Editor’sPreface
Therearescientific,medical,andtechnologicalbreakthroughsthat arelikelytohappen,butthathavenotyethappened.Asaresult,there areethicalissuesthatwecanpredictarelikelytooccur,butthatwedo notatthemomentface.
Ihavealwaysbeenfascinatedbysuchtopics.AndIhavelongbeen scepticalthatourinstinctiveintuitionsaboutnewmoraldilemmas shouldbereliedupon.Totakejustoneexample:LouiseJoyBrown wasbornon25July1978 the firsthumanconceivedby invitro fertilization.Atthetime,thepioneeringscientistsbehindIVFwere heavilycriticizedbythemedicalestablishmentandbythechurch. TheBrownfamilyreceivedadelugeofhatemail.Sincethen,millions ofchildrenhavebeenbornthroughIVF,and,withinmostcircles,IVF haslongceasedtobecontroversial.Itnowseemsoddthatitwasever contentious.
Thinkingphilosophicallyaboutfreshethicaldilemmascanhelpus distinguishbetweendevelopmentsthatweshouldwelcome,andthose thatweneedbeconcernedabout.Andinsomeareas,therearesteps wecouldbetakingnowtopreventproblemsoccurringinthefuture.
Thisbookisanattempttogettogripswithsomeoftheethicalissues confrontingourrapidlychangingworld.Ihavedivideditintoseveral, somewhatarbitrary,categories:FuturePeople,FutureLives,Future Machines,FutureCommunication,FutureBodies,andFutureDeath. Itisbynomeansacomprehensivelistoffuturemoraldilemmas,but Ihopeitoffersausefulsnapshot.
Thebookincludesquestionssuchaswhetherweshouldseekan alternativetomeat,whethersocialrelationshipsofthefuture especially friendship willbeverydifferentfromthoseoftoday,whetherinthe futureartificialintelligencewillhelpustoidentifycriminals,andwhether AIwilleventuallymakehumandoctorsredundant.
Onechapterexamineswhetheritmightbepossibletoshape persuasivetechnologies thosethataredesignedtochangeourattitudesandactions sothattheyworkforandnotagainstus.Another askswhatcanbedoneabouttheriseoffakenewsandconspiracy theories,nowspreadingandproliferatinginourdigitalworld.
Inthefuturewemayhavethepowertoreadminds,tocreate artificialwombs,to ‘improve’ humansandlivestockgeneticallyso thatbothhumansandlivestockarelesssusceptibletodisease.Technologicaladvanceseemstopromiseprogressandimprovementtoour lives.Isthereadownside?
Thenthere’sasectionondeath.Machinescannowkeepusfunctioningatsomelevelforlongerthanbefore.Infact,newtechnologyis alreadyforcingustoreconsiderwhatcountsasdeathandwhat’ s valuableaboutlife.Howfarshouldwegotoavoiddeath?Achapter oncryonicsaskswhetherthere’sanypointinfreezingourbodiesinthe hopethatonedaywemightberesuscitated.Andweendwitha chapterthatquestionswhetherwhatweshouldreallybeconcerned aboutisnothumanfuture,butthefutureofposthumans.
WilliamShakespearehastheRomannoblemanCassiustellBrutus in JuliusCaesar thatdestiny “isnotinthestars,Butinourselves” . Asimilarthoughtisthemotivatingimpulsebehindthisbook.The historyofhumanexistencehasbeenahistoryofscientificandtechnologicaldevelopment.Weshouldassumethatdiscoveriesandinnovationswillcontinuetobemade almostcertainlyatafasterpacethan everbefore.Butwehavethepowertosculptthefuture;andtheearlier andmoreclear-sightedweareaboutouroptions,themoremalleable thatfuturewillbe.
