John Hammond: I don't think you're giving us our due credit. Our scientists have done things which nobody's ever done before...
Dr. Ian Malcolm: Yeah, yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn't stop to think if they should.
This is one of my favorite quotes from any movie. I like Jurassic Park a lot, but I think the above exchange between Mr. Hammond and Dr. Malcolm was not only extremely appropo for that movie, but was profound in its application to our current situation. By our current situation, I mean the state of science, and the state of espionage, in which we find ourselves today. For instance, consider state of the art electronics. Spy cameras are smaller and ever more powerful. Tiny cameras are now mounted on small, insect-size robots known as nanobots. A modern robot could now actually be the proverbial "fly on the wall" in your bedroom or your office, listening to your words and recording your actions, and transmitting this information to a dizzying number of state, federal, and even international law enforcement agencies, government agencies, and outright spy agencies. Oh yes, private corporations can, and probably do, take advantage of the same technology. And as each new discovery and application of such technology compounds the available and potential missions of such things, I have to wonder, were they so preoccupied with whether or not they COULD that they didn't stop to think if they SHOULD?!
On the other side of state of the arts electronics is the growing, expanding, ever-improving field of unmanned aerial drones, as well as similar land- and sea-going machines. Drones, whether the size of a small kite, or as large as fighter jets, have become an invaluable weapon system in many modern militaries around the world. I would like to stress that the United States does not have the monopoly on drone technology. Last year, for instance, a small drone operated by the Mexican police crashed into a home in El Paso, Texas. Our United States Congress has authorized, I should say DEMANDED, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to make plans to allow for the licensing of over 30,000 drones in the next couple of years. These drones will be of all sizes, and will be operated both by our federal government and by private companies as well. Given that our air traffic controllers can hardly keep up with the regular air traffic now, I am terrified as to what will happen when our skies begin to fill with these drones. And once again I had to wonder, were scientists so preoccupied with whether they could that they didn't stop to think whether they should.
The truth is that many government projects, including those that involve gaining the ability to spy on Americans, intercept electronic communications, establish endless camera networks that are equipped with facial recognition technology, and to use all this technology to control us, would not be possible without the cooperation of scientists who are willing to invent these things apparently with no thought given to what is the ultimate purpose for and use of this technology. I see all this technology and I have to wonder, WHAT were they THINKING?!! Surely these scientists and technologists must realize that they themselves will be the targets of this technology sooner or later. But again, they were so preoccupied with whether they could do it that they did not stop to think whether they should.
At this point in America, it may well be too late to stem the tide of government control through emerging technology. I hope not. I also hope that our wiser scientists will someday apply the Jeff Goldblum question to decide whether the benefits of new technology outweigh the loss of personal freedom and liberty. There are so many good things that technology can do, but it seems that many times useful technology is mostly applied to the science of spying on and of controlling people. Drones, in their most modern form, have removed the "pilot" from the scene of the air strike. Now the operator of the drone sits thousands of miles away from the attack, sometimes whole continents away. The United States, through our lately re-elected President, now has the world in its sights. Cars, buildings, or even individuals the world over can now be targeted and destroyed by drones so that no human flyer is ever at risk. Again, we CAN do it. SHOULD we do it?
To make these matters really serious, it appears that no one person or agency can control the proliferation of this technology, nor, apparently, would anyone (with power) want to. I had hoped that a new President would bring a new philosophy into the White House; a belief that this nation is a nation of law, that no one, including the President, is above the law. Now that Mr. Obama has been given another term, I hold on the the faint hope that he will reverse his decision to allow United States drones to fly freely over other nations and rain down death on innocent persons, along with the terrorists that are the targets of these drone raids. It appears that the power the advances in technology brings trumps the idea of NOT using some technology just because we can. I hope I am wrong...I hope that our leaders, our scientists, and our technologists will take the time to think, to ask themselves this question: Are we preoccupied with whether we could, that we don't stop to think whether we SHOULD?
