SciFi and Fantasy Book Club discussion

As we approach the mysterious "Singularity", I often find myself reading news articles about scientific "advancements" that leave me shaking my head. I'm always left thinking "Oh, great idea guys... there's no way THAT could go horribly wrong."

One good example are the human-animal hybrid DNA embryos being gestated for research. All of the people I saw interviewed on TV about it were adamant, "Oh no, we'd NEVER let one grow to maturity, they're just for study!"

Oh really? So now that your research is out on the internet, what's to stop me from cooking up my very own Gorilla-Boy in my basement? The world has no shortage of crazy people with the money and resources. How do you know that Larry the Lab Tech you work with isn't already "vacationing" in North Korea to pay for that new Porsche?

Needless to say, I want to send them each a copy of Mary Shelley's works and advise them to read a bit.


What about the rest of you guys? Is there some particular scientific work underway that gives you the screaming heebie-jeebies?

Uh no, my tin hat is working perfectly.

LOL!

I am not afraid of any research conducted at the moment. I may sometimes question if the safety precautions are sufficient.


A lot of technology can be both beneficial and dangerous. Research into Nuclear fission has let to Atomic bombs, but also to nuclear energy and isotopes used in medicine. This potential for harm is not a reason to fear the technology.

What I notice right now is that as science becomes more complex, many people respond with fear. This is most clearly seen in people who are anti-vaccines, anti GMO and those that rather spend money on Big Placebo rather than by medicine from Big Pharma.

People have a tendency to fear what they do not understand. And when they try to educate themselves they often end up trusting sources that are not trustworthy at all. What I see as one of the biggest problems with modern society is that people have access to a nearly unlimited amount of information through the internet, but are not equipped with the skills needed to determine what information is trustworthy and what is not.

On any attempts on your part to create transgenic organisms: Unless you are a molecular geneticist specializing in this type of research you do not have the knowledge, skills or resources to create your own "gorilla boy".

I'd like to order a CatDog

Or maybe my very own miniature elephant. Oooo How about a mini Brontosaurus. That would be super cool. :P :)

A pig and an elephant's genes won't splice.

But on topic...3D printing actually is pretty scary. Oh, let's all print crazy guns! And probably bombs and gods know what else.

But vat meat...I'm all for that!

Micah wrote: "A pig and an elephant's genes won't splice."

That's where surgeons come in handy.

Micah wrote: "But on topic...3D printing actually is pretty scary. Oh, let's all print crazy guns! And probably bombs and gods know what else.

But vat meat...I'm all for that!"

Somebody's already been done for printing a gun. I doubt if it would work - they're pretty porous so far as containing an explosion is concerned.

On the plus side, they are being developed in the medical profession to print replacement complex bones.

The scariest parts of modern technology are the parts they don't tell us about...

One research sector that is both very secretive and also potentially very scary concerns the efforts by many nations to produce 'enhanced' soldiers, either by the use of drugs, implants or DNA manipulation. There is a big potential there to produce psychopathic, homicidal maniacs that would be hard to stop if they become out of control.

I'm scared where the internet will go. George Orwell wrote '1984' 35 years previously - one main theme being omnipresent government surveillance. Almost to the year his prophecy came true.

The UK introduced public CCTV in 1985, now it's everywhere: on streets, in pubs, shops, cash points, cars. Nearly all are linked to a computer at some time which has internet access and I have no doubt the govt has brains enough to hack into any or all of these. It already has access to anything you do online, your bank account, your social contacts, in fact everything it could want to know about you. We live in a benign democracy (hah!) but just think what could happen if some leader suddenly decided not to hold any more elections, and call himself dictator, bringing in all sorts of decrees?

Wouldn't happen? We fought for freedom! Yeah - and already we're told what we can and can't think, or say, what we can and can't eat, drink. In fact rules and regulations govern every aspect of our lives. Is that freedom? I rank George Orwell up there with Arthur C Clarke for prophetic visions.

