In this blog post, we’ll examine the advancements and side effects of science and technology—as well as how humans should control and utilize them—through the lens of the movie ‘Minority Report’.
How exciting would it be if humans could know the future? Human curiosity and the desire to know the future have manifested in various forms throughout history, such as time machines and prophets. The movie ‘Minority Report’ is also a work based on this human aspiration. Set in the year 2054, the film features a variety of highly advanced technologies, including the PreCrime system, iris recognition systems, and self-driving cars. The film focuses on one aspect of this cutting-edge technology: the so-called “PreCrime” system, which uses Precogs—individuals with precognitive abilities—to predict and prevent future murders.
How appealing is the idea of being able to prevent murders before they happen? In the first half of the film, the PreCrime system is portrayed in a positive light, highlighting its success in reducing Washington, D.C.’s murder rate to virtually 0%. However, as the film progresses, the flaws in PreCrime are exposed, its perfection crumbles, and the system is ultimately abolished. The idea of preventing murder before it happens seems very idealistic on the surface. Yet, the film ends with the collapse of the PreCrime system. This problem is not limited to fictional technology in the movie alone.
Thanks to advances in science and technology, the quality of life in human society has improved significantly compared to the past. Consequently, trust in and expectations for science and technology are also very high. When new scientific and technological innovations emerge, most of us welcome them, harboring the expectation that they will lead to further progress in human society. These expectations are possible because they are based on the belief that humans can fully control the use of science and technology and its impact on society. However, because of this belief, sufficient consideration is often not given to potential problems or side effects that may arise later, leading to repeated instances of “closing the barn door after the horse has bolted.” But can humans truly control science and technology completely?
Science and technology themselves may not possess any specific value. The problem, however, lies in the fact that it is humans who use them. Science and technology are possessed and utilized by individual humans in the form of knowledge. And as it is used according to human interpretation and will, it ultimately exerts various influences on society.
Ultimately, the issue of science and technology boils down to the ethical responsibility of the humans who use it. Once science and technology are developed, their scope of application expands to the point where it is difficult to predict, and it is hard to know in advance who will use them and in what way. If someone uses science and technology for malicious purposes, the technology can be corrupted and have a negative impact on society, no matter how well-intentioned the developers were. Furthermore, no matter how cautious the user may be, it is impossible for humans—who are inherently imperfect beings—to predict all the ripple effects of science and technology. Moreover, even today, there are still many areas where the long-term impact of cutting-edge science and technology on humans and society has not been fully elucidated. Just as the advancement of science and technology has unexpected effects on the natural environment, we cannot rule out the possibility that humans, as part of nature, will also be affected in various ways.
Simply acknowledging the existence of adverse effects from science and technology is not enough; proactive measures are necessary. To safely handle the “fire” of science and technology, we must thoroughly review and prepare for potential side effects and risks before introducing new technologies. This is because, even if science and technology are introduced to achieve a specific goal, serious problems that arise afterward could result in a cost far greater than the initial benefits sought.
For example, in the film, Rama Burgess, the architect of PreCrime, actually turns the system against its intended purpose. This is a clear illustration of the side effects inherent in the PreCrime system. As a result, the innocent John Anderton is falsely accused of murder and faces arrest. If a system turns innocent people into criminals, the very legitimacy of its existence is inevitably called into question.
Beyond this, the PreCrime system has numerous other flaws. Its limitation lies in the fact that it functions solely to prevent murder. The film begins with a scene in which a husband, having witnessed his wife’s infidelity, is about to commit murder on impulse. The police immediately arrest the predicted murderer, and ultimately, the murder does not occur. However, the husband is not even given the chance to explain his wife’s infidelity or the situation he finds himself in. Consequently, the person who would have exposed his wife’s infidelity is also eliminated. Thus, crimes other than murder—such as rape, assault, fraud, and theft—are not subject to surveillance by the Pre-Crime system. Therefore, there is a real possibility that criminals could exploit this loophole. In this sense, the husband can also be viewed as another victim of Pre-Crime.
Furthermore, Pre-Crime targets only the act of murder itself. However, simply preventing the outcome of murder does not fundamentally change human nature. If only a single action is blocked while the evil nature that drives people to commit murder remains intact, that energy may manifest itself in other forms of crime or social problems. While the murder rate in Washington, D.C., may have been 0% in the movie, it is entirely possible that other types of crime increased.
In real life, it is easy to find examples where problems arise due to a lack of preparation for side effects. A prime example is the 2011 accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant in Japan. According to the accident investigation, although the risk of a massive tsunami had been raised multiple times prior to the accident, sufficient preparations were not made. Ultimately, the massive earthquake and tsunami triggered a nuclear accident, resulting in enormous human, environmental, and economic losses. Because the scale of damage from a single nuclear accident is immense, thorough preparation in advance is of the utmost importance. If adequate risk analysis and preventive measures had been implemented, the outcome might have been different. The fact that such problems—which could have been prevented—occur demonstrates that we still do not fully understand how to handle science and technology.
Even if we acknowledge the adverse effects of science and technology and understand the need for countermeasures, responding to them in reality is not easy. This is because the greater the impact of science and technology on human society, the more vast its scale becomes, and the more complex the intertwined economic and administrative interests are. Therefore, predicting and responding to adverse effects presents many challenges. Reducing risk factors requires significant time and cost, and in the absence of specific regulations, it is difficult to voluntarily implement sufficient safety measures. In this regard, systems and regulations that apply uniformly across society play a crucial role in reducing the adverse effects of science and technology. In fact, automobile emissions regulations implemented in the United States and the European Union (EU), among other places, have significantly contributed to reducing air pollution by continuously tightening standards.
However, there are limits to managing all rapidly advancing and ever-expanding scientific and technological applications through regulation alone. Furthermore, because regulations are mandatory, there is a possibility that people’s responses will become passive. So, what if we provided appropriate rewards for efforts to mitigate the adverse effects of science and technology? If the former is the “stick,” the latter can be described as the “carrot.” One example of this is the carbon emissions trading system. Of course, there are ongoing debates regarding the system’s effectiveness and operational methods; however, since reducing carbon emissions is linked to economic benefits, we can expect it to incentivize companies and institutions to make more proactive efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
So far, we have examined the adverse effects of science and technology, the reasons why we must prepare for them, and practical countermeasures. While developing science and technology is important, it is equally crucial for humanity to control it responsibly and utilize it wisely. If we can anticipate and prepare for the negative aspects of science and technology in advance, we will be able to build a safer and more sustainable future.
