Welcome to The New Atlantis
The Ethics and Public Policy Center has just launched a new journal, The New Atlantis, to probe and analyze the social and ethical issues raised by technological progress. The new journal takes its name from Francis Bacon's 1627 fable about the development of his new science in which "The end of our foundation is the knowledge of causes, and secret motions of things; and the enlarging of the bounds of human empire, to the effecting of all things possible."
The New Atlantis recognizes that the politics of the 21st century will turn on technological issues, especially biotechnological advances. The initial editorial by Eric Cohen is more skeptical of the blessings of modern technology than it needs to be, but one must salute the editors' intent to discuss these vital issues seriously.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
After reading the Mr. Cohen’s editorial i have to say – Don’t we already have too many people discussing these issues “seriously” ie conjuring dytopian futures & worst case scenarios out of every scientific/technological development ? It’s OK when Greg Bear does it but some of these folks might actually have access to the ears of Congress.
And how does he get away, given his attitude, with calling it the “new atlantis” ? This is like Fukuyama or Kass invoking Voltaire.
Read Gregory Pence instead.
Great Stuff from Mr. Rick Barton.
“our comfortable Silicon Valley society”
Right.
At least we live and work in the real world instead of being subsidized by millionaires.
I suddenly dislike Mr. Cohen’s attitude even more than i did on first reading.
Croesus :
“sexist in its language ”
Sure he got the details “wrong” but as someone who leans extropian i was not particularly unhappy with anything in the book when i read it a while ago. Newton was a christian fundementalist – remember ?
In the first sentence of the essay Eric Cohen reveals his bias:
“The problem of technology-how to spread its fruits, limit its excesses, and save ourselves from its destructive side”
Not only is it: Technology Bad 2,Technology Good 1
He also, in delineating this “problem of technology” could well have listed, “how do we make its fruits more robust?” and “how do we recognize and defeat or at least limit the institutions that stop technology from coming to fruition in the first place?”
Mr. Cohen’s slightly muddled essay is made even more so by stretches for contrived counter point as when he juxtaposes hi-tech defense and “our comfortable Silicon Valley society” and then in the same paragraph deals the reader a worse disservice by insinuating the nonsense, that 9/11 happened because “many people around the world deeply resent us for what we are and envy us for what we have.” Its one thing for the piece to omit foreign policy because its not a central concern, its another thing to repeat one of its lies.
Eric Cohen correctly notes that: “Restless innovation has been central to the American way of life from the beginning; the “rage for the new” is a deep-rooted part of the American character; and the resulting technological achievements have been both indisputable and impressive.” and further that “we should all be thankful that America produces and nourishes many brilliant and inventive minds.” But he does not mention that it is capitalism that is the essential underpinning for this technological cornucopia.
The essay asks “when to mobilize, when to pause, when to retreat, and when to tolerate particular technological ends or means.” and tells us that the answer to this question, when ever it arises, involves being able to answer another question: “what does the good life and the good society look like?”(assuming that’s just one and not two more questions) as if a consensus could be arrived at to a question whose answer was so subjective. Of course no consensus is needed. Only the market with its dispersive flow of information and its diversity of players can provide answers as to the viability of individual technologies.
Also, Cohen wants to consider the “larger questions modern democracy” and the “practical questions of governing science” without pondering weather governance is appropriate for science at all. Although he does note that a segment of society (conservative) worries about technology, that “too much government is slowing us down” but then he further exposes his bias with his statement that “Liberals are repulsed by our hubristic exploitation of the environment” as if the exploitation of the environment was “hubristic” as a matter of course.
The piece does asks some interesting question but besides not appreciating the role market dynamics in technological innovation one gets the feeling that his view of technology is not unlike that of the FDA bureaucrat considering an application for a new drug. If the drug is approved, goes to market and something goes wrong; everybody knows.
But, if the bureaucrat stops the drug from being sold and thousands never have the chance to alleviate their suffering, nobody knows, its a “silent tragedy”.
The New Atlantis, as I recall, was rather (by modern terms at least) sexist in its language (needlessly so perhaps), as well as one of the salvos in the debate in the 17th century over the utility of magic (remember Newton dabbled in alchemy). Keith Thomas disccuses this and much more in his seminal tome _Religion and the Decline of Magic: Studies in Popular Beliefs in Sixteenth and Seventeenth Century England,_ for anyone interested.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0195213602/reasonmagazinea-20/
Also try, Richard Kieckhefer’s, _Forbidden Rites: A Necromancer’s Manual of the Fifteenth Century._
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0271017511/reasonmagazinea-20/
Anonymous Poster, @ 01:23 pm
Well, the criticism has been that Bacon’s attitude was part of the foundation for the needlessly sexist culture of science that flourished until this century. Whether you agree with this analysis is another matter. Still, Bacon’s language, which often focused on “male” science using the means of conquest to enslave “female” nature is at times difficult to swallow. However, admittedly, his use of language was not unusual – a common theme in many 17th century literary works is the woman captured and conquered by her male suitor (same was true in the 18th century) in language that we would consider as describing rape (by trick or outright violence) today. For an example of this in the latter part of the 17th century see Aphra Behn’s (a woman no less, who is the progenitor of the modern novel, and who had a great influence on Daniel Dafoe – see his novel _Roxana_) novels.
Croesus –
I was the anonymous poster – mistake. Apologies …
“Whether you agree with this analysis is another matter.”
Disagree. “Needlessly sexist cultures” existed everywhere until fairly recently. Quick example – every Elizabethan playwright. But i think you were making pretty much the same point.