Rant over.

Michel wrote: "There is a big potential there to produce psychopathic, homicidal maniacs that would be hard to stop if they become out of control. "

Are you thinking of our last but one Prime Minister?

Two of my yet-to-be published stories involve time travel. In one I devise a logical means to achieve it, but thankfully only in terms of communication in a most basic manner. In the second, we are already living in an altered present....

Now, that's scary.

On the positive side of technology, the space probe Rosetta has traveled 6.4 BILLION kilometers to rendezvous with Comet 67P this month. I consider that a marvel of technology and navigation worthy of note.

What is depressing and frightening about modern technology development is that the humanity spends much more effort on developing more efficient ways of killing people than on space exploration. We can fight wars with very modern hi-tech equipment, but not much excitement happened in space after the Moon landing.

Pete wrote: "The scariest parts of modern technology are the parts they don't tell us about..."

Very good point.

Evgeny wrote: "What is depressing and frightening about modern technology development is that the humanity spends much more effort on developing more efficient ways of killing people than on space exploration. We..."

That too.

Pete wrote: "Michel wrote: "There is a big potential there to produce psychopathic, homicidal maniacs that would be hard to stop if they become out of control. "

Are you thinking of our last but one Prime Mini..."

Ouch! That hurts!

Michel wrote: "Pete wrote: "Michel wrote: "There is a big potential there to produce psychopathic, homicidal maniacs that would be hard to stop if they become out of control. "

Are you thinking of our last but o..."

I think all of these are really good examples. The one about enhanced soldiers really hits home for me. I've been exploring that theme in one of my recent books. My main question is whether it would be the process of enhancement or the results of enhancement that have the most potential to cause psychosis. I've wondered if the level of detachment or distance that enhanced soldiers might experience could in and of itself cause a loss of empathy.

In truth though, my fear connected to explorations such as this revolves are not around the potential for the science itself to spin out of control, but rather the potential for abuse that exists with less ethical individuals or organisations.

I am also concerned about how this sort of information is becoming available on the Internet. I myself have known individuals who possessed the intelligence and resources necessary to do astonishing things. But those same individuals showed either an appaling obliviousness to the potential dangers, or a distinct lack of empathy for other human beings.

I've also been thinking a lot about nanotech. The whole "grey goo" scenario gives me the willies too. It's not hard to imagine how a small miscalculation could result in a swarm that did not discriminate between organic and non-organic materials. We'd be nothing but building materials to them.

I'm actually more concerned about WHAT could be done with the technology, instead of the technology itself.

Think about it. What if we could grow new organs for people who need them? That would be seriously awesome. Or make nanobots that attacked cancer cells?
The downside is of course stuff like, tracking people via nanobots. Or other things that nanobots could do that aren't all that great.

Or more effeciently killing people through technology. That's another thing on the negative side. I don't think we need any more of that. But of course the ideal world in which everyone is at peace with each other is probably an illusion. It's too bad, really. The world uniting against a common threat is the sort of fantasy/sci-fi scenario that's never good on the long run because it doesn't create peace by understanding but by fighting.

"gorilla boy"

I'm still unsure about mixing species. A human who is half anything else would still be a human no? In theory that being should have the same rights. What kind of life will he or she have?

Besides, what good can come from doing that experiment?

I don't fear technology. I look at the Middle East and I fear religion. It's our pre-scientific past that is making hell on earth, not our scientific future.

The first 3 things that come to mind:

1. 24/7 global surveillance
2. GMO crops (I need to clarify that it's not health that concerns me, but corporate meddling that could result in a complete die-off)
3. DNA profiling (Gattaca)

Sparrowlicious wrote: "I'm actually more concerned about WHAT could be done with the technology, instead of the technology itself.

Think about it. What if we could grow new organs for people who need them? That would be..."

I think that that is precisely my point. My concern lies not with the nature or function of any given technology. Rather I am concerned about the disproportionate potential for abuse that seems to be inherent within certain types of advancement.

