using some tool or procedure endlessly; as long as it advantages the user its continued resort is virtually certain, is it not?
But, just as the edible sweet has its downside, so too does our growing dependence on computers and computerized devices. Indeed, there are neologisms related to how a person feels anxious when he or she is separated from the telecommunications device. And even the familiar terms such as “separation anxiety” are now sometimes used to refer to a human being’s emotional experience in relation to the smartphone.
There is no reason to suspect that our dependence on computerized devices will lessen in the coming decades. And we count abundant reasons why our dependence will grow more and more extreme. It is not some futuristic sci-fi fantasy to discuss what is now happening with technology and where we are headed, to see presciently what is very probably going to occur in the next sixty to eighty years. Firstly, our uses of computers will expand. Computers will, in the next 80 years or so, drive cars; operate all functions of a household; take out (or remove, or eliminate, or combust) trash, analyze air quality, issue weather warnings, remind the dwellers to do things; and analyze health by analyzing saliva, vital signs, and examining the eyes. And there is much more that computerized devices will do. They will save lives and prolong human and animal lifespans. They will do all that we can imagine, and they will equally do things as yet unimagined.
With all this, there seems to be no downside.
But there is a downside. And the downside is in the inexorable pull of the very desirability itself. There is nothing to stop us from assigning computers and computerized devices the doing and analyzing of literally everything. And the ultimate perils are obvious: one cannot give over all authority for doing everything regarding his own welfare to anyone or anything else without rendering himself in many respects, finally, a quasi-slave. In the study of rights and human rights, we learn that rights correspond to responsibilities, and we are all familiar with the social contract, which tells us that we can expect advocacy and respect for our needs (generally), and for this wondrous propitiousness we need only to continually offer our readiness in assuming various social responsibilities.
We can look at the problem of computer dependence from the current perspective. However, generally, we aren’t worried, because we believe that this problem is surely very far distant in the future. Shouldn’t we just let 22nd or 23rd century humankind solve these “excessive dependence” issues? we reason.
But here’s the reality: many of the world’s most knowledgeable scientists tell us that the quantum computer and the technological singularity will arrive in this century, not the next. We had better start thinking to address and resolve this dependence problem, or we will find ourselves (to regrettably employ a familiar American idiom) behind the eight ball. This idiom communicates that the person thus confronted is in a situation with no viable solution. And the person in this situation (“behind the eight ball”) has to do some slight something, to temporize despite there being no answers.
Now, an explanation of the term technological singularity, with which many people are as yet unfamiliar: the term refers to the development of computerized processes that essentially out-think any and all human beings. And this “out-thinking” can be understood in a computer or program being able to superiorly diagnose and fix computer problems faster than any human being or group of human beings in a discrete period of time. The precision of the definition is not so important as the concept. We are coming upon a technological sophistication that will rapidly spiral out of human control, following very predictable causation sequences.
To explain this process: At some point (very probably before the year 2100) computer systems will be very obviously better at analysis than we are. This may not seem like any sort of problem. But think again. When the computer systems are given authority over the analysis and fixing of things, it will surely expand to the analysis and fixing of other things. And where is the end of this process? The answer is that there is no end – at least not the way we’d like it – ending in only greater freedom and prosperity. But what price freedom? The computer systems will be depended upon to do everything. At some point not too distant in the future, we will lose control of our destiny; computer systems will have the real control.
Is this wise? Is it feasibly avoidable?
Well, the answer to the first question is not difficult; the great majority of us admit that losing control of our destiny is unwise. So, let us then proceed to the next question: Is it avoidable?
We are perennial children – and our want to make something so clouds forthright reason. Of course we’d like to think this subjugation-by-computer is avoidable. However, I tell you in all honesty and sincerity that it is not avoidable! Why should we not allow computers to do all that we need and want done? Do you know all that can be achieved by allowing computer systems to work to their fullest to discover the cures of any and all diseases? To unlock all the mysteries of the universe? To give us total command over nature, so that we can be free to use our minds instead of toiling endlessly for mere survival? Yes, we’ve got damn good reasons to allow computers to serve us. And that is the reason I suggest that this “subjugation” problem is not avoidable. As certain as the singularity is the arrival of formidable and irreconcilable political factions on each side of this issue. But – pardon my intelligence – the forces advocating computer control will eventually win out.
And by the way, some futurists contend that nothing can be predicted (historically, technologically, etc.) from the point of the technological singularity onward. This is because the advances of computer systems will progress at rates quite beyond our ability to estimate. Indeed, the singularity could occur at mid-century, and only a few years after that yield all cures to all diseases. No one can now know or even guess the pace of advances.
Why am I discussing futuristic things? It is because these technology-related concerns will continue to stalk us. We already have the problem of nuclear weapons, and we have thus far found no solution. Even if, following a hypothetical, we somehow survive the nuclear problem, there is the singularity problem. And this would make two world-ending worries in just over a century, and this is even not to include global warming and climate change. It is entirely possible that these threats to human survival will come on at a rate of two to three each century. And there is, I believe, only one plausible (albeit extremely remote) solution to these continuing threats to human survival. We need to become civilized.
We need to rapidly change the (global) societal estimation of the human person. This cannot be done by any legislation, nor by any sort of militarism. It can only be accomplished by enlightened discussion and education in social and philosophical and cognitive sciences and stratagem. This is not to be confused with diplomacy! This is purely education and open-source enlightenment. Purposeful discussion will bring these vexing, potentially ELE concerns into sharper focus. The solution pertains directly to the enhancement of human rights. (My point in all this is that we cannot be discussing the technology as if there are solutions to this problem of survival to be found there. It is putting the cart before the horse. If we don’t move forward substantially with human rights in the next several years, we will ultimately find ourselves “behind the eight ball.” You see, we must gain in our understanding and coordinated moral defense of the basic dignity of the human person, because we will not be able to slow technological progress substantially. Governments and economic systems are predictable, and technological innovation is an inestimable boon to economic growth. And for this reason, we cannot expect any slowing in technological know-how. Today (in early June, 2016) an effort is underway on the west coast of the United States to work toward solving all the scientific challenges of a manned voyage to Mars in the next decade (2020 to 2030). When voyages to Mars are being planned, you know it is time to stop thinking about “futuristic” developments as very far off, fanciful and speculative. They are here.
There is hope in a civilizational awakening. It would be a prudent agenda even if we were without these known threats to our existence.