The "scary" technologies/breakthroughs

[The Guid]

I'll start with a confession; I'm not a scientist, I'm an artsy fartsy Arts Degree type.

I'm writing a play and I was wondering if you could give me a couple of pointers. The premise of the play involves two different time periods and their parallels; one is the advent of farming (which I take considerable artistic licence with) and the other is set in modern day. I need to find one or many modern equivalents to the old classic game changers such as gunpowder, the printing press, and perhaps the theory of evolution.

The modern discovery, breakthrough or technology needs to have a few elements; it needs to be something that people find scary and seek to resist. It also needs to be something that we'd still want on some level, even if there are some "slippery slope" fears.

So far I have been working with the concept of genetic engineering, as well data analysis. Both seem to be a sort of "tip of the iceberg" kind of deal, where there are some things in there that we want, but some others that we might find disconcerting to say the least.

Does anyone have any insight into the direction these two are heading? Or does anyone have a suggestion for another modern discovery, breakthrough or technology that is both frightening in its scope but exhilarating in its potential to be a game changer for humanity?

[Darth Wong]

Some people lump nanotech in with that group, sometimes for fear of a "gray goo" that consumes everything. Even if one discounts that possibility, there's also the fear that it could be used to develop nefarious nigh-untraceable weapons that give you cancer, infiltrate computer systems, or even control your mind. The indescribably awful GI Joe movie managed to combine two of these bogeyman fears into one movie.

There's also fear of AI, perhaps best exemplified by SkyNet in the Terminator movies.

And finally, any manner of sci-fi power generation techniques are potentially scary, because anything that generates so much power can be easily used for military purposes.

[Serafina]

It might be interesting to look at past examples of scary new technology.
I think steam power, electricity and, of course, nuclear power might be interesting here.

Of course, we also see a vast amount of glorification with these technologies - such as the "everything is powered by nuclear energy"-meme from the 50s.

Candidates for "scary tech" these days:
-Genetics. Supersoldies, two classes of humans split by wealth with different genetics etc.
-Nanotech: Gray Goo, scary weapons (altough these tend to be somewhat unimpressive)
-Human/Machine-interfaces : Look no further than the portrayal of these in media. Nearly always perceived as making you "less human" and "soulless" (to a degree, at least).
-AI: We are either taken over by it, or it starts a war, or is used by a evil goverment to controll us all. Benevolent AIs are incedibly rare in fiction.

[Darth Wong]

It might be interesting to look at past examples of scary new technology.
I think steam power, electricity and, of course, nuclear power might be interesting here.

Chemical explosives and nuclear weapons are a better example of recent game changers. Both technologies have very useful civilian applications, in mining and power generation. Both were also believed to be so terrifying that they would prevent war. Neither succeeded in that optimistic goal, and both are still very dangerous. Nuclear weapons are still legitimately terrifying. Guns have been used to kill countless millions around the world, although they do not present quite the same threat of civilization breakdown as nuclear weapons do.

[General Zod]

The large hadron collider is a good example of something that's going on right now. The technology by itself isn't necessarily revolutionary, but there were plenty of nutjobs who thought it would end the world by creating a black hole that would consume everything.

[Zixinus]

There is always telepresence and loading our brains into digital bodies. Even with subservient AI, that can be pretty scary for an average person to deal with. Emotions might or might not be emulated, depending on the preferences of the user. What the user's body will be like, may also be dependent on the user's choice: it could be alien or a humanoid.

I recall one of Stainslaw lem's novel where a relativistic astronaut comes back to Earth for a changed humanity. A humanity that lacks aggression and hate by a certain process that is reinforced by a certain drug, thus a somewhat alien society. Crime is rare and mostly abolished, and people are bound by some kind of handwaved chemical conditioning that creates great repulsion to violence or even blood (something that can be temporarily removed by another drug). The new humans are perfectly amiable and friendly, but our hero finds nothing worthwhile in this society for him.

[Ariphaos]

I'll start with a confession; I'm not a scientist, I'm an artsy fartsy Arts Degree type.

I'm writing a play and I was wondering if you could give me a couple of pointers. The premise of the play involves two different time periods and their parallels; one is the advent of farming (which I take considerable artistic licence with) and the other is set in modern day. I need to find one or many modern equivalents to the old classic game changers such as gunpowder, the printing press, and perhaps the theory of evolution.

The modern discovery, breakthrough or technology needs to have a few elements; it needs to be something that people find scary and seek to resist. It also needs to be something that we'd still want on some level, even if there are some "slippery slope" fears.

So far I have been working with the concept of genetic engineering, as well data analysis. Both seem to be a sort of "tip of the iceberg" kind of deal, where there are some things in there that we want, but some others that we might find disconcerting to say the least.

Does anyone have any insight into the direction these two are heading? Or does anyone have a suggestion for another modern discovery, breakthrough or technology that is both frightening in its scope but exhilarating in its potential to be a game changer for humanity?

Current potential disruptive technologies include home fabrication, algaculture, advanced genetic engineering, artificial general intelligence, and cheap power (solar/nuclear/zinc-air/biodiesel/whatever).

I don't put much stock in grey goo nanoswarms, simply because unicellular life has had aeons to dominate every single energy-using niche on the globe. Sometimes you just need a bigger machine to do a job effectively.

Home fabrication, cheap power and algaculture aren't really scary (unless your lifestyle relies on others being impoverished).

That leaves the GE and AI aspects.

In some ways, no matter what, we are going to have to leave a bit of our original humanity behind. It seems far too likely that there is at least some genetic weakness that needs to be artificially purged from humanity (via retrovirus or somesuch), out of a simple need to defend ourselves from nutjobs. The 'change or die' bit is always going to be scary. Genetic engineering could be a very terrifying ride - when people start making themselves stronger, healthier, faster, smarter, sturdier... when do you jump on that wagon, and when do you wait? Too early could be a very deadly mistake.

Failures of friendliness that have 'recovery difficulties' may also be rather terrifying. I'm not convinced the first unfriendly AGI's would be able to wipe us out, but they could do a lot of damage trying.

[Patrick Degan]

If you want to have maximum impact for your play, I'd skip the more esoteric discoveries of the last few years and make the point with nuclear power: everybody knows it can be used for energy, yet everybody's batshit afraid of the Bomb and the next meltdown. It's an icon of the modern age which everybody on both sides of the argument can readily "understand" far more than nanotech or genetic engineering or transhumanism, i.e. both sides have clear, solid ideas of what nuclear power represents.

[Gilthan]

I don't put much stock in grey goo nanoswarms, simply because unicellular life has had aeons to dominate every single energy-using niche on the globe. Sometimes you just need a bigger machine to do a job effectively.

Any entity approaching making "grey goo" would be greatly to be feared or respected, as self-replicating technology in general is not to be underestimated.

Self-replicating technology is of astronomical potential power if avoiding the limits of biological life, such as an artificial mixed ecology including some bigger units. Even earth's crust contains on average 110 times its equivalent energy in TNT explosive due to its thorium content, meaning sufficiently advanced technology could in theory sustain itself eating rock. (Around 1 W/m^2 inefficient biological primary-producer solar power utilization is weak compared to 2.7 GW-years/m^2 available thorium on land or 7 GW-years/m^2 available ocean deuterium, let alone extraterrestrial resources).

Constructively (such as barely comprehensible quadrillions of kilos of wealth) or destructively (such as trillions of insect-size smart missiles), having the ratio of productive output to human labor input approach infinity is a potential change impossible to overstate.

On the other hand, AI superintelligences are liable to be developed first, being indeed the entities likely to accomplish the vast challenge of creating self-replicating technology. After all, on a logarithmic brainpower and intelligence scale where a fly would be 1, a mouse 3, a dog 5, and a human 6, having AI progress from 1 to 6 while just hovering there for long would be a doubtful coincidence compared to instead further orders of magnitude in both speed and complexity of thought soon after. And that, superintelligent AI, is the fundamental ultimate threat or hope and promise.

[Starglider]

It's an icon of the modern age which everybody on both sides of the argument can readily "understand" far more than nanotech or genetic engineering or transhumanism, i.e. both sides have clear, solid ideas of what nuclear power represents.

If you want to do this at arms length instead of wading into the real nuclear debate, I'd suggest using hafnium power. If it worked, it would be a very high density energy source that can be used for peaceful (powering aircraft) and military (very powerful bombs without most of the hassle of nuclear weapons) purposes. It would basically be nuclear power as people in the 1950s imagined it. Google 'hafnium bomb' and 'quantum nucleonic reactor' for details; the claims made to date are almost certainly bunk (rather like cold fusion), but it's still relatively plausible as sci-fi technologies go.

[Starglider]

I don't put much stock in grey goo nanoswarms, simply because unicellular life has had aeons to dominate every single energy-using niche on the globe.

Organic life sucks. It's limited to a small fraction of the available chemistries, pays a wide variety of horrible inefficiency penalties due to being evolved rather than designed and can't dynamically network and co-operate the way a goo swarm could. So personally I think grey goo is plausible as something you could do on purpose, with a lot of effort, but not something anyone could plausibly make by accident.

Sometimes you just need a bigger machine to do a job effectively.

The concept of individual nano or micromachines dynamically linking into larger structures as required for specific tasks is quite common in speculative nanotech design (e.g. utility fog), including the more serious concepts for 'grey goo'.

That leaves the GE and AI aspects.

Frankly for a play I would stick with something straightforward, like the hafnium power I just mentioned. Human genetic engineering isn't too hard to explain, if you have good actors. Nanotech is going to be impossible to visually represent and blocks of exposition about it will just confuse the audience or break their suspension of disbelief. As for general AI, believe me when I say that there is no way you can do that realistically. That hasn't stopped plenty of plays about AIs being written and performed anyway, but the best you're likely to do is turn out like new BSG - with 'machines' that are really just humans with a few superficial differentiating traits.

[Singular Intellect]

As for general AI, believe me when I say that there is no way you can do that realistically. That hasn't stopped plenty of plays about AIs being written and performed anyway, but the best you're likely to do is turn out like new BSG - with 'machines' that are really just humans with a few superficial differentiating traits.

So far the only entertainment portrayal of General AI I've seen that even begins to scratch the surface of potential reality (in my somewhat humble opinion) was from the movie Eagle Eye. It's the first time I saw a movie that showed the potential calculating and intelligence power of a artificial mind with access to the world. Of course, in the end it was still rather stupid and limited to more human perceptions. After all, our human protagonists had to win via plot.

[Sarevok]

I think genetic engineering is the most potentially scary technology. Unlike robot armies or exotic nanotech weaponry it is available right now. Almost all modern countrys have numerous organizations, facilities and personnel with potential dangerous side capabilities. We are almost defenseless against engineered deseases which could be made today nevermind later. No one tried biological warfare in recent memory. But if someone does today it would be very very bad. You can shoot down nuclear missiles but it is much harder to stop super contagious deseases spreading through your cities.

[Serafina]

I don't put much stock in grey goo nanoswarms, simply because unicellular life has had aeons to dominate every single energy-using niche on the globe. Sometimes you just need a bigger machine to do a job effectively.

Any entity approaching making "grey goo" would be greatly to be feared or respected, as self-replicating technology in general is not to be underestimated.

Self-replicating technology is of astronomical potential power if avoiding the limits of biological life, such as an artificial mixed ecology including some bigger units. Even earth's crust contains on average 110 times its equivalent energy in TNT explosive due to its thorium content, meaning sufficiently advanced technology could in theory sustain itself eating rock. (Around 1 W/m^2 inefficient biological primary-producer solar power utilization is weak compared to 2.7 GW-years/m^2 available thorium on land or 7 GW-years/m^2 available ocean deuterium, let alone extraterrestrial resources).

Constructively (such as barely comprehensible quadrillions of kilos of wealth) or destructively (such as trillions of insect-size smart missiles), having the ratio of productive output to human labor input approach infinity is a potential change impossible to overstate.

On the other hand, AI superintelligences are liable to be developed first, being indeed the entities likely to accomplish the vast challenge of creating self-replicating technology. After all, on a logarithmic brainpower and intelligence scale where a fly would be 1, a mouse 3, a dog 5, and a human 6, having AI progress from 1 to 6 while just hovering there for long would be a doubtful coincidence compared to instead further orders of magnitude in both speed and complexity of thought soon after. And that, superintelligent AI, is the fundamental ultimate threat or hope and promise.

Still, a lot of the applications of Nanomachines we see are more or less bullshit (Rapdid fabrication, most "nanoweapons" and by extension Grey Goo).

Why? Simple, these tasks require enegy, and the machines are individually quite vulnerable.
How are they going to get all this energy to assemble/disassemble anything of any notable size (say, a human or even a wrench)?
And if they are used in a uncontrolled enviorment - what is going to protect them from wind, rain and all the other nasty stuff going on on this planet? Even if it does not destroy them, it will easily split up the swarm and destroy its ability to work together.

Nanomachines are great for extreme precision, but they are not good at large tasks - large being anything more than twice their size.
Always use the right tool for the right task.

[Oni Koneko Damien]

I always thought it was better to show technologies that could turn deadly in a subtle, rather than overt way. Genetically engineered supersoldiers can be creepy. But what about a world population with a standardized genetic template suddenly hit with a virus keyed to their weakness and spreading rapidly? Nano-goo makes good cinema, but what about valid uses of nano-tech, on the nano-level, spreading from person to person to animal to machine like a disease and altering all in a nasty, concentrated way? Nuclear exchange is bad, sure, but what about terrorists getting space-flight capability and detonating a few debris-warheads in orbit and completely shredding earth's satellite system, destroying world-communications in a moment?

[Starglider]

what about terrorists getting space-flight capability and detonating a few debris-warheads in orbit and completely shredding earth's satellite system, destroying world-communications in a moment?

The vast majority of global comms traffic goes through fibre optic cables. Comms satellites are only critical for remote areas (in particular, military users). Furthermore, they're in a variety of different orbits at different heights and inclinations. Losing the GPS constellation would have serious economic impact, but I can't see you taking out a large fraction of satellites with just one or two launches. Anti-satellite warfare is a game for nation states not terrorist cells - unless you're a scriptwriter for 24.

[Oni Koneko Damien]

what about terrorists getting space-flight capability and detonating a few debris-warheads in orbit and completely shredding earth's satellite system, destroying world-communications in a moment?

The vast majority of global comms traffic goes through fibre optic cables. Comms satellites are only critical for remote areas (in particular, military users). Furthermore, they're in a variety of different orbits at different heights and inclinations. Losing the GPS constellation would have serious economic impact, but I can't see you taking out a large fraction of satellites with just one or two launches. Anti-satellite warfare is a game for nation states not terrorist cells - unless you're a scriptwriter for 24.

Well, there was my ignorance speaking. In that case, how about nano-tech 'bombs' which just release clouds of nanites over urban areas, seeking out and destroying fibre-optics or some other non-obvious but deathly important piece of technological infrastructure, crippling local society and beyond? Not the gray-goo wank, but an actual theoretical and scary use.

[Starglider]

In that case, how about nano-tech 'bombs' which just release clouds of nanites over urban areas, seeking out and destroying fibre-optics or some other non-obvious but deathly important piece of technological infrastructure, crippling local society and beyond?

Limitations of low motility, limited sensory capability, tiny matter destruction rate and energy supply issues almost certainly make this impractical unless the nanomachines are self-replicating. The worst you are likely to do is increase the MTBF of some components and drive up repair bills. I'd note that the target components are likely to become self-repairing long before general self-replicators become possible.

That said, one of the few things that Prey got right is the feasibility of combining genetically engineered bacteria with self-assembling nanorobotics, as a short-cut to self-replication. Even still, by the time the technology gets cheap enough for terrorists to use, it is unlikely to be viable as an infrastructure attack mechanism. Humans are much softer targets - unless they have artificial immune systems. That's a good dilemma actually, terrorist-created bio or bio-nano weapons that kill off 'luddites' - to be protected from the evil nanotech, you must allow the 'friendly' variant into your body. It sounds like something that futuristic, implausibly-well-funded white supremacists might do, since the 'artificial immune system' technology would be disproportionately available in first world countries.

[Spoonist]

The modern discovery, breakthrough or technology needs to have a few elements; it needs to be something that people find scary and seek to resist. It also needs to be something that we'd still want on some level, even if there are some "slippery slope" fears.

I'm seconding the nuclear power thing. It is relatively easy to understand.

Or if you want a controversial subject then go with prenatal diagnosis. It is similar to genetic engineering but it is much clearer for a generic audience what the gains and the slippery slope is. It is also something which for a scritpwriter is easy to build emotions around. It also gives a lot of possible topics to discuss.
Where to draw the line?
What 'defects' should we look for?
Should you be able to chose the gender of your child?
etc

[Simon_Jester]

The large hadron collider is a good example of something that's going on right now. The technology by itself isn't necessarily revolutionary, but there were plenty of nutjobs who thought it would end the world by creating a black hole that would consume everything.

Yes, but in this case the fear is based entirely on bullshit and not on logic. There are good reasons to be afraid of guns or nuclear bombs, and in theory good reasons to be afraid of AI or nanotech. There are no good reasons to be afraid of the LHC, even in theory.

Logical fear of technology is a better basis for writing fiction, because then your story will work on people who aren't stupid.

[General Zod]

The large hadron collider is a good example of something that's going on right now. The technology by itself isn't necessarily revolutionary, but there were plenty of nutjobs who thought it would end the world by creating a black hole that would consume everything.

Yes, but in this case the fear is based entirely on bullshit and not on logic. There are good reasons to be afraid of guns or nuclear bombs, and in theory good reasons to be afraid of AI or nanotech. There are no good reasons to be afraid of the LHC, even in theory.

Logical fear of technology is a better basis for writing fiction, because then your story will work on people who aren't stupid.

it needs to be something that people find scary and seek to resist. It also needs to be something that we'd still want on some level, even if there are some "slippery slope" fears.

Who said anything about fears needing to be based on logic? Most of the fears about nuclear power or nanotech these days are total bullshit too.

[Sarevok]

Who said anything about fears needing to be based on logic? Most of the fears about nuclear power or nanotech these days are total bullshit too.

You know I think 2012 is lot more catchier and recent than LHC. Blackholes consuming the Earth is sooo 2008.

Seriously speaking the Guid was asking for a realistic scenario. If he wanted woo woo fears he would not have to work very hard to find a website about Nibaru / Pole Shift / Time Cube / John Titor.

[Simon_Jester]

Who said anything about fears needing to be based on logic? Most of the fears about nuclear power or nanotech these days are total bullshit too.

I didn't say they need to; I said it's better if they are.

The level of worry we should have about the dangers of new powerful technology is not infinite, but it is also not zero. It actually makes sense for intelligent people to give the matter some thought. And that's more likely to happen if the field of "worrying about technology" isn't dominated entirely by random idiotic bullshit.

Moreover, I would submit art that makes sense logically is better as art, which is an important concern to the artist (in this case, the original poster). Moby Dick may be a metaphor for this, that, and the other thing, but he won't work as a metaphor unless he works as a whale. Make him make sense as a whale and the metaphors will hold together far better. Likewise, make your characters' worry about technology rational and the play will hold together under intelligent analysis- people whose opinions you ought to respect will come away thinking "yes, this is a problem" instead of "what an idiot!"

[General Zod]

You know I think 2012 is lot more catchier and recent than LHC. Blackholes consuming the Earth is sooo 2008.

Seriously speaking the Guid was asking for a realistic scenario. If he wanted woo woo fears he would not have to work very hard to find a website about Nibaru / Pole Shift / Time Cube / John Titor.

Maybe we're not reading the same op, but he didn't specify what kind of fears he wanted, only that people were afraid of a new technology. The fact that a sufficient amount of people really were afraid of the LHC to generate a good deal of press makes it noteworthy.

[General Zod]

Who said anything about fears needing to be based on logic? Most of the fears about nuclear power or nanotech these days are total bullshit too.

I didn't say they need to; I said it's better if they are.

The level of worry we should have about the dangers of new powerful technology is not infinite, but it is also not zero. It actually makes sense for intelligent people to give the matter some thought. And that's more likely to happen if the field of "worrying about technology" isn't dominated entirely by random idiotic bullshit.

Moreover, I would submit art that makes sense logically is better as art, which is an important concern to the artist (in this case, the original poster). Moby Dick may be a metaphor for this, that, and the other thing, but he won't work as a metaphor unless he works as a whale. Make him make sense as a whale and the metaphors will hold together far better. Likewise, make your characters' worry about technology rational and the play will hold together under intelligent analysis- people whose opinions you ought to respect will come away thinking "yes, this is a problem" instead of "what an idiot!"

The thing is? Most of the fears about new technology aren't coming from intelligent people. If you only focus on the "realistic" fears you aren't going to be left with very many. I mean fuck, at the time the atom bomb was being developed people were afraid that once they detonated it the chain reaction would never stop. Which really isn't that much more radical than the LHC making a super black hole. (Considering the LHC really could make singularities that last for a minuscule amount of time).