There is a lot that I like about Glenn Reynolds. I picked up his book “An Army of Davids” at a seminar put on by the Institute for Humane Studies (IHS) a few weeks ago. On the flight back to Columbus from New Haven I started it, and my first impression was pretty good. My first impression did not last.
The book can be broken into two parts: how markets are empowering little guys and how future technology is going to change the world (for the better).
Part I was good. Reynolds discussed how technology has opened the doors for little guys, like me. As the cover of the books says, “…markets and technology empower ordinary people to beat big media, big government and other Goliaths.” It was a real-life application of Hayek’s essay “The Use of Knowledge in Society”. This is his point: technology (in particular the internet) has allowed bloggers to take on big media, allowed garage bands to take on big record companies, and allowed vigilantes to hook up with government authorities (especially with the War on Terror or whatever it is called).
And, he is right: if knowledge is decentralized (which it is), our new technologies can help consolidate information in one source (like wikipedia). The harvesting of information lies upon the shoulders of the “Davids” around the world.
Part II was not good. First off, it is not explicitly about empowering the individual. It was his analysis of the future, and future technology. He started with nano-technology, which he claims “may be as big a change as the Industrial Revolution, but in a different direction.” By manipulating atoms and molecules you can create anything. From gold to pop-tarts to Barack Obama, you will be able to make it yourself through molecular restructuring. He went on to note that because fear of “Genetic Engineering” was apparently ungrounded, nano-technology automatically should have the green light.
Yes. Since genetic engineering helped us slow the spread of HIV, we now have the right to play God. He relentlessly referred to critics of nano-technology as “fear-mongers” and “critics [that] won’t shut up…” His true analysis is that “The real problem isn’t a distrust of science. It’s a distrust of people.” He is wrong.
People are afraid of Frankenstein scenarios. Nano-technology gives us the power to create a super-technological dystopia.
He is correct about being afraid of other people. Imagine every person having the ability to create anything on a whim: atomic-enhanced attack dogs, new chemical weapons and super-weaponized bacteria. These are all justifiable fears.
Reynolds also argues that technology will allow us to live longer. He pointed out that Aubrey de Grey (A bio gerontologist at Cambridge University) predicts that the 150-year life span is not very far away. In Reynold’s exact words, “Thus ,if we can expect anything, we can expect treatments that give us more of the good part of our lives–anywhere from a couple of extra decades to, at the most optimistic end, several extra centuries. And who would be against that?”
I would!
Reynolds makes the incorrect assumption that more of everything makes it better. He clearly has not studied the law of diminishing marginal return. Imagine you have 80 cupcakes. You eat one and it is very good. By two it is still good. By five you are grossed out. By ten you do not want anymore. By 80 you are throwing up, absolutely repulsed, and pledging never to touch a cupcake again.
And that is why Reynolds is wrong. Overall, the book is okay. It is worth reading if you don’t value your time. If you do value your time and you want the same information, then read the aforementioned essay by Hayek.
If you want to go to Glenn Reynold’s website click here.
A note from the writer:
Philip, this is the exact kind of discussion I want to encourage. The last thing I want is for people to believe my opinions are authoritative, as even I certainly do not think so.
This blog is as much a tool for my growth as it is for other people.
Thank you, and I will certainly look into the benefits of nano-technology. Whereas I am very sure there are benefits related to scienfic progress, I still believe in balancing scientific development with caution. As far as Glenn Reynolds, I think his book did the opposite of his intention: it inspired fear rather than curiousity. Frankly, Philip, you would write a better book.
I think both Mr. Reynolds’ and your opinion come from a lack of scientific understanding of the kind of research that is taking place and the range of potential it carries with it, though I see that you’re aware of the downsides. Simply put, the idea that any layman could whip up a device of mass destruction as a result of nanotechnology is just as unlikely as with current technology, and just as absurd. We have students of nuclear physics capable of making materials necessary for a fission bomb (fusion’s a bit more elaborate), but to say that it’s rare is an understatement. The amount of equipment, education and energy required would make home-grown nano-tech a near impossibility. No, it is not an impossibility; yes, there certainly are risks of misuse, but along with those risks come benefits of untold proportions. I need not lay a sample out for you here, I’m certain that I’m taking up enough of your time as it is.
As for the extended life, again, I’m not sure that either you or Mr. Reynolds has got the proper impression on the matter. Whether or not we’re able to cure aging,- the ultimate intention of Aubrey de Grey’s research – we maintain any number of other causes for death. The only grounds for concern is regarding population control; any other outcry is one based in hypocrisy, as we’ve already extended the human lifespan in developed countries well beyond anything “nature would have intended.” And if after the 50th, 90th, or 140th year of living, you feel that your margins have diminished, you have had, and will continue to have the option to leave this existence.
I understand that this is not an argument of policy on your part Charles, but it worries me that you’ve formed these opinions because I see you as someone with great potential and true determination, and I know you’re going to go on to have a significant impact in this country, and I feel you ought to be exposed to some of the reason and, more importantly, the potential behind these sciences before you dismiss them.
This is awesome. You should probably adjust the last line.
Other than that, I think you are right on. I see no value in a 200 year life-span.
I like how you attack his argument, but not explicitly attack nano-technology.
I implore you to reconsider this.