social systems - in the form of governments, the courts, formal and informal organizations, social movements, professional networks, local communities, market institutions and so forth - shape, moderate and redirect the raw power of technologies.
Given the crisp edges of technology and the fuzzy outlines of society, it certainly isn't easy to use these two worldviews simultaneously. But if you want to see where we are going, or design the means to get there, you need to grasp both.
This perspective allows a more sanguine look at Joy's central concerns: genetic engineering, nanotechnology and robotics. Undoubtedly, each deserves serious thought. But each should be viewed in the context of the social system in which it is inevitably embedded.
Genetic engineering presents the clearest example. Barely a year ago, the technology seemed to be an unstoppable force. Major chemical and agricultural interests were barreling down an open highway. In the past year, however, road conditions changed dramatically for the worse: Cargill (dossier) faced Third World protests against its patents; Monsanto (PHA) suspended research on sterile seeds; and champions of genetically modified foods, who once saw an unproblematic and lucrative future, are scurrying to counter consumer boycotts of their products.
Almost certainly, those who support genetic modification will have to look beyond the technology if they want to advance it. They need to address society directly - not just by putting labels on modified foods, but by educating people about the costs and the benefits of these new agricultural products. Having ignored social concerns, however, proponents have made the people they need to educate profoundly suspicious and hostile.
Nanotechnology offers a rather different example of how the future can frighten us. Because the technology involves engineering at a molecular level, both the promise and the threat seem immeasurable. But they are immeasurable for a good reason: The technology is still almost wholly on the drawing board.
Two of nanotechnology's main proponents, Ralph Merkle and Eric Drexler, worked with us at the Xerox (XRX) Palo Alto Research Center in Palo Alto, Calif. The two built powerful nano-CAD tools and then ran simulations of the resulting molecular-level designs. These experiments showed definitively that nano devices are theoretically feasible. No one, however, has laid out a route from lab-based simulation to practical systems in any detail.
In the absence of a plan, it's important to ask the right questions: Can nanotechnology fulfill its great potential in tasks ranging from data storage to pollution control, all without spiraling out of control? If the lesson of genetic engineering is any guide, planners would do well to consult and educate the public early on, even though useful nano systems are probably decades away.
Worries about robotics appear premature, as well. Internet "bots" that search, communicate and negotiate for their human masters may appear to behave like Homo sapiens, but in fact, bots are often quite inept at functions that humans do well - functions that call for judgment, discretion, initiative or tacit understanding. They are good (and useful) for those tasks that humans do poorly. So they are better thought of as complementary systems, not rivals to humanity. Although bots will undoubtedly get better at what they do, such development will not necessarily make them more human.
Are more conventional clanking robots - the villains of science fiction - any great threat to society? We doubt it. Xerox PARC research on self-aware, reconfigurable "polybots" has pushed the boundaries of what robots can do, pointing the way to "morphing robots" that are able to move and change shape.
Nonetheless, for all their cutting-edge agility, these robots are a long way from making good dance partners. The chattiness of Star Wars' C-3PO still lies well beyond real-world machines. Indeed, what talk robots or computers achieve, though it may appear similar, is quite different from human talk. Talking machines travel routes designed specifically to avoid the full complexities of human language.
Robots may seem intelligent, but such intelligence is