TheUehiroCentreforPracticalEthics,whereIamaDistinguished ResearchFellow,specializesinthephilosophyofFutureMorality. Mostofthecontributorsinthisbookhaveaconnectionwiththe Centre.Iwouldliketothankeachandeveryoneofthecontributors, Hazem,Bridget,Ruth,Anne,Brian,Rebecca,Erica,Seumas,Angeliki,Xaroula,John,Jess,Carissa,James,Steve,Stephen,Julian,Gabriel,Tom,Dominic,Lydia,Alberto,Tess,Katrien,Jonny,Mackenzie, Francesca,andAnders.Theyputupwithmychivvyingandnagging, andmyunreasonabledemandthatwhenitcametodeadlines,they
Editor’sPreface
shouldadoptanapproachmorebefittingtheworldofjournalismthan philosophy.Collectivelythey’veproducedagreatbook.
AttheUehiroCentreIwouldparticularlyliketothankthedirector JulianSavulescuforhisenthusiasmforthisproject,aswellasallthe hard-workingpeoplewhokeeptheCentrerunning,RachelGaminiratne,LizSanders,DeborahSheehan,RocciWilkinson,andMiriam Wood.
Thankstoo,totheOUPteam:JennyKing,OUPcopyeditor MartinNoble,andOUPphilosophysupremo,PeterMomtchiloff, forwhomI’venoweditedmanybooks,andwhoneverdeviates fromhiscalmgoodnature.
Thanks,asalways,tomytireless,unpaidproofreaderandtext improver,HannahEdmonds.Thanks,asalways,tothreeotherfab Edmonds Liz,Saul,andIsaac withwhomIsharedalocked-down existenceduringthebook’s2020gestation.
FuturePeople
1. FutureversusPresentMorality 3 HazemZohny
Whatmakesaplausiblevisionofthefuture?Istherearisk thatthisbook aboutfuturepeopleandourfuturelives will helpdivertattentionandresourcesawayfrommorepressing andpresentethicalquestions?
2. HowShouldWeValuetheHealthofFuturePeople? 13 BridgetWilliams
Howmuchweightshouldwegivetotheinterestsof peoplewhoarenotyetborn?Shouldthehealthoffuture peoplematterasmuchtousasthehealthofpeople currentlyalive?
3. CanAlt-MeatAltertheWorld? 23
AnneBarnhillandRuthR.Faden
Itseemsunlikelythatthegrowingpopulationandtheclimate changecrisiswillallowforourexistingdiettocontinue. Inparticular,theauthorsargue,wemayhavetoseek alternativestomeat.
FutureLives
4. AbolishingGender 35 BrianD.Earp
Shouldwegetridofgender?Mightitbebetterifsexwasnot linkedtosociallyenforcedgender roles thatprescribehow peopleshouldbeandbehaveonthebasisoftheirsex? Isitpossiblethatthefutureisgenderfree?
Contents
5. TheFutureofFriendship 50
RebeccaRoache
Whatisthefutureoffriendshipinaworldofrobotsand socialmedia?Iscontemporaryfriendshipfundamentally differenttothefriendshipsofyesteryear?
6. Avatars 61
EricaL.Neely
Thischapterinvestigatesaugmentedrealityandvideo games.Inparticular,whataretheethicalissueswithavatars, therepresentationofusersinavirtualworld?
FutureMachines
7. PredictivePolicing 73
SeumasMiller
Willalgorithmshelpthepoliceidentifycriminalsin advance andifso,whataretheimplicationsforour justicesystem?
8. AIinMedicine 83
AngelikiKerasidouandXaroula(Charalampia)Kerasidou Whatwillwegainandwhat,ifanything,willweloseas robotsbegintotakeoverfromdoctors?Doweneed a ‘humanelement’?
9. RobotsandtheFutureofRetribution 93
JohnDanaher
Machinesarebecomingincreasinglyautonomous.Thatraisesthe problemofmachineresponsibility.Howimportantis ‘blame’ to humans,andwhowillweblamewhenmachineactionsgowrong?
10. AIandDecision-Making 102
JessWhittlestone
Humandecision-makingisnotoriously flawed. Sohowcouldmachinesimproveit?
11. TheFutureCar 111
DavidEdmonds
Withinadecadeorso,driverlesscarsaresettoalterour livesinfundamentalways mostlyforthegood.Butthere arerisksandconundrums forexample,whoselivesshould weprivilegeinacollision?
