THE ASCENDANCE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
567
got more and more sophisticated, they would shut down computer net–
works. Part of that prediction did come true. The software viruses have
gotten more and more sophisticated. But they have not shut down our
networks, because the technological immune systems, our defensive sys–
tems, have evolved along with the offensive systems and have kept pace
with the dangers. No one would suggest shutting down the Internet
because of software viruses. People might say that software viruses
don't generally kill people. These new dangers, such as a bioengineered
pathogen could be quite destructive and lethal. But that only strength–
ens my argument. Because software viruses generally destroy only files
and don't kill people, we're fairly lackadaisical about them. Yet we've
done pretty well at keeping them at bay. With types of self-replicating
pathogens that are human made and could be potentially lethal, law–
enforcement responses, our diligence, our efforts put into technological
immune systems, will be hundreds of times more intense. We're likely to
do even better. I would say that this is the primary issue facing human
civilization in the century ahead. We have the potential to transform
humanity, liberate ourselves from a lot of afflictions, but we are also fac–
ing grave dangers. Fifty million people died in World War II; we had a
hundred million people killed in wars in the twentieth century made
possible by technology, so we are already suffering from the dangers of
technology. On balance, I'd say that we're better off, but that's not an
easy question.
Edward Rothstein:
I just want to clarify one thing: one of the effects of
these technologies you describe is that any kind of boundary or distinc–
tion between the machine and the human is going to break down.
Ray Kurzweil:
I think it is breaking down. Occasionally we put up little
boundaries, but they tend to be illusory, progress flows around them.
We don't have a clear boundary of who we are today; we don't neces–
sarily identify with every part of our bodies. Who we are changes con–
stantly. I'm a completely different set of cells than I was just a few weeks
ago, and even the neurons, which persist longer, have particles making
them up that are completely changed. We're really a pattern of infor–
mation.
If
we learn what that pattern is, we can enhance it. We already
have augmentations and replacements for many different body parts,
and we're beginning to do that with the brain. Actually, there's relatively
little controversy. The controversy appears when we start manipulating
biological information. The ecological community has tried to create a
boundary there-we shouldn't tamper with the sacred ground of bio-