I sometimes wonder if it wouldn't be more wise for us to stop and consider whether something we are going to explore could potentially be worse than what we are setting out to overcome.

Griffin wrote: "I don't fear technology. I look at the Middle East and I fear religion. It's our pre-scientific past that is making hell on earth, not our scientific future."

I couldn't disagree more with this statement. Mindless adherence or dedication to science carries no inherent superiority to religion. Rigid devotees to secular humanism like Stalin have committed atrocities that dwarf all those committed by religion combined. During Stalin's reign he starved to death somewhere near 120 million people.

It is simply another system of faith. However, there is one crucial difference.

At the core of most religious faiths there is the kernel of a single driving principle. That is the concept of doing unto others as you would have them do unto you. Science has no equivalent concept.

In fact the farther we go down the road of relying on science as a guiding methodology for society, the more we have seen at degradation of the human condition. Scientific method lacks the cogent integration that is inherent in any religious philosophy.

That is not to say that science does not have its place in society's structure. But it must be guided by a higher set of principles than what it can offer in isolation. Einstein once said that " religion without science is blind, but science without religion is lame" and I believe that truer words have never been spoken.

(post edited for errors caused by me trusting text to speech while I drive... herp derp)

As scary as enhanced soldiers go, I don't worry so much about that because well before any of that becomes operational, our military will be taken over by robotics...because it's already in the field.

Robotics on the battlefield make so much sense and fill so many roles that normally put humans into life threatening situations...but what happens when they're given the choice of who they shoot? That's why we should be scared of them. Not thinking Skynet here, I'm talking about the ethics of impersonal machines who we've programmed to not only guess who's an enemy, but given them the ability to pull the trigger without humans involved at all.

This stuff is happening. All this tech is that's in the field or very nearly in the field.

P.W. Singer is probably one of the best speakers I've heard on this subject:

Pt1 (The proliferation of robotics and insightful discussion on the new state of war and the complex implications of robotics in war): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLQYL...

Pt2 (consequences of robotic warfare): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmMy4...

In these talks he doesn't really get into the whole robots decide to pull the trigger thing, but I'm pretty sure some other talks by him have.

In Pt2 he alludes to the PTSD experienced by robotics operators. In another talk by him he specifically said that the operators of Predator drones, who actually are operating them from here in the US, have some of the highest rates of PTSD. During the day they fight a war, kill people--often "collateral damage" i.e. innocent people. Then they leave work and go home to their family who act like there's no war at all...let's go to the mall, the movies, to a church dinner...So the drone operators live in a bizarre split world that kind of rips their souls apart.

Jason wrote: "Griffin wrote: "I don't fear technology. I look at the Middle East and I fear religion. It's our pre-scientific past that is making hell on earth, not our scientific future."

''I (Jason)couldn't disagree more with this statement. Mindless adherence or dedication to science carries no inherent superiority to religion. Mindless devotees to secular humanism like Stalin have committed atrocities that dwarf all those committed by religion combined. During Stalin's reign he starved to death somewhere near 120 million people.
m..."

I am sorry, Jason, but I must side with Griffin on this. You can believe in science without being mindless. Using the example of Stalin, maybe the biggest human monster of the 20th Century, to illustrate the effects of atheism, is way too simplistic and misguiding as a case point. As for religion, I worked for two years in the Middle East and I have also studied history a lot: religion has basically brought a lot more bad than good to Humanity in terms of intolerance, enforced ignorance and mysoginy. Look at the many wars and massacres committed in the name of religion, including by Christians, who are supposed as you said 'to do unto others as you would have them do unto you'. Your fine Christians massacred whole populations during the Crusades, including the people of Constantinople (who were Christians themselves), then massacred each other during The Cathars Repression, The Huguenot Repression in France, The Thirty Years War across Europe, The English Revolution led by Cromwell's fanatical Puritans, the persecution, torture and burning at the stake of tens of thousands of women and girls accused of witchcraft, the 'fine works' of the Inquisition and much more. The main problem with religion is actually its hypocrisy: do good, but if you don't follow my beliefs, then die and go to Hell! I am an atheist/humanist who believes that science, if pursued for the good of Humanity (as most of it is), is worth advancing. My biggest fear and nightmare is actually to see a theocracy take control of our planet. Then, welcome to the world of mindless, intolerant zombies.