FutureCommunication
12. TheFutureofPrivacy
CarissaVéliz
Thesedayseveryoneofusiscreatingadatatrail one whichmayreturntohauntus.Howimportantisprivacyand whatcanwedotoshapeitsfuture?
121
13. PersuasiveTechnology 130
JamesWilliams
Thetechnologiesinourlivesknowmoreaboutusthanever, andtheirpowertoshapeourthoughtsandactionsismore sophisticatedthanever.Asthesetechnologiesbecomeevermore ‘persuasive’ innature,howcanweensuretheyaredesignedina waythatpromotesourwellbeingandrespectsourautonomy?
14. ConspiracyTheories? 139
SteveClarke
Thepopularityofunwarrantedconspiracytheoriesisat disturbinglevels.Theseincludeconspiracytheoriesaboutrigged elections,theoriginsofCOVID-19, andQAnon.Intheinternet anddigitalage,unwarrantedconspiracytheoriescanspreadand takeholdquickly.Whatshouldbedone?
FutureBodies
15. Mind-ReadingandMorality
StephenRainey
Whataretheprospects,promises,andperilsofneurotechnology thataimtorevealourthoughtsbyrecordingourbrainactivity?
151
16. LoveDrugs 160
JulianSavulescu
Candrugshelpimproverelationshipsandkeepcouples together?Wouldthismakerelationships ‘inauthentic’?
17. TechnologytoPreventCriminalBehavior 172
GabrielDeMarcoandThomasDouglas
Forsomeyearssexpredatorswishingtocontroltheirurgeshave hadrecoursetochemicalcastration.Thesciencehasbeen prettycrude.Butinfuturewe’relikelytobecomemuchmore targetedandeffectiveatusingdrugstoreduceviolence andaggression.Shouldweembracethisnewtechnology?
xii Contents
18. ArtificialWombs 181
DominicWilkinsonandLydiaDiStefano
Therehasbeenrecentprogressonartificialwombs.What aretheimplicationsforabortionandneonatalcare?
19. GeneticImmunisation 191
TessJohnsonandAlbertoGiubilini
Wecanalreadymakegeneticmodificationstoanembryo. Wewillsoonhavethepowertomakegeneticmodifications toimproveourimmunesystem.Surelyweshould seizethisopportunity?
20. GenomeEditinginLivestock 202
KatrienDevolder
Certaingenomeeditingtechniquesinlivestockmightappear toofferawin–winforbothlivestockandhumans. Forexample,intheorywecouldmakelivestockresistant todisease.Arethereanygoodargumentstoopposethis?
21. BrainStimulationandIdentity 211
JonathanPugh
Increasinglyneuroscientistsarenowusinginvasive neurosurgery deep-brainstimulation totreatavarietyof conditions.Inanumberofcases,thepatienthasreported ‘becomingadifferentperson’ asaresultoftheprocedure. Thisraisesdeepquestionsaboutthenatureoftheselfand personalidentity.
FutureDeath
22. WhatIsDeath? 223
MackenzieGraham
Advancesinmedicineandourunderstandingofthebrain mayforceustoredefinewhatwemeanbydeath.
23. ShouldWeFreezeOurBodiesforFuture Resuscitation?
FrancescaMinerva
Islifeonlyvaluablebecauseitis finite?Wouldanindefinitely longlifebeunbearable?Thechapterdiscusseswhetherwe havegoodreasonstofreezeourbodiesinthehopeof futureresuscitation.
235
Posthumans
AndersSandberg
Shouldwestrivetobecomesomethingbeyondhumans?
Orwouldthatjustbegoodforposthumansandnothumans?
AbouttheEditorandContributors
FutureversusPresentMorality
HazemZohny
Isthisbookmoral?
Thisisnotaconfusedqueryaboutthebook’spersonalityor behaviour;it’saboutthetimeandattentionthatwentintoit time andattentionthatcouldhavebeendifferentlyused.Thefuture,after all,isuncertain;thepresentdire.Shouldn’tethicistsfocusprimarilyon thelatter?
Let’sexpressthissentimentalongtheselines:
Ethicistsareascarceresource.Thepresentisethicallyfraught.The richest1%ownoverhalftheworld’swealth;hundredsofthousandsof childrendieeachyearfrommalnutrition;millionsliveinslaveryoras forcedlabourers.Thefuture,ontheotherhand,isunknowable,and theimpactsofemergingtechnologies likeAI,cryonics,geneediting, andmind-readingdevices largelyunforecastable.Surelyethicists shouldfocustheirattentiononthepresent,ratherthanonfuture hypotheticals.
Wecancallproponentsofthisview Presentists.Inresponse,thosewe’ll call Anticipators mightsay:
Infact,ethicistsaren’tascareresource nearlyanyonecandoethics (asopposedto,say,brainsurgery).Moreover,presentproblemslike inequalityarepolitical,notmoral.Ultimately,afailuretoanticipate moralproblemswouldrenderthefuturefarworsethanthepresent.
Whoisright:PresentistsorAnticipators?Theunexcitingconclusion thatbothreflectsometruthseemsinescapable.ButI’dliketosuggest thereisalottobesaidforPresentists,andfortheclaimthatthis
book andthewayethicistshavebeenalluredbyfuturevisions isa littlebitmorallybad.Thisisbecausequestionsofdistributivejustice ofjustlyallocatingresources arerelevanttowhatethicistsfocuson. Andethicists especiallytheappliedvarietywhoappealtotheimplicationsofmoraltheoriesorprinciplesforspecificsituations have beenoverlypreoccupiedbythepromisesandperilsofemergingand futuretechnologies.
Specifically,whileappliedethicistsreadilydelveintothescience behindAI,geneediting,brain–machineinterfaces,nanotech,etc., theyhavenotbotheredlearningmuchabouteconomictheoriesand theconflictingvaluesanddifficulttrade-offsdirectlyraisedbyeconomicpolicy.Whythiscontrastwitheconomics?Economicsisabout whatisproduced,distributed,andconsumed.Itfundamentallyaffects theethicalimplicationsofallgoods,includingtechnologicalones.Itis ironic,therefore,howlittleattentionappliedethicistsaffordit.
Thisclaimabouthowappliedethicistsgenerallyfocustheirenergiesisanempiricalone,andnostudyyetexiststovindicateit.Butat thetimeofwritingitiseasytoseehowappliedethicistsauthorthe mostrelevantofthe3.8millionresultsGoogleScholarprovidesfor “humanenhancement,” butvirtuallynoneofthe3.1millionresults for “moraleconomics.” Outputonhumanenhancementoutstrips “povertyethics” (1.7million), “preventablediseaseethics” (100,000), “discrimination” (2.3million),andeven “abortion” (1.4million).Even asubtopiclike “moralenhancement ” (460,000)dwarfsoutputon preventablediseaseethics.
ThisGoogleScholarsurveyisnot,ofcourse,meanttostandinfor scholarship.Andweshouldbeextracautiousaboutreadingtoomuch intothese figuressincethereisnocleardividinglinebetweenapplied ethicistsandotherexperts.Nonetheless,thenumbersareindicativeof adisproportionatefocusonthefutureinwhatoccupiesthoseworking ontheethicsofconcreteissues.
Thisbookisyetfurtherevidenceofthistendency.
Theremaybemanyreasonsforthistrend,someofthemobvious: technologiesthatmightenhance,say,ourmoraldispositionsare simplymoreinterestingtothinkaboutthanpreventablediseasesin theworld.Butanotherreason especiallywhenitcomestoeconomic matters isthatappliedethicistslargelyrelegatetheethicsof
economicstoeconomistsorpoliticalphilosophers,wherelibertarians, socialists,andthoseinbetween fightitoutbyappealingtolarge, abstractprinciplesorassumptionsaboutthingsliketheproperrole ofthestate.Butthisisakintorelegatingtheethicsofemerging technologiestoscientistsorhistoriansandphilosophersofscience. Thereisanasymmetryhereandit’saneglectedone.
TheScarcityofEthicists
Butwearegettingaheadofourselves.Let’sbeginwiththeAnticipators’ retortthatethicistsarenotascarceresource.Mostmentally intactadultscanindeedappealtoreasontoanswerethicalquestions, andtypicallydosorepeatedlythroughouttheirlives.Ifanything,a scrollthroughsocialmediasuggestsanoverabundanceofpeople espousingreasonsforethicalstances.Incontrast,fewhaveanyclue about,say,braintumourremoval.Wewouldrightlytellournonbrainsurgeonfriendtobequietiftheyhadstrongopinionsaboutthe specificsofarelative’simpendingbrainsurgery,butwemightin contrasthearthemoutifoverdinnertheyexplainwhytheyare vegetarian(unlesstheyarebeinginfuriatingaboutit).
Ontheotherhand,atrainedethicistispresumablybetterthan averageatjustifyinganethicalstanceorpresentinganethicalargument.Theyaremorelikelytotakethetimetolearntherelevant empiricalbackdroptoethicalproblems,touncoverhiddenpremises, andperhapstoadoptahealthyscepticismtowardscertainintuitions. Morecrucially,anethicististrainedtomaketheirargumentsonthe basisofclaimsthatmostreasonablepeoplecanappreciate,asopposed toidiosyncratic,religious,orotherevidence-freeclaims.
Ultimately,itcomesdowntothis:relativelyfewpeoplearepaidto beethicists.Theposition “ethicist” isclearlyascarceone justask anyonetryingtogetajobataphilosophydepartment!Ifonlyatiny minoritycanbepaidtothinkaboutandofferresolutionstoethical problems,somejustificationseemsrequiredforwhattheywillfocus on.Andsoweshouldaskwhetherfocusingonthefuturetothecurrent extentisagooduseofthatposition.
Presentistsarethereforerightabouttheir firstclaim:ethicistsarea scarceresource.Let’sawardthemapoint:Presentists1–Anticipators0.
PresentProblems
Whataboutthesecondclaimthatthepresentisfraughtwithpressing problems?Arethefailuresofourpoliticalandeconomicsystems moralproblems thatis,onesarisingfromdisagreementoverhow toethicallyresolvethem?Ordothesefailuresmerelyreflectan insufficientnumberofpoliticaldecisionmakerssupportingtheobviousethicalpathforward?Inotherwords,aretheseethicsproblemsor “politicalwill” problems?
ItmightbetemptingtosidewithAnticipatorsthatthemostpressing problemsatpresentarepoliticalratherthanethical.Mostethicists mightagreethat,ofcourse,currentconcentrationsofwealthare ethicallyunjustifiable;ofcourseitisimmoralsomanyaremalnourishedwhileoverabilliontonnesoffoodarewastedeachyear;andof courseslaveryandforcedlabourareabhorrentandshouldbe stopped.Therearenomoraldilemmashere,noconflictingvalues. Theseareproblemsforpoliticiansandglobalinstitutions,notethicists.Andthesameholdsforotherbigcrisesofourtimeslikeclimate change,authoritarianism,poverty,andpreventabledisease:these reflectfailuresofpoliticalwill,notmoraldisagreement.
This,however,isacop-out.Merelyagreeingthatmuchofthestatus quoisnotmorallyjustifiableisasvagueandinaneasnotingthat, “if emergingtechnologieshaveareallybadimpact,thatwouldbemorallybad.” Clearly,there’salotmoretobesaid.Appliedethicists (generally)takethetimetounderstandthescienceandlimitations behindtheseemergingtechnologiesbeforeanalysingindetailthe valuesatplay,theconflictsbetweenthem,andthetrade-offsentailed bythemannerofembracingorrejectingthem.
Forinstance,thepossibilityofgeneticallyenhancingchildren hasledappliedethiciststodrawbattlelinesbetweenreproductive freedomandprospectivechildren’sautonomy,withsmalllibraries beingwrittenonwhatautonomyevenmeansinsuchcontexts,what therisksofbanningthesetechnologiesare(e.g.mightblackmarketsfor thememerge?),andwhatthemeritsofgeneticenhancementmightbe.
Incontrast,farfewerappliedethiciststakethetimetounderstand economictheoriesorpoliciesandtheirpoliticalbackdropsinorderto formulatenewormorecogentargumentsinresponsetothemost pressingpresentproblems.Infact,mitigatinginequality,malnutrition,
slavery,preventabledisease,orpoverty does entailpromotingor protectingsomevaluesattheexpenseofothers especiallywhen asking how exactlytoethicallytackletheseproblems.Justhowmuch stateorinterstatecoercionshouldbeusedtoredistributewealth,and whatexactlyarethetrade-offsbetweenwhatwevalue,oroughtto value,intermsofequalityandliberty?Andwhatdowedowhenthe empiricaldataaboutinequalityortheeffectsofmitigatingitare unclear?
Similarlyformalnutritionandmodernslavery:howdoweweigh thetrade-offsentailedbyreorderingstatespendingtohavethe resourcesnecessarytotrackandtacklethese,andwhoseburden oughtthatbe?Thesearenormativequestionsthatareasappliedas thingscanget,buttheycontinuetobelargelylefttopolitical philosophers whotendtofocusonhowthingsideallyshouldbe orpolicymakers,whoaren’ttrainedtothinksystematicallyaboutthe ethicalimplicationsoftheirpolicies.
Whichisalltosay,appliedethicistshavealottoofferinmoving economicethicsforward,but withsomeexceptions1 theyremain largelyeitheruninterestedorunabletogetthefundingtoexpandonto thatturf.Butseeingasit’soureconomicandpoliticalsystemsthatwillset thepathforhowfuturetechnologiesunfold,itseemsappliedethicists shouldbegivingeconomicsfargreaterattention.Tothatend,Ithink Presentistsdeserveafurtherpoint:Presentists2–Anticipators0.
ForecastingFutures
WhataboutthethirdclaimPresentistsmake:thatfuturetechnologies arelargelyunforecastable,sobestfocusonthepresent?Anticipators faceaproblemhereaswell,sometimescalledtheCollingridge dilemma:whilecontrollingtheimpactoftechnologiesiseasierat theirearlystages,itispreciselyatthoseearlystageswhenwe lackthenecessaryknowledgetobeneficiallyinfluencethecourse theytake.2 Wesimplycannottellwhat finalshapethetechnology willtake,howitwillbedeployed,orhowpeoplewillreacttoit.
Onewaytoresolvethisistoenhanceourforecastingabilities;to basicallybeattheCollingridgedilemma.Thereismuchtobesaid forsuchanendeavour,but firstIwanttosuggestthat,evenifweare mostlyhopelessatpredictingspecifictechnologicaltrends,Anticipators’
interestinthefuturecanbeimportanttothepresentinatleastthree ways.
The firstisthis:scientificresearchisitselfascarceresource.To minimizethechancesofsquanderingit,weneedsomeanticipationof itsethicalimplications.Iftheimplicationsareclearlyunethical,we shouldprioritizeresearchingsomethingelse.Ofcourse,howfarinto thefutureweneedtoventuretoanticipatetheeffectsofcurrent scientificresearchisakeyquestion,butit’sworthconcedingthatat leastsomeassessmentoffutureimpactisrequired.
Thesecondrelatestoaside-effectofanticipatoryethics:evaluating theethicsofafutureprospectoftenbringsusbacktothepresent.Take theideaofpowerfulcognitiveenhancementdrugsintheclassroom shouldtheybeallowed?Asidefromside-effectconcerns,answering thisquestionrequiresthinkingaboutthepurposeofeducation,of medicine,andofwhat,ifanything,isinherentlydifferentaboutadrug comparedtoanexternaldevicelikeacalculatororwordprocessor.So wemightaskwhethereducationisunavoidablycompetitive,helping ensurethebeststudentsgetthebestjobs.Ifso,thesedrugsmightlead toacognitivearmsrace.Whatwouldthatentail?Andifeducationis competitive, should itbe?Andshouldphysiciansprescribethesedrugs, orwouldthatviolatetheproperscopeofmedicinesincetheywould notbeusedfortreatingorpreventingdisease?Whatexactlyisthe purposeofphysicians?Bytriggeringthesequestions,themereprospectofthesedrugsleadsustore-evaluatethepurposeofpresent institutionsandnormsinanewlight avaluableexerciseevenif thesedrugsnevermaterialize.
