Technology, business, and the need for a religion
March 25, 2009
Before you label me a religious nut, let me explain that religion to me has little to do with god, rather it is about finding meaning in what we do. In that sense, it may be more appropriate to call me a type of Buddhist than the Catholic that I was raised as. I think that business and technology (to the latter of which, I include science in general) are particular areas missing a type of meaning, and there is actually a continuous battle being fought against it.
This is perhaps more apparent in science, where prominent celebrity-scientists like Richard Dawkins are waging a war against creationism, and with that all that it stands for. I have little defence for the bible-based pseudo science being propagated by people with very little in credentials to their name. I don’t particular think that science should’ve ever entered this area of people lives; it comes from an outdated belief that the church should control everything that we stand for. ‘Control’ is the wrong word; there should be ‘meaning’ to all things we do, but the validity of science is established and the validity of religion is being undermined more everyday by pretending to be a pseudo-science.
In business too, a battle is being waged between maximising measurable shareholder returns vs. the more intangible qualities that make ideas great. Religion, meaning, has lost it’s place to the Dollar bill a long time ago…
I thought this subject appropriate as one of my favourite science fiction shows has ended last weekend, Battlestar Galactica, in which the presence of a god or gods plays a strong role in determining the fate of man and machine. It is one of a trilogy of shows that have played a strong part in my thinking since I was a teenager; the other two being “Star Trek: The Next Generation” and “Terminator,” the movies and the show [I also love "Babylon 5," though that more for the solid quality of screenwriting, on par with shows like "The Wire," a story for another day and blog].
There is little doubt in my mind that some version of the future predicted in those three shows will come true. The robots will come anyway, but what does that mean for us? Will they be equals like Data in Star Trek; dangerous allies like the friendly terminator on John Conner’s side; or simply “the enemy?”
I guess that this is for us to decide and I think that some kind of religious element, similar to Asimov’s three laws of robotics perhaps, will have to come into place for there to be a meaning that transcends the relationship between man and machine. Our very nature is determined by the state of nature as we perceive it: a planet with resources too few to maintain all of us, feeding our competitive spirit; humans that are a kind of machine, with a limited life-span, and the ability to procreate, feeding our compassionate spirit and need for understanding. By creating beings that defy that logic, it is hard to fathom what effect that will have on us. Will we see them as competition, as slaves, as children, as equals? How will they see us?
I think that religion, as it is now, needs to accept that science is an established area that explains, in part, our place in the universe—science will not, as yet, make us immortal. I also think that religion is a strong candidate for the building of communities, something that science and technology plays a role in also. I think that the imperfection that is religion, should perhaps also be built into technology in some way, remembering that by religion, I mean “the bringing of meaning,” which is different to “the bringing of purpose.”
That meaning, whatever it is, “god,” is by nature imperfect, fuzzy, and unclear, because worshipping perfection, a perfect god, a “techno-god,” will more than likely mean the end of us. I have a hard time imagining that such a god will tolerate flawed creatures like us.
This is my brain-dump after spending a few days in limbo, and currently on just a few hours of sleep. It is, admittedly a little light on criticising the business side of things, which, in my opinion, has more than proven it’s ability to take meaning away from action. Take it as the start of a conversation perhaps.
Vincent
P.S. speaking of sci-fi and the future, did you know that “Demolition Man” is considered the Nostradamus of sci-fi movies?
Jeremy Fain
alexandrelucas
Steve Danino
Lucien Huang
raphael encaoua
Leonard Sellem
Fidji SIMO
Matthias Schwenk
Remy MIRALLES
ceciiil
Emmanuel Perez-Duarte
Raj Sheelvant
Georgia
March 25, 2009 at 19:36
I think there’s a good reason to leave the business, technology and science as value neutral as possible. Well, the fields of strategy and marketing are nothing but value neutral, but for many they’re not exact sciences for this and other reasons. Science and its theories are, after all, trying to be universal. I agree that mixing science and religion won’t really lead to anything good, by either religion’s or science’s measure.
