More writing I am least happy with this peice and it is my final grade worth the most.
One Ring to Destroy Us All, Facial-Recognition Crystal Balls
or Hogwarts School of Ethical Wizardry?
Technology is the magic of today, and its proper use or development raises many ethical questions. If used improperly, some modern magic could destroy the planet. Conversely, stopping these developments would be an infringement of civil liberties that could rival George Orwell’s Big Brother in “1984.” Modern philosophers argue about the proper path to follow, while authors of fantasy paint pictures of how things might be. The writings of J.R.R. Tolkien and J.K. Rowling present wonderful analogies of the proper use of power. Looking at Tolkien’s One Ring of Power and Harry Potter’s study of magic, along with some of our real world concerns, causes us to ask: should certain technologies be destroyed in the fires of Mordor before they have a chance to reach full development, should we rely on technological divination to hunt down those who would break our laws, or should we learn the defense against the dark arts and tread cautiously in a world that could destroy itself?
Magic is an analogy for science. Magic and science are both ancient studies dating back to early times (Lipscomb and Stewart 78; Schick 21). Benjamin Bruxvoort Lipscomb and Christopher Stewart point out, “both modern science and natural magic are methods of investigating natural processes, the aim of which is, in each case, not simply explanation or understanding for its own sake, but more importantly prediction and control of the natural world” (78). The abuse of magic as depicted in the books of Tolkien and Rowling are close analogies for how we use technology today. Their books show us the ethical judgments that heroes must make and how these judgments might relate to our own choices.
Author and Professor at Muhlenberg College, Theodore Schick compares the emerging fields of nanotechnology, genetics and robotics to Tolkien’s One Ring of Power. Schick points out that the One Ring had the power to heal and preserve. Similarly, nanotechnology has the potential of allowing us to repair most, if not all, of the effects of age and sickness. The Ring also had the ability to grant superhuman powers and invisibility. Modern robotics combined with applied nanotechnology could allow us to arm soldiers with armor stronger than anything currently available, as well as bend light in a way that would bring near invisibility. In addition, we could use microscopic motors to greatly enhance the physical strength of the soldier of tomorrow (Schick).
However, the Ring also corrupted those who used it. Frodo’s eventual unwillingness to rid himself of the ring, Gollum’s inability to live with out it, and Boromir’s lust to use it for the good of man show different degrees of the corruptive nature of the ring. Likewise, modern technology corrupts. Bill Joy of Sun Microsystems points out that “Genetics, Nanotechnology, and Robotics are incredibly powerful technologies with great opportunities for abuse or accidental misuse“ (qtd. in Schick 26). These mirco-computers can replicate any substance from raw atoms. We could ask such a micro-computer to produce a hot cup of Earl Grey tea and a croissant like Star Trek’s Captain Picard, or we could ask it to replicate the radioactive core of a nuclear weapon with a side of the Ebola Virus for lunch. Consider a world with self-replicating micro-computers that can create anything at a microscopic level. Unchecked they could strip the planet of its natural resources in a matter of days, turning everything in to a Grey Goo consisting of nothing but more self-replicating micro-computers, corrupting everything as surely as Sauron’s One Ring (Schick 30).
So what do we do? Bill Joy would have us do as Elrond and the Fellowship did: destroy the Ring before it destroys us (qtd in Schick 22). But the One Ring was made only by Sauron, and with its destruction, it could not be remade. To stop some of the modern magic, we would have to have a ban on their research. The problem is that these technologies can be studied in one’s basement because they do not need the rarefied materials required for today’s weapons of mass destruction (Schick 31).
To enforce a ban, would we trade one magic for another, and at what cost? Stronger surveillance and loss of civil liberties possibly would protect us from those that would make these future weapons of mass destruction in their basement. Worldwide surveillance is closer than we think. Like crystal balls or scrying pools, surveillance cameras and GPS tracking systems watch us. As if casting runes, ATM machines, credit reports and the internet give a skilled technomancer access to all of our personal data in an instant. Author Christian Parenti details a new surveillance system in Washington D.C. that, when complete, will utilize 1,000 wireless cameras throughout the city to track the movements of anyone the government wants to watch. “Police will be able to read license plates and track cars as they move through the city” (Parenti 312). Disturbingly, the system has been hooked up on three occasions to monitor crowds gathering to protest NATO, the World Bank and George W. Bush (Parenti 313-314).
Journalist Joshua Quittner acknowledges that we have already lost our privacy, and while that is scary and inconvenient at times, it is well worth the cost for all that we get in return. Most of our information is available to anyone willing to spend the time to find it. And as we become more globally connected through the use of the internet, we lose more privacy. The internet, On-Board GPS systems and ATM machines keep track of where we are and what we do (Quittner 323). In return for our loss of liberty, Quittner believes we get faster access to our money, easier use of the internet, directions when we are lost, and enhanced safety.
Is the magical safety of technology just the workings of a skilled illusionist? Are we any safer with stronger surveillance. Wendy Kaminer reminds us that we were promised safety with a magical facial-recognition system that would help us track suspected terrorists and other dark wizards (Kaminer). However, when tested in Tampa, this new magic “never identified a single individual contained in the Department’s data base” and “the system made many false positives, including confusing men with women” (qtd in Kaminer 319).
Perhaps with all of these magical possibilities, both awful and terrific, we need a school of magic. Where better to turn than Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. The Harry Potter series is full of examples of magical counters to technology, e.g., people flying broomsticks instead of riding motorcycles, and Mrs. Weasly using her wand to fulfill the duties of a dishwasher, a Cuisinart, and a Dustbuster. These ideas all relate to simple technology that is less then harmless.