Similarly,considerpubliclyfundingaresearchprojectontheethics ofgenerationspaceships.Thesespaceshipssetouttocolonizeother planets,butthevasttraveldistancesinvolvesupportingnotonlythose who firstembarkonthem,buttheirdescendantstoo.Isitpermissible tohavechildreninsuchaconstraineddomain,wherelifeprojectsare limitedandoneiseffectivelyimprisonedtoaship,andwherepassengersarecoercedtoprocreateandworkinareasdeemednecessaryfor thesuccessofthejourney?3 Generationspaceshipsarenoimpending possibility,sowhybotheraskingletalonefundingthoseaskingthese questionsinsteadoftacklingpresentlypressingissues?Butcarefully consideringthesequestionshashugeimplicationsforthegenerational spaceshipweallcurrentlyinhabit:Earth arockalsohurtling
throughspaceonwhichweareallstuck.Ourintuitionsabout procreatingonEarth,aboutwhatweoweothers,andhowmuch sacrificeanindividualshouldmakeforothers,areoftenshackledby ouroverfamiliaritywithEarth.Contemplatingpossible,fardistant futurescanhelpustoevaluatethoseintuitionsanew.4
Thereisanotherwayanticipatingthefuturelinksbacktothe present:itmayalterwhatweoughttopresentlyvalueandinvestin. Thislinkstothe firstpointraisedaboutthescarcityofscientific research,butitgoesmuchfurther.
Takeaschoolofthoughtcalled “Longtermism.”5 Itspremisesgo somethinglikethis:giventheaveragelifeofaspecies(1–10million years),withtherighttechnologyandforethoughtitisreasonableto expectahugenumberoffuturehumangenerations,withamuch largernumberofpeopleineachfuturegeneration.Ifweareimpartial aboutourconcern,theinterestsoffuturegenerationsmatterjustas muchasourown.Wethereforehaveastrongdutytocareverymuch aboutthefuture.
Evenifwerejectthattheinterestsofverydistantfuturegenerations countasmuchasourown,itseemsimplausiblethattheydonotmatter atall.Ifitisreasonabletoexpecttheretobemanymorepeopleinthe futurethanarecurrentlyalive,thishaspotentiallyradicalimplications forthepresent,includingafarmoreheightenedconcernoverexistentialthreatslikenuclearwarorengineeredpandemics.Itshiftsthe questionofhowweoughttoimprovethepresentforus,orthose soontoexist,tohowweoughttoimprovethepresenttothebenefit ofthoseintheverylong-termfuture.Thisstillentailsafocusonthe present,albeitaboutwhatthepresentcandotopromoteorrespectthe (likelyfarmorenumerous)interestsoffuturepeople.
Whichisalltosay,evenifwearefairlyineptatforecasting technologicaltrends,thereisalottobesaidforthinkingaboutthe futureanyway:itmightbetheonlywaywecangetthepresentright. That’sabigwinforAnticipators,soIthinktheydeservetwopoints, bringingthescoreto2–2.
(Im)plausibleVisions
This,however,isnotthe finaltally.Isuggestedscientificresearch itselfisascarceresource,andthatbynotanticipatingitsethical
implications,werisksquanderingit.Buthowfarintothefuturedowe needtoanticipatetheeffectsofascientificinvestigation?Oftenthis willbedeeplyuncertain.Forinstance,therewereoverfortyorganisationsintheworldresearchingartificial general intelligencein2017;6 thisisAIthatcanreasonacrossawiderangeofdomains,withthe potentialtomasteranyintellectualtaskthatahumancan.Itmight beinventedtomorrow,ahundredyearsfromnow,ornever.Itlikely hashuge,world-rattlingethicalimplications,andsogettingitright seemscrucial.
