Katie Byrnes
Bill Joy: “Why the future doesn't need us” available at: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy_pr.html

1. write a one paragraph summary statement about the article characterizing the main message of the article?
Bill Joy uses information from literature, popular media, the sciences and his own personal experiences to express concern with the moral implications of advances in technology specifically in nanotechnology, robotics, and engineering. He shares some of the powerful forces in the search for knowledge and the search for truth and the possible implications for the human species in the future with some of the possibilities for "advancement" that are currently on the table. He concludes by asking readers to consider the message of the Dalai Lama as a guide for moral decisions. He also offers his optimism for the beneficial uses of science because of the ethic of care humans possess for one another.

2. Who is Bill Joy?
Bill Joy is a computer architect at Sun Microsystems who works to improve the efficiency of software. His life work has been trying to make computers as reliable and as user friendly as possible.

3. what did you find
3.1. interesting about the article?
3.2. not find interesting about the article?
I really enjoyed his integration of scientific evidence as well as evidence from philosophy and literature. I appreciated hearing about his background and his work which puts his writing in context for me. In reading the article I felt like he was a knowledgable and informed person who was deeply passionate about the topic which encouraged my engagement in the reading.

4. with which arguments (focused on predicting future developments) do you
4.1. agree
4.2. disagree
I agree the intelligent robots will occur in my lifetime and I strongly agree that technology is more easily used for destructive than beneficial effects. I believe that we are in danger of destroying the resources on our own planet and and I agree that our species cannot survive in the universe if we can't survive on earth. I disagree with Kacynski about the majority of the population being useless and being controlled by an elite.

5. does the article relate to
5.1. other topics / themes you have studied at CU?
5.2. to your personal interests and life?
No, not really. I have never had an interest in science fiction and my disciplinary knowledge is not based in the physical or biological sciences. The advice from the Dalai Lama resonates with my own moral beliefs and I have read some of his writings. I believe it is crucial for us to recognize our interdependence with each other and with our environment. The world and our lives is a better place, if it is a better place for the other people who coexist with us.

6. how should we react to this article
6.1. on an individual basis?
6.2. on a societal basis?
I think people should reflect about what in the article resonated with them and what didn't and why. What in our past, in our environments has influenced our thinking about technology and about the future. I think it is important to think about how are lives are today and what we "need" and what is a luxury. I think the critical issue for us as a society is to consider the moral implications of our forays in science.

7. which concepts /names mentioned in the article did you not understand?
Joy's discussion of some of the work he was doing and the software he designed was unfamiliar to me. Overall, I feel like the article was written for a layperson which made it accessible to me.

8. would you consider yourself
8.1. a techno-utopist (“glorifying the future”)
8.2. a techno-pessimist (“glorifying the past”)
8.3. or how would you characterize your own position?
I "glorify the present" with an eye to the past and the future. The only moment we can control or influence is the present and so that is where I chose to focus my time, energy and thought. I believe that the past and the future are important to the present and so they should be taken into consideration in minor and major decisions one makes in life, but they are subservient to the present.

9. how well have futurists succeeded or failed to predict the disappearance in the digital age of
9.1. paper
9.2. books
9.3. physical libraries
9.4. distances between people
All of these things obviously still exist and will continue to exist until the population that utilizes them no longer exists. This may never happen as generations pass on a love of books, of paper, of libraries that continue to support their existence. They may diminish in scale because of less usage or need, but they will not disappear. Distances between people have been considerably reduced, but we are still not at the point that we saw in the film where the majority of people have access to real time technology that revolutionizes that way we live. Even when this occurs, people will still feel the need for human contact and interaction and will travel distances to see those they care about.