Back to Zarathustra
Obviously, how and whether technology should be restricted, how and by whom its costs and benefits should be weighed, and who has the ethical responsibility for technological systems, are complex and contentious questions. Moreover, any assertion that history is at a turning point must be treated with caution given the normal human tendency to exaggerate the importance of the particular period within which one is living -- although it is hard for anyone with even a cursory knowledge of the rapid and accelerating scientific and technological changes occurring to reject the reality of profound and fundamental change.
But such debates seem to miss an essential question. Looking at humans from the outside, and starting with first principles, what is the dominant characteristic one would expect to find in a species that in an extraordinarily short time evolves to dominate a planet? Because, quite simply, that’s what’s happened.
Put that way, the answer is clear and simple: a Nietzschean will to power. Power expressed in competing with each other, power expressed in ever increasing control of the external environment, power expressed in cultural competition at many levels across the ages, power expressed in ever more foundational technological systems. Certainly, societies have eschewed some technologies -- the SST in the United States, for example, or nuclear power in some countries -- but only where the economics were unfavorable and alternatives existed. Some cultures throughout history have even sharply curtailed their science and technology development; the prime examples are Islam in the 11th and 12th centuries, China in the 15th century, and Japan in the 1600’s (guns and gunpowder). Generally, this was done to preserve social stability or desired cultural characteristics (e.g., preserving the feudal Japanese culture against the democracy of violence implied by gunpowder and guns). In these cases, however, suppression of technology failed over time as other cultures (Northern Europe) adopted the technologies and gained ascendancy.
It seems a difficult but historically unarguable conclusion that the will to power is fundamental to being human. The implications are severe. For one thing, the necessary governance scale for policy in areas such as the environmental or social implications of NBIC is obviously global, not regional. Europe may not like genetically modified organisms, and the United States may ban stem cell technology -- but that only passes the torch to others. Cultural competition is only one manifestation of the will to power, which operates across the species as a whole at all scales. More profoundly, the will to power likely has driven human evolution biologically, and now drives it culturally and technologically: the idea that we are the end point of evolution, or that we have stopped evolving (indeed, that we are not evolving more rapidly than we ever have before) seems a desperate fantasy, almost willful blindness. Idealistic arguments, whether good or bad, are mere utopian wistfulness if they do not understand, and accommodate, this perhaps most important and fundamental dimension of our species -- the will to power.
Brad Allenby is professor of civil and environmental engineering at Arizona State University, a fellow at the University of Virginia's Darden Graduate School of Business, and previously was AT&T's vice president of environment, health, and safety.
Just about every corporate sustainability pro is tweeting these days. We've done some analysis of who's actually getting their message across. Read more
The sixth annual edition of research has been expanded to include data on 1,600 companies worldwide, as well as on the U.S.-based S&P 500. Find out where the world of sustainable business is headed -- and the leading indicators of future progress.
Read the stories and download the report.
Simran Sethi shares how our psychology and geography shape the ways we engage and share with each other. See our entire video collection