“Human well-being is not a random phenomenon. It depends on many factors – ranging from genetics and neurobiology to sociology and economics. But, clearly, there are scientific truths to be known about how we can flourish in this world. Wherever we can have an impact on the well-being of others, questions of morality apply.” -Sam Harris
Is it moral to use technology to save the world? For many the answer is an automatic, and emphatic, yes. Why shouldn’t one use every tool available to save humanity, often from itself? The answer seems to lie in the difference between these questions: “What is the potential use of a technology” and “What is the likely use of a technology.” How would making this choice affect us?
Let’s try an example. Say we built a global network of mirrors in space to redirect sunlight for the purpose of affecting global and regional climate. If you wanted to cool the planet, then simply redirect some of the sunlight away from earth, and visa versa. You could also do this on a regional basis, say if an area is experiencing a heat wave and you want to cool in down, or if there is too much frost bite happening in another area – the visa versa.
This would involve tens of thousands of mirrors in orbit, if not more, that can recalibrate their angles continually. You would only need enough to block a small percentage of sunlight because it would be a continual blockage or refocus. Though there would need to be a pretty powerful control system to coordinate all of this.
Now what are the uses and pitfalls? For one, deaths from heat waves and cold snaps could be reduced, it could be used to help even out temperatures for growing crops, reduce sunlight to deserts to make them closer to arable, help keep permafrost frozen, etc.
The cons however are equally as powerful. Someone could hack or maliciously use the system to over heat an area, maybe even fry a city if the system used curved mirrors to focus the light. Impossible? Consider this. The system would be in orbit and would have a radius wider than the earth. Sunlight that would have gone out into space, or somewhere else on earth, is now redirected to a concentrated spot.
It also could be use to mess with a country’s crop production, slowly vaporize a supply of water, or make life, temperature wise, miserable in an area to reduce moral. In short, this is also a weapon of war.
“Consciousness permits us to develop the instruments of culture – morality and justice, religion, art, economics and politics, science and technology. Those instruments allow us some measure of freedom in the confrontation with nature.”
-Antonio Damasio
So given what this technology could do, whats the best way to evaluate whether or not its worth pursuing: potential use or likely use? The potential is clear, it could be used to alleviate human suffering and increase prosperity and comfort. It also could be use as a WMD.
The likely use is that we would build it for positive reasons, hoping to make the world a better place, and then hackers or aggressor nations would try to co-opt it.
Likely use seems more practical as it takes into account how human nature may interact with new possibilities. Where as the possibilities approach has its roots in the most and least ideal versions of a future, or even present, humanity. The idealist verses the realist.
Perhaps the best way to answer this is to say yes to both. Accepting how something is likely to be used allows us to prepare for whatever downsides may come. But this also allows us to work on reaching its potential without it having to be perfect right away. This seems to me to be the pattern of human endeavor in general.
There is one point that is really worth thinking about first though: what would this do to us as a species? Would it serve to increase human arrogance that we have mastered nature? Might the power of the system inspire a sense of humility and responsibility? Could we become more indifferent to the consequences of our actions as we could simply “fix” it?
Whatever those answers turn out to be, it is important to consider these kinds of consequences when making any decision of this magnitude.
How do you think this kind of a system would impact your view of the world?
