Discomfort And Joy - Bill Joy and vision of the future

Ecologist, The, Oct, 2000 by Zac Goldsmith

The only sane alternative, he concedes, is to limit our pursuit of certain kinds of knowledge, even though, as he puts it, such limits 'fly in the face of the human experience'. Common sense, he argues, demands that we re-examine basic, long-held beliefs. 'The American-style economic system encourages an infatuation with the "new". No one seems prepared to slow down and be cautious. You only have to look at our experiment with antibiotics. We clearly jumped into bed with a new technology with our eyes shut, and we are paying for it now, with multi-drug-resistant diseases. DDT and thalidomide fall into the same category. And where is the evidence that cellphones are safe?

'Let's have scientists understand that they have an ethical responsibility; that the distinction between pure and applied science is largely gone. You can't create a scientific breakthrough and not think about what the consequences of the technological use of it are. The Dalai Lama has pointed out what Western research has clearly shown: having more things doesn't necessarily make people happy. Beyond some point it is just a nuisance. The simplicity movement, fractional ownership -- all point towards smarter paths.'

SEEKING CHANGE

In his Wired article, Joy expresses irritation at the reaction of some of his colleagues to the problems he sees. 'Many other people who know about the dangers still seem strangely silent,' he writes. 'When pressed, they trot out the "this is nothing new" riposte--as if awareness of what could happen is response enough.'

In his own life, he says he feels a 'deepened sense of personal responsibility -- not' he quickly adds, 'for the work I have already done, but for the work that I might yet do, at the confluence of the sciences'. Yet none of what he now believes seems to have made him do what many might think would be the obvious first step -- stop developing the very technology that he is warning about. Ask him about this and you might get a curious answer: 'I have always believed,' he wrote in Wired, 'that making software more reliable, given its many uses, will make the world a safer, better place; if I were to come to believe the opposite, then I would be morally obligated to stop this work. I can now imagine such a day may come.'

But he says he is actively trying to raise the dangers at the top level. 'I want to go next January to the World Economic Forum and hopefully we'll have some discussion on this there. I plan to talk about these issues at the OECD meeting in Paris. Obviously economics will play a major part in the discussions. I consider that to be a very positive thing to do. I'm trying to work with numerous science organisations, I've already met with half a dozen, and I'm writing a book with more emphasis on what we can do about these problems. My article triggered an enormous response.'

He is, I remind him, in the very unusual position of straddling two quite different camps. With one foot in big business and one in the technological world, will he seek to use his position to influence America's likely leaders of tomorrow? 'I've written to all the major candidates. So far, I've only received a response from George Bush.' Positive? Evading the question, he answers, 'I'm personally a supporter of Gore, but if Bush is elected I'm happy to work with him. After all, even if Gore is elected we could easily find that he isn't very active on this issue'.