Monday, October 17, 2011

...the 7 List...worst applications of technology...

There's been much discussion on science and science fiction blogs about the role of fiction as it affects the shape of technology. There's little doubt that fiction stirs the imagination and, in turn, pushes the curious and the genius toward discovery. However, there's got to be a limit. This is what I came up with in five minutes, I'm sure there's about a thousand variants similar to these. In no particular order: 


i. anti-gravity/hoover-boards [BTTFhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkyLnWm1iCs
     If we were to find the silver bullet to create the dubious construct of anti-gravity, whereby we can simulate or repel the effects of gravity, would we then ask our toy manufacturers to exert energy (lots of energy in fact) into toys? As many physicists will cite: there are few practical ways to generate or repel gravity. There are tricks that you can apply to get an effect, but, unless you are able to manipulate spacial geometry and mass, we're simply not getting hoover-boards from Mattel. [Apologies to my favorite sci-fi movie, BTTF!]
     And why would we need this? It's an example of something wholly unnecessary in its application, where instead, we could apply science and funding towards mimicking gravity in either smaller capsules (gyroscope) or, if it must come to inter-solar travel, larger ships that can mimic gravity by their sheer density. It almost seems likely that a mass-producing element can then generate a localized spatial well.
     The next step is determining what amount of gravity is enough to survive indefinitely.



ii. capital ships/war [BSGhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APNRdANiZEQ
     No worse application of science is the idea that only war or corporations will hunger for interstellar travel. From this, the idea of ginormous capital ships caught up solely for the war or capitalization effort.  
     What?! So we would create massive scale ships so they could be potentially destroyed in seconds?            
     Wouldn't we, being wholly realistic, create smaller ships with maximum firepower and win by prize? I'm thinking of how the Golden Age of Sail operated. You wouldn't mindlessly destroy ships on a foolish whim - you would reasonably dispatch or press the crew and put the ship into service. I couldn't imagine a future where dystopia is what fuels the human condition.  History would not prove that out.


iii. uncontrollable automatons [I, Robothttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBtMq0QzIdQ
     We'll learn quickly that, other than military or industrial application, domesticated robots should never have the strength above that then the task that they are oriented for.  If an elderly person can only handle 30 psi of practical strength, the robot should be easily overpowered.  This is the only way to avoid abuse.
     It would be illegal to hack or create any automaton that can overpower or otherwise harm a human.  Military applications are already here, so good luck trying to stop that bus (or, be it as it were, drone).
     I would hope our future selves would easily see the fatal flaw in creating any construct in which no one, or simply one, has control.


iv. time travel [The Time Machinehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRWwI61so5Q
     Time does not move the way folks may think.  What has passed is gone folks, stop worrying about trying to go back to another date: it simply cannot happen.


v. self-importance/vanity in perpetuity [Superbia, Bruegel] http://crucialxtimes.com/xdx/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Brueghel_-_Sieben_Laster_-_7-Superbia.jpg
     This will be somewhat of a didactic argument.  The idea that perpetuity can exist through ones work or art is, of course, fact.  There is a temporal element only applicable to those that care about it.  Already, in this past "information" age, history has forgotten more than the future will ever care to remember.  Do you think anyone, unless you are beyond brilliant, will want to here your hologram in a 1,000 years.  Statistically doubtful.  Enjoy MySpace, Facebook and Twitter now.

     If there are flash copies of minds, they will be how these synthetic minds learn, not so much upon whom they are based on.  There will be fashion statements of AI, for sure, but, literally, they will be as disparate and individualistic beyond any one person.  99% indeed - more like 99.9% will be forgotten with three generations.


vi. technological / organic implants [Halo
    I'm going to be wrong on this one, I know.  Once folks see the miracles of enhancement, or some other benign term, they will line up like monkeys at a banana picnic.  But, cautionary tale as it is, remember the old Twilight Zone when they were able to perform enhancement.  It won't be democratic and wholly capitalistic.  The 'have' and 'have nots' will be in constant struggle.
    Let's pretend they are free - why not evolution take its course and only bump it when critical?  That's what 's frustrating about (some) science without religion: there's something cold and precise and unfeeling toward the natural world as it exists.  The human organism is amazing, beyond all of our feeble reckoning.  Will we destroy our DNA at the expense to read or react faster?


vii. endless life [ancient fable of Caeneushttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caeneus
     Another cautionary tale that would probably get lost - immortality.  Man is not designed to 'live forever'.  We are temporal beings that are only meant to live and die (and pending your faith, as spirit or energy after).
     I suppose the idea is that we have a system that disallows the cell of the body to deteriorate or malign.  I hope this panacea also holds the key to avoiding accidents, famine, pestilence, war, jealousy, etc.  Seriously, the idea to live beyond one's natural span of life is egotistical to say anything.
     I could only imagine what monstrosities the future holds for those that try to stave off death.  Body grafts, impossible cosmetic surgeries to repair damage, litigiousness when those things fall short.  How about the horrors of Caeneus, where one is imprisoned for years underground unable to die?
    This possibility, not remote, is impractical and would hasten the need for strict, moral guidance.  The alternative is the bourgeoisie living forever, with the slaves feeding their insatiable desires. 

No comments: