What major achievable and sustainable technologies have we banned? It’s a genuine question, something I’ve thought about in the context of nuclear weapons (I think it’s unrealistic and fantastical to have expected Truman to have had the atom bomb explained to him and to have said “No, we won’t use it, this is a technology we won’t pursue, that we’ll effectively put beyond use”).
First, I'm not advocating any policy. I'm describing. The only thing I'm advocating is being aware that humans can and do shape technologies with our choices, so we should be self-aware and think hard about these problems rather than adopting a passive or fatalist mentality.
Second, you're engaging in the usual sort of extreme, dichotomous thinking the bedevils these discussions: It's either "anything goes" or "it's entirely forbidden." Dispense with that and recognize that there is an immense range of possibilities between those two extremes. Also, and for the same reason, don't see it as a choice between governmental force (which, in reality, comes in a hundred flavours) versus free market choice (ditto). There are many, many ways humans regulate human behaviour -- including the human behaviour of adoption and use of technology.
Think of it in those terms and you'll realize that technologies that have NOT been shaped by human choice are... well, I'm not sure there is such a thing.
All that said, the first poster was asking about technologies being outright banned. Off the top of my head, leaded gasoline, CFCs, chemical and biological weapons, landmines (by most countries), etc. Expand that a little to "severely restricted" and the list explodes. But of course the frame matters. How technologies are handled varies enormously from place to place, of course, as well as over time. Hence my question.
I think you're misreading me. Years ago, I wasted too much of my life in trying to have an effect on technology policy, and I was seriously involved in a few technology regulation topics. I know the area well. I've always, from the start, been again technological determinism. The problem is that "think hard about these problems" doesn't go far. I criticize that sort of punditry, that's my note about "unicorn which spits rainbows". I contend that for anything effective, it's necessary to engage, at least to a certain extent, with the ideas of "What SPECIFICALLY, in some detail, do you want to happen?" and "How do you propose to get there?". For example, one topic I know well is the now-mostly-settled use of encryption debate. It still pops up from time time - "We want law enforcement to be able decrypt messages, but not criminals". Is that even realistic? There was some strange stuff in the early days, with e.g. an idea that companies could freely make available "civilian-grade" encryption, but not "military-grade" encryption.
Anyway, I'm asking, give a sense of what you're trying to have happen, in a more concrete level. What's a *close* real-world comparison of how a past technology was treated, for the way you'd like to see AI treated?
I'd say "Leaded gas, asbestos, CFCs and some other chemicals" are extremely bad examples. Those are specific materials, not technologies in a broad sense. It's the difference between "don't put lead in gas" and "don't make internal-combustion engines". Maybe cars are a good example - but even then, nobody stops people from making them, versus the whole transit industry.
Note for AI, as opposed to anything physical, it involves some very serious free-speech issues.
I had thought Japan and firearms, but a quick check enlightened me that's a media-depiction myth.
Certainly early printing presses were heavily regulated, and modern ones in the Soviet Union. But that's not a complete ban, just state control.
Perhaps "banned" is overstating a more interesting question - "What technologies have been placed under extreme State control where all users and uses must be approved by The Authorities"? (and how well has it worked?)
Leaded gas, asbestos, CFCs and some other chemicals. And remember Dolly? Human cloning was banned and not one human has been cloned. As for the severe state control you mention, a complete list would be astonishingly long. You could fill a book with the technologies the US controls for national security reasons alone.
One could make a qualified case for various chemical weapons, though we all know it’s not universally observed. And, to an extent, landmines, though that’s now likely to be rolled back.
Well said. Reminds me of the video on YouTube “Is an AI Apocalypse Inevitable?” by Tristan Harris. The author points out that social media as currently designed didn’t have to be this way, but society wrote it off as inevitable. He uses nuclear weapons regulations as an example of collective decisions about technology that can work in practice.
I’ve been working on a Vonnegut project for a while now. My copy of Player Piano is full of notes. It’s prescient in so many ways that I believe it’s movie time. I’ve been looking for a collaborator with more tech knowledge. Know anyone interested?
I've been wondering lately if the homelessness and drug use we see today has been slowly festering from the loss of jobs due, not to technology, but to cheaper overseas labour accessible through trade. Who sews the Wrangler jeans now?
The unemployment rate is derived from the number of people working or seeking work, whereas the labour participation rate measures the percent of working-age population engaged in the workforce.
The labour participation rate has been declining since 2003. China joined the WTO in 2001. I don't have the resources to research it, but I do have a "wonder" if there's causation.
Given the energy and water (cooling) consumption of technology I suspect the many trades skills will continue to be in demand, including constructors. Tech is being adapted in the building industry however slowly but it's still a very physical industry. To date, it seems even technology needs physical protection from the environmental elements as do people. The future will indeed be interesting ... and it starts tomorrow.
The Western liberal elite are now more criminal and evil than any fascist abomination in human history. And its just the beginning, by the looks of it.
What major achievable and sustainable technologies have we banned? It’s a genuine question, something I’ve thought about in the context of nuclear weapons (I think it’s unrealistic and fantastical to have expected Truman to have had the atom bomb explained to him and to have said “No, we won’t use it, this is a technology we won’t pursue, that we’ll effectively put beyond use”).
