The Technological Singularity is Near
February 15, 2008
In 1907, Henry Adams (grandson of former President John Quincy Adams) published an autobiography entitled The Education of Henry Adams bemoaning the inadequacy of contemporary educational practices. He argued that his education failed to prepare him for a world that was undergoing rapid and drastic alteration. The root of this change, according to Adams, was the “dynamo” - a term he used to represent the advanced technology of his generation (the actual dynamo itself was a type of early power generator). Adams observed that technological advancement was not only increasing steadily; it was, in fact, increasing exponentially. Dismayed that his education had not prepared him for a world in the midst of significant change, his argument was this: Traditional educational infrastructure does not adequately prepare the individual to function in a world of modern technology that is developing at a viral rate.
If Adams had published his autobiography in today’s technological world, it would bear eerie resemblance to the one published in 1907. It is tragic but true that even in the so-called “information age”, strictly technological education is drastically lacking. That’s not to say technology hasn’t been adeptly incorporated into nearly every aspect of our daily lives; however, the study of technology as an institution and permanent feature of human civilization is woefully neglected.
Modern day da Vinci and futurist author Raymond Kurzweil recently wrote that “The Singularity is Near,” describing the titular event in which the massive acceleration in the rate of increasing technological complexity culminates in a point resembling the mathematical and astronomical features of a singularity, a concept most commonly associated with black holes. Though this summary is a gross oversimplification of the concept of technological Singularity, it conveys the basic point: in the near future, technology will become even more integrated into society than it is today. If current trends of technological education persist, we might end up with a technological infrastructure upon which all depend but few comprehend. With Wikipedia on the rise to fountainhead of information, those with the keys to such technology hold the keys to the future of human civilization.
In a 1965 paper, Intel co-founder Gordon Moore postulated that the number of transistors able to be placed on an integrated circuit would double every two years. The number of transistors is directly proportional to the performance of computers in memory, speed, graphics, and all other capabilities. Therefore, what is now known as “Moore’s Law” has accurately predicted the exponential increase in computer performance, doubling every two years. This trend is expected to continue for several decades, due to an increase in the ability to work with nanomaterials. Though Moore’s Law only refers to specifically to computer hardware, Kurzweil argues that the law in fact applies to technology as a whole: technology is becoming increasingly complex, each outgrowth of which will impact our lives just as the internet and cell phones have. Kurzweil has adapted a variation of Moore’s Law into what he calls “The Law of Accelerating Returns,” a model with which to predict the accelerating development of technological complexity on the whole. He, like Adams, believes that we as a society must become educated about this accelerating change or face the consequences.
Though most academic institutions educate students on the maintenance and operation of basic technologies, many neglect to study the sociological aspects thereof. Where is the course that discusses how technology has shaped our history as a species? Where is the course that studies past technological trends, using that information to project the social effects of the internet, as historically defining as the Gutenberg printing press? Where is the course that considers the ethics of incipient technology (though bioethics is a significant component of this question, it is not the only discipline deserving of consideration)? The course that examines technology in a philosophical light? Each of these questions is complex enough to occupy an entire school of thought, yet most institutions do not even devote a semester to their study.
Adams, then, was correct: society, despite hailing technology as the way to improve the human condition, neglects educating the general population beyond the utterly necessary. Not giving extensive technological education is akin to disadvantaging a society by only teaching them elementary verbal and writing skills, and the latter is even arguably being phased out for technology. In a world with spell check, will we continue to teach sentence diagraming but not how to backup your crucial computer files?
If we are going to ensure the peaceful, beneficial progression of our society in tandem with the technological dynamo, we must begin to entertain some of these questions. Without consideration, the acceleration will cause issues and answers to slip past us, and we will not be prepared to benefit. After all, as Adams wrote in his autobiography, “A law of acceleration, definite and constant as any law of mechanics, cannot be supposed to relax its energy to suit the convenience of man.”
Andrew Leith is a Freshman who has not declared a major.
Society doesn't neglect to educate the masses; it's society's ruling elites that purposely do so in order to ensure they won't face competition for their privileged positions and will always have a stable pool of uneducated consumers for their crappy products.
For all the harping people do about technology, nobody has ever addressed the inherent flaws in human nature, which make technical advances far less beneficial in the long run. Why not? Because addressing problems with human nature would expose the fact that society's ruling elites are in fact sociopaths, without whom the benefits of technology could be far more freely enjoyed.
Posted by: A. Magnus at February 19, 2008 1:21 PM