杏吧原创

Complex systems like the internet might not be robust enough (Image: Alan Powdrill/Getty)

The darkest fears of the leading lights and rising stars of science, brought together by the Edge鈥檚 John Brockman, could keep us all awake at night

WARNING: read the subtitle of this book first. Its editor, cultural impresario John Brockman, may well have you struggling to get your shut-eye as he sets out to keep us on our toes.

The trick this time lies in the tone of a book of answers to questions that Brockman poses annually to science鈥檚 great and good on his Edge website. It鈥檚 really not all good news.

In 2007, Edge asked what we were optimistic about. Six years later, the tone sounds like a pessimistic rejoinder: what should we be worried about? But with Brockman it鈥檚 rarely simple. He invited people to share a scientific worry that might not be on the popular radar, or one they think should drop off the radar.

Some concerns read like dystopia mixed with moral panic, and they surface time and again. There鈥檚 the emergence of machines with superhuman intelligence (from physicist Max Tegmark and others), the dangers of relying on such fragile, complex systems as the internet (psychologist Randolph Nesse and others), and the impact of new tech on children (social scientist Sherry Turkle and others).

Other concerns seem more surprising, some expressed by rising stars who may live to do something about them. Take environmental economist Jennifer Jacquet. She fears that framing humans as the main drivers of environmental change 鈥� even though this is the case 鈥� will lead to further negative change, an idea she calls 鈥渢he anthropocebo effect鈥�. This psychological condition involves 鈥渁 certain pessimism that makes us accept human destruction as inevitable鈥�.

Then there is biologist Seirian Sumner, who worries about what happens when synthetic biology gets out of the lab. 鈥淥ur children鈥檚 children could be getting Bio-Lego for Christmas to build their own synthetic pets!鈥� she says, warning that we cannot control how evolution might rewire synthetic life, or predict how such beings might change the ecosystem.

And futurist Melanie Swan foresees concerns over privacy rights for neural data as streams from sleep-monitoring devices expand to include data from eye-tracking glasses, wearable EEGs and portable MRIs.

As for ditching worries, cognitive scientist Benjamin Bergen nicely debunks the notion that children can be harmed by certain taboo words, for instance.

But this is where Brockman鈥檚 game can both confuse and entertain, as different essays put forward, dismiss and reinstate fears. One of the most striking examples is the 鈥渟ingularity鈥� 鈥� when artificial superintelligence outpaces humans. Tegmark has 鈥渓ittle doubt that this can happen鈥�. But futurist Bruce Sterling says 鈥渢he AI Rapture鈥� [is] no more to be fretted about than a landing of Martian tripods鈥�, and philosopher Andy Clark claims 鈥渨e should not fear that our Artificial Intelligences will soon match and then rapidly outpace human understanding, turning us into their slaves, toys, pets or puppets鈥�.

At the end of the exercise, Brockman鈥檚 crew has left us with a net balance of new fears. But they also introduce us to some big ideas. As psychologist Daniel Goleman puts it: 鈥淓ffective worrying focuses our attention on a genuine threat and leads to anticipating solutions.鈥� Or perhaps biologist Craig Venter is onto something when he writes, hopefully tongue in cheek: 鈥淎s a scientist, an optimist, an atheist, and an alpha male, I don鈥檛 worry.鈥�

聯At the end of the exercise, Brockman鈥檚 crew has left us with a net balance of new fears聰

This article appeared in print under the headline 鈥淔uture shock鈥