Could we please try to steer away from the tired old Religion vs Science debate?

Extreme violence is perpetrated by ANY ideology that promotes an "us vs them" world view. That includes religious sectarianism, political ideologies, tribalism, sexism, gender bias, economic rivalries, nationalism, racism, caste social structures...

The whole religion vs science thing is a red herring, and it really destroys interesting discussions like the rest of this thread.

Michel wrote: "Jason wrote: "Griffin wrote: "I don't fear technology. I look at the Middle East and I fear religion. It's our pre-scientific past that is making hell on earth, not our scientific future."

''I (Ja..."

All I'll say in response to that is that my position is not one advocating for theocratic influence, or the disregard for science. I was simply making it clear that there are two sides to that coin.

I too have spent a great deal of time in the Middle East and have seen first hand the atrocities there. I have also seen first hand the consequences of scientific dogmatism.

But, I realized a few critical things over time. One was that, when viewed in isolation, the scientific belief system lacked a compassionate central morality. The central ethos was adherence to the truth, and what is true may not always be what is right. The other was that both religious and scientific systems become increasingly vulnerable to corruption as they grow more centralized and controlled.

In either instance, the central issue is not science or religion. It is the inherently flawed nature of human beings. Neither system can be perfect, because both are populated and governed by people.

The only way forward that I can see for us is to bring a consistent(self selected) system of faith, a morality based on compassion, and a desire for truth down to a completely decentralized and personal level.

To Jason: I agree with you about the inherently flawed nature of human beings. However, compassion and desire for truth are not incompatible with scientific research. The scientific novelties that scare us are so only because unscrupulous people (governments, corporations, sects) try to subvert them for their own profit or power. That is the true danger.

Jason wrote: "But, I realized a few critical things over time. One was that, when viewed in isolation, the scientific belief system lacked a compassionate central morality. The central ethos was adherence to the truth, and what is true may not always be what is right...."

I have to correct you, the central ethos of science is not an adherence to the truth. Science is not an ideology or believe system. Science is a methodology. One of the first things you learn as a scientist is that there is no such thing as absolute certainty. Science does not have dogmas, it does have frameworks, and occasionally a framework turns out to be wrong and you get a frame shift, like the theory of evolution replacing creationism. Science is the only method we have of understanding the natural world, it is not an ideology or belief system.

Science may not have a system of ethics, it being a methodology not an ideology, scientists however do have morals. No one is more aware of the risks of our research than we scientists ourselves are. History has shown that we cannot afford to be naive when it comes to our research. Also there are moral philosophers specializing in the ethics of scientific discoveries.

Humans are not inherently flawed. We are what we are as a result of evolution. To me the problem is that we are on the one hand intelligent beings, but on the other hand have primitive instincts that can interfere with the responsible use of our technology. We need to acknowledge or instincts and realize when we are being to strongly influenced by them. Unfortunately this requires long thinking about the long term effect of our actions, something we apparently are very bad at.

It seems to me to be a good idea start teaching children how to determine which sources of information on science are reliable and which are not. The concept of doubt should also be introduced young, there is nothing more dangerous than someone who beliefs with absolute certainty. Our animal instincts also need to be acknowledged, they are not flaws, they just are. We do need to realize that they can get us and other lifeforms on earth into a lot of trouble, but to do that we have to admit that we have them.

deleted user wrote: "I don't fear technology. I look at the Middle East and I fear religion. It's our pre-scientific past that is making hell on earth, not our scientific future."

I'm sorry this user left. I like this comment.