Thequestionremainshowtoascertaintheplausibilityofsomething likeartificialgeneralintelligence(orcryonicsorartificialwombs),and howmuchofourtimeitsimplicationsshouldoccupyrelativetoother issues.Ifethicistsfocusonatechnologythatisunlikelytoberealized anytimesoonattheexpenseofpresentproblems,oriftheyfocuson animplausiblevisionofhowthattechnologywilllikelybeused,they risksquanderingtheirefforts.
Soitseemsthat,whileAnticipatorsarejustifiedinworryingabout thefuture,somethingneedstobesaidabouttheir methods offoresight. Andyetethicistshavesofarneglectedformulatingoradoptingany frameworkforwhatconstitutesaplausiblevisionofafuturetechnology.Instead,thetypicalmethodologysuffersfromwhat’ssometimes calledan “ifandthen” syndrome:7 if technologyxbecomesavailable, then itsconsequenceswilldemandimmediateattention.Thisconditionalstatementcanbeenoughtoinstigateanentiresubfieldofethical inquiryaboutahypotheticalfuturetechnology.
Theproblem,asscholarsofscienceandtechnologystudieskeep remindingus,isthattakingcertaintechnologicaldevelopmentsfor grantedfailstocredittheinterplaybetweenscienceandsociety. Ethicistsalltoooftenthinkaboutanemergingtechnologyinisolation, worryingabouttheimplicationsof,say,radicallifeextension,while assumingthatif/whenitispossible,thatfuturewilllargelyhavethe sameeconomy,samepopulationproblems,andsamevalues.But acknowledgingthisco-evolutionofscienceandsocietyrequirestaking intoaccountmyriadinteractingsocio-cultural,economic,political, andhistoricalfactors ananalysiswhichcallsintoquestiontherelativevalueofmuchoftheworkAnticipatorsdo.
Scholarsinscienceandtechnologystudiesandthephilosophyof technologyhaveinfactdevelopednumerousapproachestoevaluating
theplausibilityoffuturetechnologiesthatrecognizetheseindeterminate, interactingfactors.Thesepublishedframeworksarevariouslycalled ethicaltechnologyassessment,anticipatorytechnologyethics,constructivetechnologyassessment,andsocio-technicalscenarios,toname afew.8 Allthesemethodsarerootedintheideathattheassessmentofa technologicalvisionshouldexplicitlyacknowledgethecomplexand contingentnatureoftechnologicaldevelopmentsandtheireffects.
Andyetitremainsraretoseeethicistsworriedaboutemerging technologiesmakinguseofthese,letalonebuildingonthemor refiningthem.IthinkthiswarrantsafurtherpointforPresentists. ThatleavesuswithaconcludingscoreofPresentists3–Anticipators2. Itisanadmittedlyhighlyarbitraryscore,butitreflectswhatIthink shouldconcernethiciststhinkingaboutthefuture:thereisindeeda distributivejusticequestionabouthowethicistsfocustheirattention; ethicists(especiallytheappliedvariety)havebeenneglectingthe hugelypressingeconomicproblemsofourtime,expendingalotof energylearningsciencebutnotsomuchlearningeconomics;and eventhoughanticipatingthefutureiscrucialnotjustforfuturepeople butforthepresent,ethicistslargelyremainunconcernedwithany systematicmethodforthinkingaboutwhatmakesthosefuturevisions plausible.
Itisn’tthemostsexyoftopics,butthere’salottobesaidforthe ethicsofdoingethics.Isuggestethicistshavebeen,nothorrendousat this,butmoderatelybad.Thepoint,therefore,ofthischapter,isto raiseaquestionmarkaboutthevalueofmanyofthesubsequent chapters.Sorry!
FurtherReading
Tetlock,P.andGardner,D., Superforecasting:TheArtandScienceofPrediction (CrownPublishingGroup,2015).
Notes
1.ThemostglaringofwhichisPeterSinger,whohugelyinfluencedapplied ethicsandmassivelycontributedtochanginghowmanyseeourdutiesto thedistantpoorandtoanimalsinfactoryfarms.
2.D.Collingridge, TheSocialControlofTechnology (FrancesPinter,1980).