Dr. Ian Malcolm: Yeah, yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn't stop to think if they should.
This is one of my favorite quotes from any movie. I like Jurassic Park a lot, but I think the above exchange between Mr. Hammond and Dr. Malcolm was not only extremely appropo for that movie, but was profound in its application to our current situation. By our current situation, I mean the state of science, and the state of espionage, in which we find ourselves today. For instance, consider state of the art electronics. Spy cameras are smaller and ever more powerful. Tiny cameras are now mounted on small, insect-size robots known as nanobots. A modern robot could now actually be the proverbial "fly on the wall" in your bedroom or your office, listening to your words and recording your actions, and transmitting this information to a dizzying number of state, federal, and even international law enforcement agencies, government agencies, and outright spy agencies. Oh yes, private corporations can, and probably do, take advantage of the same technology. And as each new discovery and application of such technology compounds the available and potential missions of such things, I have to wonder, were they so preoccupied with whether or not they COULD that they didn't stop to think if they SHOULD?!
On the other side of state of the arts electronics is the growing, expanding, ever-improving field of unmanned aerial drones, as well as similar land- and sea-going machines. Drones, whether the size of a small kite, or as large as fighter jets, have become an invaluable weapon system in many modern militaries around the world. I would like to stress that the United States does not have the monopoly on drone technology. Last year, for instance, a small drone operated by the Mexican police crashed into a home in El Paso, Texas. Our United States Congress has authorized, I should say DEMANDED, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to make plans to allow for the licensing of over 30,000 drones in the next couple of years. These drones will be of all sizes, and will be operated both by our federal government and by private companies as well. Given that our air traffic controllers can hardly keep up with the regular air traffic now, I am terrified as to what will happen when our skies begin to fill with these drones. And once again I had to wonder, were scientists so preoccupied with whether they could that they didn't stop to think whether they should.
The truth is that many government projects, including those that involve gaining the ability to spy on Americans, intercept electronic communications, establish endless camera networks that are equipped with facial recognition technology, and to use all this technology to control us, would not be possible without the cooperation of scientists who are willing to invent these things apparently with no thought given to what is the ultimate purpose for and use of this technology. I see all this technology and I have to wonder, WHAT were they THINKING?!! Surely these scientists and technologists must realize that they themselves will be the targets of this technology sooner or later. But again, they were so preoccupied with whether they could do it that they did not stop to think whether they should.
At this point in America, it may well be too late to stem the tide of government control through emerging technology. I hope not. I also hope that our wiser scientists will someday apply the Jeff Goldblum question to decide whether the benefits of new technology outweigh the loss of personal freedom and liberty. There are so many good things that technology can do, but it seems that many times useful technology is mostly applied to the science of spying on and of controlling people. Drones, in their most modern form, have removed the "pilot" from the scene of the air strike. Now the operator of the drone sits thousands of miles away from the attack, sometimes whole continents away. The United States, through our lately re-elected President, now has the world in its sights. Cars, buildings, or even individuals the world over can now be targeted and destroyed by drones so that no human flyer is ever at risk. Again, we CAN do it. SHOULD we do it?
To make these matters really serious, it appears that no one person or agency can control the proliferation of this technology, nor, apparently, would anyone (with power) want to. I had hoped that a new President would bring a new philosophy into the White House; a belief that this nation is a nation of law, that no one, including the President, is above the law. Now that Mr. Obama has been given another term, I hold on the the faint hope that he will reverse his decision to allow United States drones to fly freely over other nations and rain down death on innocent persons, along with the terrorists that are the targets of these drone raids. It appears that the power the advances in technology brings trumps the idea of NOT using some technology just because we can. I hope I am wrong...I hope that our leaders, our scientists, and our technologists will take the time to think, to ask themselves this question: Are we preoccupied with whether we could, that we don't stop to think whether we SHOULD?
No comments:
Post a Comment