However, the series also points out some of the more dangerous aspects of magic. Take, for example, the Unforgivable curses: the Imperius Curse - used to control the will of another, the Cruciatus curse - used to torture others, and the Avada Kedavra curse - which is known as the killing curse. All three of these curses are used to dominate the freedom of another. They are examples of total domination. The fact that they have been labeled unforgivable shows that in the world of Harry Potter, becoming captive to a dominating force is a terrible fate. The negative power behind these curses is not unlike the ability of Tolkien’s One Ring to dominate the will of those in its grasp, or the devastation created by micro-computers becoming a Grey Goo to choke life from the planet, or the loss of civil liberties in a world where our every move is monitored by technology (Lipscomb and Stewart).
In J.K. Rowling’s universe, magic that is considered evil is called the dark arts. “The Dark Arts can only be mastered when one has given themselves over to the desire to dominate another” (Lipscomb and Stewart 85). Heroes like Professor Dumbledore have realized that there are fates worse than death, while villains like Lord Valdemort fail to realize that in striving for control, they have lost their own freedom. Valdemort lives a shallow existence, always seeking ways to break free of the limits of his dark condition, while his followers, thinking they have power, fail to realize that they must constantly placate their master to survive. Think now of a technology that can harm or dominate a community. Those who use such a technology must always hide their actions with lies and subterfuge, thus alienating themselves from allies, as well as foes (Lipscomb and Stewart).
In Harry Potter’s world, there exist many agencies for the regulation of magic, much the way we regulate science and technologies in the real world. “The magical community of wizards in these stories is willing to prohibit to itself and its members particular powers that it judges to be, on the whole, destructive of the common good. Such prohibitions are not simply a matter of withdrawal from the world, but are acts of self-definition ultimately grounded in a willingness to suffer inconvenience or even death rather than dominate others in certain ways” ( Lipscomb and Stewart 89). But the most effective deterrent for rampant magic is education. “Without a Hogwarts or comparable degree, no one, regardless of talent, is permitted to use magic. The education at Hogwarts, which is as much an ethical education as a technical one, is the only authorized entry into the use of these powers” (Lipscomb and Stewart 89).
At Hogwarts we see that the importance of limiting our power, is something that we should naturally feel. Proper use of magic comes from a properly installed sense of ethics and, to a degree, an educated sense of survival. For example, if I where to ask a group of ten year olds to kill a baby, they would know that it was not a good thing to do. If I were to tell that same group of children that I would give each of them a twenty dollar bill to cut off their nose, again they would know it was not a good choice. Yet, when it comes to technology, we constantly make things that are initially appealing, but actually cause more harm in the long run. Self-restriction is the key, and according to Lipscomb and Stewart, self-restrictions come from proper education which includes education about technology. Not how to use technology, but rather what the effects are of using it. We must learn the consequences of new magic before we use it, and learn to live with inconvenience, rather than rush to have some new gizmo that will make life convenient until it destroys the planet (Lipscomb and Stewart).
The technology of today is as frightening and powerful as the magic of the fiction we read. How we decide to handle this power is more than a simple decision. It is a journey of self-discovery where we must discover who we are as a people. If we destroy dangerous technologies as Bill Joy would have us do, we could fall prey to rivals with fewer ethical fears than us. Schick points out that we would be hard pressed to stop people from developing these if we tried (Schick). If we did try to ban dangerous technologies, such as genetics and nanotechnology, would we exchange our liberties for a greater sense of safety by relying on a different technology that allows the government to use spy cameras to watch our every move, like in Washington D.C. (Parenti).
Quittner would argue we already live in that police state, and the safety it provides is worth the price. Kaminer might say that safety is nonexistent, and only the innocent are suffering from an increased use of technological crime-fighting. I personally think that Lipscomb and Stewart are on the right trail of what must be done. It is time we learned to live with less, but not without. In a well-educated and ethical society, fewer restrictions on civil liberties are needed. It is imperative that we teach a strong sense of ethics to those who will wield the power of tomorrow.
Works Cited
Kaminer, Wendy. “Trading Liberty for Illusions.” Writing in the Disciplines: A Reader for Writers. 5th ed. Eds. Mary Kennedy, William Kennedy, and Hadley Smith. New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2004. 318-320.
Lipscomb, Benjamin J Bruxvoort, and W. Christopher Stewart. “Magic, Science and the Ethics of Technology.” Harry Potter and Philosophy: If Aristotle Ran Hogwarts. Eds. David Baggett and Shawn Klein. Popular Culture and Philosophy. Vol. 9. Illinois: Open Court, 2004. 77-91.
Parenti, Christian. “DC’s Virtual Panopticon.” Writing in the Disciplines: A Reader for Writers. 5th ed. Eds. Mary Kennedy, William Kennedy, and Hadley Smith. New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2004. 311-316.
Quittner, Joshua. “Invasion of Privacy.” Writing in the Disciplines: A Reader for Writers. 5th ed. Eds. Mary Kennedy, William Kennedy, and Hadley Smith. New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2004. 321-328.
Schick, Theodore. “The Cracks of Doom: The Threat of Emerging Technologies and Tolkien’s Rings of Power.” The Lord of the Rings and Philosophy: One Book to Rule them All. Eds. Gregory Bassham and Eric Bronson. Popular Culture and Philosophy. Vol. 5. Illinois: Open Court, 2003. 21-32.