The Toulmin Argument Essay: The Inevitable Future

Jesse Roach
Stidham
Eng 112-4144
Toulmin Argument Essay
October 8, 2014
The Inevitable Future It is hard to argue the fact that our future will see technological advances that will shape and change the way people go about their lives. Although change is imminent, it is unknown exactly how and to what degree these changes will impact society as a whole. These types of questions are the focal points of arguments set up by two highly respected technological minds, Ray Kurzweil and Bill Joy, who take two very different stances on what they believe will be the consequences of our expanding technology sectors, specifically biotechnology. Kurzweil paints a prettier portrait of the future while Joy cites previous events as grim omens. Kurzweil’s
began discussing his optimistic vision in his speech, “Our Bodies, Our Technology”, where he explains the emerging nanobot technology which will revolutionize multiple facets of human life.
It’s safe to say that Kurzweil very passionately supports the development of said nanobots and his description of the near future seems to have roots closer to fairy tales rather than reality. He discusses at length the many benefits of this emerging technology while having very little to say on any of the possible repercussions that could come along. The idea of robots which can, in essence, control whether or not people live or die would obviously present many more problems than the new Olympic rules that Kurzweil presents as one of his few downsides. These miniature robots would bring up countless moral, financial, and political dilemmas. Kurzweil focus is mostly pointed towards the medical applications of nanobots which he believes will be able to substantially extended human life and be one of the most effective ways to fight disease. While it is hard to dispute these things it raises the question of whether or not humans should have that
power and if it is the case that we should not then would that make it acceptable to let people die when there was a means to prevent it. On the other side of this argument, if people do believe it is acceptable to extend the human life then it presents the problem of overpopulation and increased use of already limited natural resources. This is also a problem that arises only from the medical repercussions of using nanobots and it is likely that similar difficult-to-solve problems would show up if you were to look at all the different sectors that said technology would be applied. Kurzweil’s child-like wonderment leads to countless flaws in his argument which makes it much hard to accept his proposed utopia as an actual possibility. Bill Joy showed a completely opposite view point to Kurzweil’s in the article “Why the Future Doesn’t Need Us”.
Joy describes an almost dystopian future that he believes would be a direct result from the increasing speed of technological advancement. While Joy agrees with the inevitability of developing radically new technology he expresses fear of how people will use them and the consequences of those actions. His references to the atomic bomb is a great example of the last time people got ahold of a technology that had vastly negative impact on the world. This example paired with the fact that new technologies are normally available only to those that have more money and power would definitely support the idea that Joy’s vision of the future is at least in some ways plausible. Although these things do support Joy’s argument, his doom and gloom scenario also ignores some fairly important points as well. With technology like nanobots that could extend the human life, we open up the opportunity for the world’s best and brightest to extend the time they have to solve the problems that severely limit our world, resources, and our people. So while the emerging technology may present multitudes of problems it also presents the opportunity to have more options of solving said problems as well. Joy’s also discusses the ways in which the government could potentially abuse these new technologies but fails to acknowledge that a new generation will be running the world by the time
these new technologies become common place. While this shouldn’t disperse Joy’s fear, it does present another unknown element which could lead to completely different outcomes. The gloom and doom scenarios presented by Joy end up being just as one-sided as his opponents, albeit for the opposite position, which make his arguments hard to agree with as well. Following Joy’s response, Kurzweil responded with an article named “Promise and Peril” which presents ideas that are much closer to being a neutral analysis. While Kurzweil still supports the development of nanobots he does acknowledge his opposition’s fears but presents them in different contexts. The reference to the atomic bomb looked at again by Kurzweil who believes that while people from the past wouldn’t approve of the development of such technology, they also wouldn’t want to give up the chance for the medical technologies that would have come along with the natural technological development. Along those lines he presents what he believes to be the stages of evaluating technologies as “awe and wonderment at its potential to overcome age-old problems, a sense of dread at a new set of grave dangers that accompany these new technologies, followed, finally and hopefully, by the realization that the only viable and responsible path is to set a careful course that can realize the promise while managing the peril” (Kurzweil). This would lead people to believe that while these things may currently seem new and strange, eventually the population will grow to accept these things as reality and find ways to integrate them into society. This could even been seen as a mirror to Darwinism as human changes over time to adapt to their surroundings, even if those surroundings are a product of their own creations. Kurzweil also explains the fact that with all of our different sectors so excessively intertwined it becomes increasing difficult to stop the development of one sector without adversely affecting other areas of research. This more realistic view of our future technology is the most likely, of the three presented, to be what our future looks like. While it doesn’t present many clear answers to any problems, it does acknowledge them and explains that the as either the pros or the cons become more extra so does the other. Kurzweil and Joy’s main point of agreement in these three articles is that the exponential progress of technology is an inevitability that the world will have to deal with at some point. While it is unlikely that the population will completely succumb to its own creations or live out the rest of time in a paradise of immortality, it is true that both of the great minds present real problems that will have real consequences. In the end it will most likely be a mix of good and bad that comes from the human races constant pursuit of knowledge as history has shown countless times.

Works Cited