The invention of the first computer marked the beginning of perhaps the final era of human lifestyle.  Whether or not most people in the 1940’s put much weight on the concept of a computer, the first computer served as a road sign that read: “The Road to Infinite Technological Development—100 Years Ahead.” 

What most historians believe to be the first computer was the ENIAC (Electronic Numerical Integrator and Computer) created by John Mauchly and J. Presper Eckert in 1946.  Weighing in at about 60,000 pounds and requiring the use of 19,000 vacuum tubes and 6,000 switches, this computer was, let’s just say, certainly not a laptop.  ENIAC was reprogrammable and was able to add 5000 numbers in one second—which was a considerable feat at the time.  It was also used to perform warhead trajectory calculations during wartime (Golden).  Many of the most innovative and powerful, albeit expensive, products ever made were first researched and developed under government contracts for military purposes.   About ten years after the ENIAC, the government had contracted several hundred early model computers from IBM during the Korean War, but most officials and scientists had still not envisioned wide commercial use of computers, let alone personal use (Freeman pp. 10-11).

By the 1970’s there were several companies in the early stages of developing parts for personal computers—IBM, Intel, Microsoft, HP, and Apple.  Intel’s development of microprocessor chips and RAM (Random-Access Memory) chips would prove to be integral components used in personal and business computers from the time they were invented until the present day.  By the late 1970’s personal computers had become relatively inexpensive and consequently their popularity was on the rise.

Today, computers are smaller, lighter, more powerful, able to store more information, and more commonly used than ever before.  If Mauchly or Eckert were alive today I’m sure they would be absolutely amazed at what modern computers are capable of doing.  Surprisingly, the cost of modern computers is not much more, if even any more expensive than each successive type of personal computer was in its time.  This is because the rate of technological development is not changing linearly with time.  The amount of data that can be stored on a microchip doubles each year, meaning that technology is accelerating (Grossman, p. 2).  By this point, humans are so intrigued by and subsequently tied to (some may phrase this as ‘tied down by’) technology that we, too, are accelerating.  It’s hard to step back and understand the rate at which technology is developing—because we are so caught up in it.   For instance, if you are born on a train while it is moving you might not ever notice that the train is moving—if you are on the train then you are not moving with respect to the train—nor that it might be moving faster and faster each decade, until one day it is 2045 and the train is travelling at the speed of light. 

The concept of Singularity emerged from the observation that technological development is accelerating.  It has been predicted by some of the brightest scientists around, namely Raymond Kurzweil, that by the year 2045 supercomputers capable of out-thinking humans will exist.  It is also predicted that inventing this so-called supercomputer will be the last invention that humans ever have to make—the idea being that the first supercomputer will be able to build another supercomputer better than humans were able to build the first one, and so on (Grossman, pp. 2-3).  This concept describes autonomous technology—technology that perpetuates itself!  However science-fiction-based this argument may seem, Kurzweil, owner of 39 patents and 19 honorary degrees, is sure that it is actually a plausible future (Grossman, p. 3).  2045 is 34 years away, but if we can store one terabyte of information (1,000,000,000,000 bytes) on a half-inch by quarter-inch microchip today, according to Grossman’s article, the amount of information we will be able to store in the same space by 2045 will be doubled seventeen times over.  That means we’ll be able to store 10²⁰⁴ bytes on this half-inch by quarter-inch microchip.  For dramatization’s sake, 10²⁰⁴ looks like this in long form: 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.  But have we been on this track, destined for life in an autonomous computer world, since the dawn of computers?  What will the future be like and what will the invention of a supercomputer allow us, or cause us, to do?

Researchers at Intel, as well as researchers and scientists at major universities around the world, have been conducting research on interpreting and using brainwaves in hopes that we will be able to control computers with nothing more than our thoughts.  It is predicted that by the year 2020 computer users (i.e. everyone) may be able to get microchips implanted in their brains that will allow them to surf the Internet with their minds (Gauden, pp. 1-2).  Some Singularitarians believe that by 2045 we will become ‘Cyborganic,’ meaning that we will have already begun merging with technology and be part organic and part machine (Grossman, p. 4).  All this may sound a little crazy, but really we have already begun moving in that direction through the invention and implementation of prosthetic bones and organs and machines like the pacemaker.  

The “demand-pull” side of computer technological determinism is the result of the commercialization of computers and the involvement of corporations like IBM, Microsoft, and Apple from the beginning of the computer age of technology.  The “technology-push” side of computer technological determinism is the result of peoples’ obsession with the continually increasing amount of information that is available to them through computer access (Freeman, p. 6).  Both sides contribute to a computer-focused modern society where companies that sell computers are so successful that they are constantly and rapidly developing the next grand feature for their new models—and the consumers are still waiting, insatiably thirsty for more advanced computer technology.

It is an optimistic thought that “technology is not the mastery of nature but of the relations between nature and man” (Nye, p. 7).  But in the context of looming Singularity, what are the ethical implications of this thought?   It is difficult to determine who the first, second, or third-party victims would be in a scenario where something goes wrong as a result of having super-intelligent computers around, but because the invention of the computer started it all so long ago, the generation of kids being born right now would certainly be deemed fourth-party victims.  If technology allows humans to neutralize threats that lead to death, which is a possible future that many debate, then we will have created a new thing altogether, or perhaps caused the collapse of emotion, nature, and humankind simultaneously.  

Works Cited

Freeman, Christopher.  “The Case for Technological Determinism.”  Information

Technology (1987)

Gauden, Sharon.  “Intel: Chips in Brains Will Control Computers by 2020.” 

ComputerWorld.com (2009)

Golden, Frederic.  “Who Built the First Computer?”  TimeMagazine.com (1999)

Grossman, Lev.  “2045: The Year Man Becomes Immortal.” TimeMagazine.com

(2011): 1-5.

Nye, David E.  “Can We Define “Technology”?”  Technology Matters:  Questions to

Live With

1. disappointsert liked this
2. barinmamaktadir liked this
3. vonderheidetop liked this
4. internationalex liked this
5. determinesek6 liked this
6. longman09f liked this
7. affordable06 liked this
8. interests69fty liked this
9. kerlinquallb liked this
10. richmond9va liked this
11. phantomile liked this
12. nothingman reblogged this from jefflownsbury
13. fregoli reblogged this from jefflownsbury
14. jacobh said: 19,000 vacuum tubes that should have been used in one giant amp instead.
15. jacobh liked this
16. sutcliffecateringco liked this
17. dirtydesert liked this
18. pixelives reblogged this from veldts
19. manicmuse said: I’d say we should all throw away our computers, but then i’d be out of a job. hmm.
20. veldts reblogged this from jefflownsbury and added:

    emphasize how much

21. veldts said: this was so beautiful and i’m not even just saying that
22. jefflownsbury posted this