"bill_joy_-_why_does_the_future_not_need_us" - читать интересную книгу автора (Joy Bill)

Another idea is to erect a series of shields to defend against each of the
dangerous technologies. The Strategic Defense Initiative, proposed by the Reagan
administration, was an attempt to design such a shield against the threat of a
nuclear attack from the Soviet Union. But as Arthur C. Clarke, who was privy to
discussions about the project, observed: "Though it might be possible, at vast
expense, to construct local defense systems that would 'only' let through a few
percent of ballistic missiles, the much touted idea of a national umbrella was
nonsense. Luis Alvarez, perhaps the greatest experimental physicist of this
century, remarked to me that the advocates of such schemes were 'very bright
guys with no common sense.'"

Clarke continued: "Looking into my often cloudy crystal ball, I suspect that a total
defense might indeed be possible in a century or so. But the technology involved
would produce, as a by-product, weapons so terrible that no one would bother
with anything as primitive as ballistic missiles." 10

InEngines of Creation, Eric Drexler proposed that we build an active
nanotechnological shield - a form of immune system for the biosphere - to defend
against dangerous replicators of all kinds that might escape from laboratories or
otherwise be maliciously created. But the shield he proposed would itself be
extremely dangerous - nothing could prevent it from developing autoimmune
problems and attacking the biosphere itself. 11

Similar difficulties apply to the construction of shields against robotics and
genetic engineering. These technologies are too powerful to be shielded against
in the time frame of interest; even if it were possible to implement defensive
shields, the side effects of their development would be at least as dangerous as
the technologies we are trying to protect against.

These possibilities are all thus either undesirable or unachievable or both. The
only realistic alternative I see is relinquishment: to limit development of the
technologies that are too dangerous, by limiting our pursuit of certain kinds of
knowledge.

Yes, I know, knowledge is good, as is the search for new truths. We have been
seeking knowledge since ancient times. Aristotle opened his Metaphysics with the
simple statement: "All men by nature desire to know." We have, as a bedrock
value in our society, long agreed on the value of open access to information, and
recognize the problems that arise with attempts to restrict access to and
development of knowledge. In recent times, we have come to revere scientific
knowledge.

But despite the strong historical precedents, if open access to and unlimited
development of knowledge henceforth puts us all in clear danger of extinction,
then common sense demands that we reexamine even these basic, long-held
beliefs.

It was Nietzsche who warned us, at the end of the 19th century, not only that
God is dead but that "faith in science, which after all exists undeniably, cannot