Many years ago,
Jeremy Rifkin, now of the
Foundation on Economic Trends, took an interesting perspective on what has become
the race between lifespan and technology.
Rifkin was one of the first to publicise the unforseen problems with genetically modified organisms, and the unforseen consequences of their diffusing through the ecology.
His view is that science had--and continues--to contribute chemicals and other things, to the environment--dyes, glues, additives of all kinds, plastics, pesticides, etc.--that have negative effects on people, including infertility, and gender dysfunction, allergies. The most serious effect, or course, is cancer.
Rifkin saw the future of science, after having polluted the environment, as working towards the goal of allowing people to live in the fouled nest they had created. When I read him, years ago, nanotechnology and gene-therapy were not on the horizon. But the details are irrelevant.
The capital investment in any new technology is enormous. Only the largest corporations will be able to make it. Governments will not be the players in research they once were. The irony is, it is corporations who profited from the pollution that they will provide the solutions for--and profit from. They created this mnarket.
But let us not be begiled, new technology is only for those that can afford. Why would it be otherwise? While we have the price of admission to the internet, there are those who cannot afford a basic telephone connection. How many of use will be able to afford the technological fix to live in the brave new world?
Technology is not the remedy for problems caused by technology, it is just another profit center.
There is a race, but the track, and the racecars?