I think one thing that is often forgotten is that neither science or religion means anything without a thinking human, who is there to bring meaning to both of them. True, someone might argue that gravity et al. are there even if there wasn’t anyone to measure it. Others could as well argue that God or gods or the flying spaghetti monster exist whether there was anyone to believe in them.
I think one of the central issues in Stephenson’s Snow Crash was exactly this lack of religion in modern science and business focused life and the effects of this. Well, Stephenson went as far as Sumerian mythology and the myth of Babylon to build his story and claiming that Judaism was the first religion to have an anti-virus built-in to stop the church from controlling the masses…
Back to robots. There’s increasing discussion about the ethics and robots. The US Army hit this problem, because more independent drones do require some set of control as not to suddenly cause friendly casualties or act against the laws of war. You mentioned something like Asimov’s three laws of robotics, but as Asimov described in his novel, even these three simple rules had complex consequences - leading in the end to a situation where blind following of these three laws caused a situation that was pretty far from original intentions.
I’m right now trying to write about the future of machines with a team of other graduate students. I was planning to write abou the economics and what not, but I keep hitting this ethics thing where ever I try to look. It also has strange connections to liability. Who is responsible when an independent robot makes a mistake? And suddenly when continuing this line of thought, I find myself thinking about animal and human rights…
March 25, 2009 at 20:32
You know, with comments this long, I usually encourage people to start “a blog”
And I didn’t say not to mix religion (at least my definiton of it) and science. I said that, in order to make sense of the changes that technology will bring to our lives, we have to also include a certain philosophical / spiritual / religious element to it all. Unfortunately, as we all know, that is not easily done prior the fact, meaning that we’ll likely battle with the consequences (hopefully not in Terminator-form) afterwards.
March 26, 2009 at 08:19
I don’t want to start yet another blog… You wanted discussion, so I thought I’d write more than just “an interesting post, Vince. I’ve been thinking about similar things during past month for a paper I’m co-writing”. =)
Anyway, sorry, I misunderstood in the beginning where you said that science and business fight against meaning. I read that as religion instead.
March 26, 2009 at 11:04
By “a blog” I meant, write a blog post on tech it easy of course
I like the idea of a doing a public debate, multiple opposing voices writing their arguments out day-by-day, week-by-week.
March 26, 2009 at 11:06
I’m just glad that mediums like science fiction exist, tat allow us to explore the consequences of different actions in our minds, prior to the fact. Maybe Assimov’s laws, the scary warnings from Terminator & Galactica will help innovators understand that it’s not just about technological progress, but sociological evolution as well…
March 26, 2009 at 12:08
True, but sometimes people underestimate the risks and dismiss the consequences. If I remember correctly, William Gibson has said that in his books he tried to come up as dystopian things as possible and the fact that people still try to realize the things depicted in Neuromancer et al. is astonishing to him.
Reminds me a bit of the part in Adams’ Hitch Hiker’s Guide to the Galaxy where some guys ask a computer to build a bomb that could destroy everything (and, after trying to use it are disappointed that it, in fact, didn’t).
March 26, 2009 at 12:19
It’s a matter of things spinning out of control, much like we let the current crisis happen, by focussing too much on developing ever more complex algorithms, which did not take into account that people could manipulate the system.
We, humans, have a natural tendency to delegate those things that are beyond our comprehension, as long as we think the outcome will be good. But delegating without understanding can easily lead to a very dystopian outcome. And how to we overcome that?
I think that either we keep things so simple that it comes at the cost of progress (which I don’t think will ever happen), or that we follow this forced trajectory, where either things will work themselves out eventually, through a constant back-and-forward movement, or spin completely out of control.
March 26, 2009 at 13:03
The more I think about it, the more I want to publish a sci-fi novel someday. Telling people how it could be.
March 26, 2009 at 13:44
Like with things in nature, I think the normal human behaviour is to first disturb the the balance to achieve something that felt nice and enjoy that before nature sorts itself out and things go back in to a new equilibrium, which probably sucks a lot. Like with climate change.
I find this period between equilibriums, “friction” I guess, pretty interesting.
March 26, 2009 at 15:42
Depends on where you stand, I guess. To those affected by these shifts, it probably isn’t that pleasurable.