Michel wrote: "To Jason: I agree with you about the inherently flawed nature of human beings. However, compassion and desire for truth are not incompatible with scientific research. The scientific novelties tha..."

I didn't mean to say they were. Sorry if it came across that way. It seems that we all agree on more than we disagree on here.

From where I stand, Betelgeuze is correct in his assertions that science does not have a system of ethics, but that most scientists do have a sense of morality. I believe he is also correct when he says that human beings are not "flawed". We simply have different interpretations of the word. From my perspective, human beings are perfectly what they are intended to be... but they are not "perfect" (else we would not have wars, hate, etc). Hence the term "flawed" applies.

My point is merely that a belief in the divine, and the kind of compassionate morality it generates is not exclusive of scientific thinking or progress.

In fact, many of the greatest scientists in history were also devoutly religious. I would argue that this was part of why they were so great. Divinely inspired morality, combined with a well considered scientific methodology represents an appealing path to me.

In the end, I think the solution that we seek must reside in a reconciliation of the two views into a single ethos.

Also... Betelgeuze said:

"there is nothing more dangerous than someone who believes with absolute certainty."

And I couldn't agree more with this statement. I simply believe that such conviction is not the exclusive territory of religion... and by quite a margin.

With each new science comes the capacity for great good and great evil throughout history science has been a net good but we still have to be vigilant against the horrors that some future technologies will hold.

Aaron wrote: "With each new science comes the capacity for great good and great evil throughout history science has been a net good but we still have to be vigilant against the horrors that some future technolog..."

Word.

Cheryl in CC NV wrote: "deleted user wrote: "I don't fear technology. I look at the Middle East and I fear religion. It's our pre-scientific past that is making hell on earth, not our scientific future."

I'm sorry this user left. I like this comment .."

Agreed.

My biggest fears are social science:
1) theocracy or oligarchy, with any kind of religious or other extremist

2) corporations being treated as persons, with 'rights' which crowd out the rights of actual human beings -WAIT! That has already happened in the U.S.! OMG... From my scifi readings, the path that society travels down is that the corporations will eventually own everyone and everything, with a 'company town' physical structure and people needing to apply to reproduce, travel, etc.

I don't worry so much about the science part of it (well, maybe a little about the people messing with viruses that they might lose control of - Ebola, anyone?), but I worry much more about just who is going to be in charge of using, or abandoning, that science.

Betelgeuse, I love your comment "The concept of doubt should also be introduced young, there is nothing more dangerous than someone who beliefs with absolute certainty."

This seems to be the inherent problem between the science and religion camps to me. Religion is based on belief with absolute certainty (ie. faith) and science is based on the concept of questioning beliefs (doubt is healthy, look for proof/explanations.). How can you teach young minds doubt and faith at the same time?

Not trying to start an argument here, it just was a bit of a lightbulb moment for me, and I appreciate the succinct nature of it...

For me, its the development of entirely autonomous UAVs. Right now, there is at least some degree of culpability when it comes to drone strikes, since human pilots and departments are responsible for deploying them and selecting targets. Take that away, and we have technology that is truly capable of killing without human oversight.

A far cry from Skynet and HKs I know, but it still scares me.

Advances in virtual reality scare me and fascinate me. I've taught some classes and done some research in a virtual world and found it quite entertaining and useful. Then I read Needles' book, Terminal Connection, and it made me think twice about this technology with such great "potential."

Not so much technology that scares me but how far we have come. I am in my mid forties and as a child I remember "hi-tech" military security systems like voice print locks, totally far fetched, 'never gonna happen stuff. . . . Which a couple of my nieces and nephews now have on their diary and mini-safe as the locking system

Computerized butler/social secretary system, which we now have with SIRI on an IPhone and a smart house.

