Scott Rosenberg's Links & Comment

News of Salon, Salon blogs, and the world
Last updated:
5/3/2004; 4:53:58 PM


April 2004
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30  
Mar   May


 
SOME BLOGS I READ:
 
SOME SALON BLOGS I READ:

Subscribe to this blog in Radio:
Subscribe to "Scott Rosenberg's Links & Comment" in Radio UserLand.

Click to see the XML version of this web page.

E-mail this blog's author, Scott Rosenberg:
Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.
 

Friday, April 30, 2004 PERMALINK

Gene genie
There was considerable sense and occasional nonsense on tap last night at a panel discussion at UC/Berkeley inspired by a new essay collection titled "Living with the Genie: Technology and the Quest for Human Mastery." (One of the book's editors, Christina Desser, moderated.) The premise, as presented by panel introducer Michael Pollan, is that "we are on the threshold of vast technological changes" -- in areas such as genetic engineering, nanotechnology and advanced computing -- that will alter "what it means to be alive and to be human."

Our reactions to the prospect of these changes tend to fall into two categories, Pollan said: Either "it's never gonna happen" or "it's inevitable, it's just a matter of time and the market." Both reactions foster a passive stance; instead of the "ossified debate between techno-utopians and neoluddites," can we "take the dialectic someplace new?"

Pollan's challenge was a useful one. Howard Rheingold took it up by reminding us that the Internet as an open platform isn't something we can or should take for granted: it needs to be actively defended, as digital rights management schemes and "trusted computing" checks begin to be baked into the hardware that we rely on to access the network.

Investigative reporter (and longtime Salon friend and contributor) Mark Schapiro suggested that as genetic manipulation becomes more widespread, it is outstripping our existing legal and political institutions -- for instance, a maritime system that evolved to deal with 18th-century needs leaves us today in the position where no one bears responsibility when a ship full of deadly cargo founders.

Denise Caruso, who has spent recent years building the Hybrid Vigor Institute, said that as we "increase the complexity of our environment exponentially," "innovation at any cost" is no longer defensible. She called for a new focus on active risk assessment. The appalling status quo is that most biotech innovations are released into the natural world with little care or forethought: Caruso cited the example of bioengineered, Monsanto-produced Bt Corn, which received government approval without any studies considering its impact on "non-target species" (like Monarch butterflies).

"This is not just hysterical Luddism," she said. But it's an uphill battle, because "government and industry like things the way they are right now."

I found Caruso's rigor and Rheingold's speculative imagination provocative and helpful -- particularly in contrast to the Panglossian presence of inventor and author Ray Kurzweil, the final panelist. Kurzweil was actually videoconferenced in from his Massachusetts home, and his larger-than-life image hung peculiarly over the proceedings, disembodied and disengaged. (Christian Crumlish has blogged a photo so you can see what I mean.)

Kurzweil's speech was laden with statements like "Human knowledge in general is doubling every year" and "The rate of progress itself is doubling every decade." Like some blinkered throwback to high-Victorian cockiness, Kurzweil blithely assured us that "continued progress is inevitable." I understood he was referring to empirical measurements of processor speed, storage, telecommunications bandwidth and the like. (You can read a detailed exposition of Kurzweil's notions of the coming "singularity," in which artificial intelligence will surpass the human brain, here.)

But there's a deep chasm between the notion of precisely-measured technical advancement and the subjective concept of qualitative "progress." Evidently, Kurzweil -- like some Bugs Bunny character who's charged off the edge of a cliff but hasn't yet realized there's air under his feet -- has failed to notice this divide. That leaves his vision of the future as disconnected from the messy, intractable realities of human behavior as the speaker himself was from the ebb and flow of last night's conversation, by virtue of his own virtuality.

When someone coming from such a rhetorical perspective starts talking about "expanding our knowledge" through "intimate merger with our technology," you want to run to the wash room and toss water on your face. In such company, the clarity of skeptical optimists like Caruso and Rheingold helps keep us sane.
comment [] 5:43:15 PM | permalink


Once more, into the bubble?
With Google's IPO filing Silicon Valley is crossing its fingers, praying that the event marks one of those epochal turns of the boom/bust cycle (like Netscape's 1995 public offering) signalling a new technology-industry bonanza. Never mind the destructive consequences of the last turn of this wheel; everybody strap on your belts and jump on for another wild ride -- after all, maybe you, too, will get rich!

I love using Google; I'm still proud to have been among the first technology writers to recommend it to my readers, back in late 1998, and for a long time I got e-mail from people thanking me for turning them on to it.

I'm also happy to see that Google has chosen to use a "Dutch auction" approach to pricing its IPO. Those of you with long memories may recall that Salon used a similar method in its 1999 IPO. (A Dutch auction IPO allows the stock offering's price to be set by a complex but fair market process rather than by bankers sitting in a closed room trying to figure out how to price the stock so as to best enrich their pals.)

Google is a wildly different company from ours in many ways -- and a lot more successful as a business! But the basic arguments they cite for the Dutch auction -- the desire to level the playing field, to give small investors a chance to participate, and to avoid the sort of cronyism that gave boom-era IPOs a bad name once the market turned south -- are the same ones that persuaded us to go that route five years ago. Salon took a lot of brickbats for the choice back then, so it's nice to receive this kind of after-the-fact endorsement of our decision from such a significant player.

All that said, I'm kind of amazed at how eagerly some corners of the Valley seem to be anticipating a return to boom-era insanity. I'm crossing my fingers, too -- praying that a successful Google IPO, which I certainly think it deserves, doesn't spark a new round of stupid investments and "we'll figure out the business model later" startups.

In the '90s, many people had the excuse of youth and inexperience -- they were building their first companies, and they'd never experienced a downturn. Today, the scars of the bust are still fresh. No one can plead ignorance. If we fail to make smart choices and build sustainable businesses that can support innovation rather than fuel get-rich-quick dreams, we have no one else to blame. Certainly not Google.
comment [] 11:00:30 AM | permalink




© Copyright 2004 Scott Rosenberg. Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.
Last update: 5/3/2004; 4:53:58 PM.
Powered by