In a surprisingly well-written article by Theodore Kaczynski, also known as the Unabomber, “The New Luddite Challenge” sheds some light on the distant future humanity would soon find itself in. While the basis of his arguments is sound, it is the possible scenarios he proposes that should be the cause of alarms to everyone. The two dismal futures that Kaczynski depicts in his writings is by no means far fetched in consideration of today’s society, but there is still time to act and preserve the bulk of humanity.
Kaczynski base his declaration on a few assumptions that have not been realized, yet it is fair to assume that at some point in the future, humanity will be able create artificial intelligence. Naturally, one can then make a further assumption that these artifacts would soon attain superior intellect, rendering their creators obsolete. While this implies a sense of evolutionary suicide, it will be up to that future society to be able to control its own creations. However, this is based on the questionable assumption that nothing happens in the interim.
In the world we live in today, technology of all kinds surrounds us. Computerized appliances are abundant in our homes, microcomputers control our transportation systems and power generators, digital databases hold vast amounts of vital information, and computers link our armed forces into one efficient killing machine. At this point it can be surmised that we have already surpassed the point of no return, where “turning (the machines) off would amount to suicide”, as specified in Kaczynski’s analysis. While the machines that have been so successfully integrated into our lives are by no means intelligent or conscious, their overwhelming presence is already proving to be a crutch to humanity’s existence. Should an event occur in which all electronic devices on Earth were disabled somehow, the industrialized nations would find themselves crippled and their population in an uproar, and civilization as we know it would plunge into a new Dark Age. Granted, such an event might not degrade into the global suicide Kaczynski predicts, but it is not the minor inconvenience a simple power outrage would bring about either.
Short of a massive sweep of electro-magnetic pulse ravaging the planet or a global thermonuclear war, machines will continue to be a part of our daily lives, and society will soon push off the electronic crutches and strap into a digital wheelchair. The absurdity of the situation is that society will not even realize the transition to a wheelchair; the elitist individuals which Kaczynski refers to will cheerfully blind them to the fact while helping society into their new cage. The age-old saying of “knowledge is power” is realized thousand-fold as the heads of our capitalistic society determine what is the best course for society, as well as their bank accounts. Ever since the industrial revolution and the birth of capitalism, ambitious individuals have sought out ways to accrue ridiculous amounts of wealth. These capitalists are well rewarded for gaining the knowledge to create profits, but generally at the expense of others. Even in contemporary American society, the operators of steel mill industries in the mid-1900s were notorious for worker exploitation, hence the founding of worker unions and the need for governmental intervention. The trend continues to this day as mega-corporations and conglomerates in United States seek out ways to maximize production and profits, with near-total disregard to its workers and its customers. Nike’s public relations fiasco regarding its overseas sweatshops and Enron’s alleged price fixing during California’s power crisis in the summer of 2001 should be proof enough that capitalists speak only one language: money. Once the capitalists gain enough wealth, they will finally be admitted to the highly exclusive club of the elitists.
In order for elitists to remain “above the crowd”, they must maintain the exclusivity of their existence. Kaczynski is correct in speculating that in the event machines are created such that quantity and quality of production is no longer a concern, elitists would some how find a way to retain exclusive rights to the means to produce and maintain these machines. In and of it self this might not seem bad, but what would one do if their machine were to break down? Purchase another one? How does one even acquire such a wonder of a machine in the first place? By that point in time there would be little to no jobs, so how would one “pay” for repairs, much less procure a technological marvel? What incentive is there for the elitists to help their lesser brethren? Furthermore, what about the resources required by the machine to produce something? Einstein’s Law of Conservation cannot be easily ignored, as one cannot simply create something out of nothing. Would the resources be available for everyone to use, or will the elitists forcefully claim exclusive use and dole them out to the masses as they see fit? Truly the difference between the haves and have-nots would become large chasms rather than today’s measly gaps. Thus the progress of technology is no longer for the benefit of mankind, but for the benefit of the exclusive members of the elites.
The possibility of such an elitist society would exist only if humanity is able to retain control of its creations. Kaczynski’s other postulation involves the state in which society would become reliant upon its technological marvels so that the fate of humanity rests upon the artificial intelligences the scientists have strived so hard to achieve. Ironically, it is not the first time humanity was threatened with its own creation. There are plenty of references to the Cold War in which the threat of thermonuclear destruction was always on the back of everyone’s minds. The benign scenario Kaczynski presents in which the machines become wardens of our future generations seem very unlikely, since the machines would only impose extra competition with itself for ever dwindling resources by tendering a human population. This being the similar case as the elitist scenario, what incentive is there for the machines to help a lesser group to avoid extinction? There have been plenty of science fiction books written and films shown which depict a dark future in which humanity’s own creations are having a grand time trying to commit a perverse form of patricide. Unfortunately, the human race may very well find itself in that dark future simply because machines are logical, and logic leaves very little room for compassion, or for that matter any other emotion.
These visions of future despair, obviously, are not set in stone. There is still time to change them, and change them we must in order to ensure a brighter future for humanity. To prevent the possibility of machines taking over control, the designers of said machines must take great care when planning out deployment procedures. Artificial intelligence must be introduced to society in a controlled situation, and must remain so lest we risk a cybernetic uprising. The definition of such controls should be subject to the utmost scrutiny. Neither scientists nor politicians should have any unfair advantages in the decision making process, this should ultimately be left up to the people. By this I mean the people such as you and I, and not the representative democracy with which many are blithely calling “democracy”. While this may prevent the ultimate melding of human and cyber consciousness as some may prophesize, humanity might be better off in retaining its individualism and diversity in the long run. Conversely, to prevent the formation of an elitist society (and possible popular uprising shortly thereafter) the current status quo must be changed. This will result in disturbances and consternations throughout society, but it is a change for the better. The current form of representative democracy we have today is near the end of its usefulness, and by clinging to it we doom ourselves to an ignoble ending. When governmental proceedings are influenced more by special interest groups and large sums of monetary donations, than the consideration of the well being of its constituents, one should be aware that the foundations of an permanent elitist society are being laid down. Perhaps an in depth reform is needed at best, or a total government revolution is called for at worst. Either way, change is needed soon, or we shall find ourselves in a dire situation tomorrow which could have been prevented today with due diligence.
While Mr. Kaczynski’s views might have proved to be a sound warning to all of us, his latter actions only served to destroy his credibility. The radical visions of the future that he proposes may not seem too far off based on the present conditions. Scientists are working towards some form of artificial intelligence at the moment, and society today is being highly influenced by a small group of elites. Accountability is required from both sides, and the current status quo broken, or else humanity will find itself traversing down a vastly different yellow brick road.