But also no flying cars, jet packs or android servants, well not yet abyway

Technology doesn't 'freak me out' although I am mildly concerned about how it might be misused. But, looking at the broad picture, technology has improved the lives of people, enabling them to live longer, healthier, and more secure lives. Not everyone, of course. There are places still where the benefits of technology are not much felt, and where it is, those benefits are not felt equally. Advancing technology is a bumpy road and not without dangers, but I'm going to take the optimistic position on this because history seems to support it.

D.L. wrote: "...technology has improved the lives of people, enabling them to live longer, healthier, and more secure lives. Not everyone, of course. There are places still where the benefits of technology are not much felt, and where it is, those benefits are not felt equally..."

I'd say rather that technology has enabled lives to be improved. The devil is always in the implementation.

Take health care and its effect on longevity. If you look at the lifespan of US citizens overall you'll see it's been improving. But when you break that down into economic levels, you'll find that the real longevity gains have only been achieved in the upper income groups. Lower income groups have seen very little improvement of life expectancy.

There are probably a lot of reasons for that, but a lot of it will have to do with access to advanced health care. Especially in the US where we do not have universal health coverage.

Improvements in technology almost always tend to be applied to society unequally. The haves have and the have nots don't.

I agree, Micah. The benefits of human achievements are seldom applied equally. Perhaps things like access to clean water and electricity may be exceptions in most industrialized nations, although even there, some go without and, of course, the rich probably use more. But looking at the big picture again, by an quantifiable metric I can think of at the moment, life has been improved by technological progress, and we often don't know in advance what those benefits might be. On the other hand, neither do we know the pitfalls, but we do seem to be able to overcome them... eventually. I remain cautiously optimistic for our species. :-)

Improvments have certainly effected the lower classes, heck just recently I remember reading a story that more people now die of obseity worldwide then from lack of food. Recently it feels like everyone has cellphones probably smart phones even the few remaing holdouts has them now. I have a hard time believing that life expectancy hasn't made leaps and bounds for the poor just the vaccines and basic antibiotics alone should be huge.

I have never understood the argggggg companies shouldn't have human rights. The definition of a company is pretty much to take a group of people and count it as a person legally. If you are tallking about Citizens United which is normally where I hear this complaint yes, campaign financing is messed up.

Aaron wrote: "Improvments have certainly effected the lower classes, heck just recently I remember reading a story that more people now die of obseity worldwide then from lack of food. Recently it feels like ev..."

Well, the issue is that companies are using the "corporation are people" to try and push for the right to finance and air political ads and mount campaigns. The hypocrisy is, if corporations are people, does that not make them subject to the same laws as everyone else - meaning they have to pay their taxes, keep their money in THIS country, not pollute or exploit people, and just generally respect the rights of others.

D.L. wrote: "I agree, Micah. The benefits of human achievements are seldom applied equally. Perhaps things like access to clean water and electricity may be exceptions in most industrialized nations, although e..."


Flagrant examples of such technological disparities between social classes are India and Pakistan. Both are states with nuclear-tipped missiles and both show stunning gaps in technology use between the middle to upper classes, who are mostly in the larger cities, and the lower classes, typically living in city slums or in rural villages. In India, half of the population don't even have a toilet in their houses: they have to go relieve themselves in the woods or away from houses! Brasil, a proud country, showed with the last World Soccer Cup the often shocking disparities between its slum dwellers and its extra-rich jet-setters. Hell, you could say that parts of this planet lives in the Space Age, while other parts still live in the Stone Age! As long as such disparities continue to exist, this World will continue to stumble from one war or natural disaster to the other, in my opinion.

Michel wrote: "Flagrant examples of such technological disparities between social classes..."

Too true and it's all over the place. Jamaica is like that as well. Coastal regions are dominated by tourism, while the rich live in segregated communities, send their children to private schools and hire private security to protect themselves. A large number of everyone else live in squalor with poor housing, limited food supply and inadequate clean water.

I'm sure there are examples everywhere. Even in wealthy countries there's the phenomenon of "enclave urbanism" where the super rich basically wall themselves off from the rest of the world.