Depends on which "we" you are referring to.
Well, could you give the best analogous example of what you'd like to see, using a real-world case?
That is, "Technology X was treated as Y by government Z, and we should do the same".
Not "We should have a unicorn who spits rainbows" (i.e. a speculative fantasy of all good things).
First, I'm not advocating any policy. I'm describing. The only thing I'm advocating is being aware that humans can and do shape technologies with our choices, so we should be self-aware and think hard about these problems rather than adopting a passive or fatalist mentality.
Second, you're engaging in the usual sort of extreme, dichotomous thinking the bedevils these discussions: It's either "anything goes" or "it's entirely forbidden." Dispense with that and recognize that there is an immense range of possibilities between those two extremes. Also, and for the same reason, don't see it as a choice between governmental force (which, in reality, comes in a hundred flavours) versus free market choice (ditto). There are many, many ways humans regulate human behaviour -- including the human behaviour of adoption and use of technology.
Think of it in those terms and you'll realize that technologies that have NOT been shaped by human choice are... well, I'm not sure there is such a thing.
All that said, the first poster was asking about technologies being outright banned. Off the top of my head, leaded gasoline, CFCs, chemical and biological weapons, landmines (by most countries), etc. Expand that a little to "severely restricted" and the list explodes. But of course the frame matters. How technologies are handled varies enormously from place to place, of course, as well as over time. Hence my question.
I think you're misreading me. Years ago, I wasted too much of my life in trying to have an effect on technology policy, and I was seriously involved in a few technology regulation topics. I know the area well. I've always, from the start, been again technological determinism. The problem is that "think hard about these problems" doesn't go far. I criticize that sort of punditry, that's my note about "unicorn which spits rainbows". I contend that for anything effective, it's necessary to engage, at least to a certain extent, with the ideas of "What SPECIFICALLY, in some detail, do you want to happen?" and "How do you propose to get there?". For example, one topic I know well is the now-mostly-settled use of encryption debate. It still pops up from time time - "We want law enforcement to be able decrypt messages, but not criminals". Is that even realistic? There was some strange stuff in the early days, with e.g. an idea that companies could freely make available "civilian-grade" encryption, but not "military-grade" encryption.
Anyway, I'm asking, give a sense of what you're trying to have happen, in a more concrete level. What's a *close* real-world comparison of how a past technology was treated, for the way you'd like to see AI treated?
I'd say "Leaded gas, asbestos, CFCs and some other chemicals" are extremely bad examples. Those are specific materials, not technologies in a broad sense. It's the difference between "don't put lead in gas" and "don't make internal-combustion engines". Maybe cars are a good example - but even then, nobody stops people from making them, versus the whole transit industry.
Note for AI, as opposed to anything physical, it involves some very serious free-speech issues.
I had thought Japan and firearms, but a quick check enlightened me that's a media-depiction myth.
Certainly early printing presses were heavily regulated, and modern ones in the Soviet Union. But that's not a complete ban, just state control.
Perhaps "banned" is overstating a more interesting question - "What technologies have been placed under extreme State control where all users and uses must be approved by The Authorities"? (and how well has it worked?)
Leaded gas, asbestos, CFCs and some other chemicals. And remember Dolly? Human cloning was banned and not one human has been cloned. As for the severe state control you mention, a complete list would be astonishingly long. You could fill a book with the technologies the US controls for national security reasons alone.
One could make a qualified case for various chemical weapons, though we all know it’s not universally observed. And, to an extent, landmines, though that’s now likely to be rolled back.
Well said. Reminds me of the video on YouTube “Is an AI Apocalypse Inevitable?” by Tristan Harris. The author points out that social media as currently designed didn’t have to be this way, but society wrote it off as inevitable. He uses nuclear weapons regulations as an example of collective decisions about technology that can work in practice.
I’ve been working on a Vonnegut project for a while now. My copy of Player Piano is full of notes. It’s prescient in so many ways that I believe it’s movie time. I’ve been looking for a collaborator with more tech knowledge. Know anyone interested?
I've been wondering lately if the homelessness and drug use we see today has been slowly festering from the loss of jobs due, not to technology, but to cheaper overseas labour accessible through trade. Who sews the Wrangler jeans now?
No. Before and after Covid, the unemployment rate was at or near its lowest levels since the 1960s.
The unemployment rate is derived from the number of people working or seeking work, whereas the labour participation rate measures the percent of working-age population engaged in the workforce.
The labour participation rate has been declining since 2003. China joined the WTO in 2001. I don't have the resources to research it, but I do have a "wonder" if there's causation.
https://bidenwhitehouse.archives.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/EPOP-LFPR_Figure4-1_resize-1270-875.png
Given the energy and water (cooling) consumption of technology I suspect the many trades skills will continue to be in demand, including constructors. Tech is being adapted in the building industry however slowly but it's still a very physical industry. To date, it seems even technology needs physical protection from the environmental elements as do people. The future will indeed be interesting ... and it starts tomorrow.
I enjoyed the article and I look forward to many more. The topic is timely and your observations are, as usual,balanced and informative.
Militant hatred of liberals.
The Western liberal elite are now more criminal and evil than any fascist abomination in human history. And its just the beginning, by the looks of it.
Sorry, what? Who are the evil liberals here?