The Future of Technology, the Technology of the Future

Recently, there was a call for a global treaty, modeled after the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, to regulate human genetic engineering. The reference to nuclear weapons immediately called to mind the current global situation, with “rogue” states defying international calls to halt their nuclear development programs. It’s easy to envision a future with a recalcitrant state carrying out a program of human genetic engineering in violation of the so-called Genetic Heritage Safeguard Treaty. Certainly top Pentagon scientists have raised this issue. But is a 20th century solution really the best way to solve a distinctly 21st century problem?

Without dueling superpowers to keep the smaller nations in line, non-proliferation has already started to breakdown. That goes to show that a 20th century solution can’t solve a distinctly 20th century problem in the 21st century. In addition, the technology for human genetic engineering, once developed, will be far easier to conceal from inspectors and satellite reconnaissance than the equipment required to produce nuclear weapons. Thus, enforcement will be much more difficult, even with ostensibly cooperative nations. Enforcement also relies on powerful nation-states, which may be another relic of the 20th century thanks to emerging neofeudalism.

We do need global regulation of human genetic engineering, but it’s vitally important that we not reject world-changing innovations just because they’re new or scary. Genetic engineering isn’t Frankenstein. We need to look at the situation, as much as we can, in terms of what someone in the year 2100 would want us to do and not just have a knee-jerk, 20th century reaction.

As much as we’re accustomed to social and technological change, we like to believe that the geopolitical situation is relatively stable. We like to believe that our American hegemony is without end and without beginning, but that’s just not the case. It hasn’t been that long since we had serious technological and military competition from Germany and Britain. It won’t be too long before we’re facing serious competition in technology and economics—financial might being more important than military might in the 21st century—from China and India [hattip: Beyond the Beyond].

Similarly, Jamais Cascio outlines challenges facing us over the next two decades. As basic resources, such as water, fuel, seeds, and arable land, become more scarce , we can expect to see localized wars, especially in poorer and underdeveloped areas. The end of the American hegemony presents another challenge, although Cascio speculates that it may happen without the armed conflict that has typified such changes in the past.

The new U.S. Air Force Cyber Command, however, suggests otherwise. There have already been some reports of countries launching cyber attacks against their rivals. It’s not hard to imagine a future in which poor countries fight over precious natural resources while wealthy nations engage in clandestine electronic warfare. These battles will be over economic data and intellectual property. Given the secretive nature of this cyberwar, large corporations, who stand to win or lose big based on the outcome of the war, may get directly involved. In short, there’s no reason to think that the very nature of warfare won’t change along with everything else.