In this blog post, we’ll explore the advancement of science and technology, its side effects, and how humans should control it through 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 since ancient times, 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 centers on the so-called “PreCrime” system—one example of this cutting-edge technology—which uses precogs to predict and prevent future homicides.
How appealing is the idea of being able to prevent murders? In the first half of the film, the positive image of the PreCrime system is highlighted by presenting its impeccable track record: a 0% murder rate in Washington, D.C. However, as the system’s flaws are exposed, its perceived perfection crumbles, ultimately leading to its collapse. The idea of preventing murder before it happens seems very plausible on the surface. However, the film ends with the collapse of the PreCrime system. This problem is not limited to PreCrime, a fictional concept in the movie.
Thanks to advances in science and technology, the quality of life in human society has improved significantly compared to the past. It is also true that our trust in and expectations of science and technology are correspondingly high. When new science and technology emerge, most of us welcome them and harbor a vague expectation that they will lead to further progress in human society. Such expectations are possible because they are premised on the belief that humans can fully control the application of science and technology and the impact it has on society. Consequently, it is not uncommon for us to repeatedly resort to “closing the barn door after the horse has bolted”—responding to problems or side effects only after they have occurred, without sufficient prior consideration. But is that really the case?
Science and technology may not inherently possess any specific value. The problem 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 these technologies operate through human interpretation and will, they exert both major and minor influences on human society.
Ultimately, the issue with science and technology boils down to the ethical responsibility of the people who use them. Once science and technology are developed, their scope of application expands infinitely, making it difficult to predict who will use them and in what ways. If someone uses science and technology with malicious intent, the technology can be perverted and have a negative impact on human society, no matter how noble the developer’s original purpose may have been. Furthermore, no matter how much care the user exercises, it is virtually impossible for humans—who are inherently imperfect beings—to predict all the ripple effects of science and technology. Furthermore, even today, the long-term effects of new science and technology on humans have not all been fully elucidated. Just as the advancement of science and technology has unexpected effects on the natural environment, it is impossible to easily determine what negative impacts humans—who are part of nature—might face as a result of science and technology.
Simply acknowledging that there will be side effects of science and technology and expressing vague concerns is of no help. A proactive response is needed. To properly manage the “fire” of science and technology, we must thoroughly review and prepare for potential side effects and problems before adopting new technologies. This is because even if science and technology are introduced to achieve a specific goal, if unexpected problems arise later, the cost could far exceed the originally anticipated benefits.
For example, in the movie, Lama Burgess, the creator of PreCrime, turns the system he created against itself. This is a clear example of the side effects inherent in the PreCrime system. As a result, John Anderton, who is completely innocent, is falsely accused of murder and faces the risk of being imprisoned. If PreCrime is a system that punishes even the innocent, its very legitimacy is bound to be called into question.
In addition, the PreCrime system has several other flaws. Its fundamental limitation lies in the fact that it functions solely to prevent murders before they occur.
The film begins with a scene in which a husband, having witnessed his wife’s infidelity, is predicted to commit murder. The police immediately arrest the predicted murderer, and ultimately, the murder does not occur. However, the husband is denied even the chance to speak out about his wife’s infidelity and his own sense of injustice. As a result, there is effectively no one left to expose his wife’s infidelity. Thus, crimes other than murder—such as rape, assault, fraud, and theft—are excluded from PreCrime’s surveillance. Consequently, criminals might exploit this loophole to commit other crimes more actively. In this sense, the husband in the film can be seen as yet another victim created by the PreCrime system.
Furthermore, PreCrime targets only the act of murder itself. However, simply preventing the outcome of murder does not fundamentally change human nature. If one merely blocks a single outlet while the evil nature that drives people to commit murder remains intact, that desire is likely to eventually lead to other forms of crime or social problems. While the murder rate in Washington, D.C., in the film may have been 0%, it is entirely possible that other types of crime actually increased.
In real life, it is not difficult 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. The investigation into the accident revealed that the operator, Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO), had been aware of the risk of a massive tsunami in advance but failed to make sufficient preparations, and that relevant agencies also failed to respond appropriately. Ultimately, a large-scale nuclear accident occurred, and Japanese society had to endure immense economic and environmental damage. For technologies like nuclear power—where a single accident can cause massive damage—it is of the utmost importance to thoroughly assess risk factors in advance and prepare accordingly. Had the potential risks been examined more closely and appropriate countermeasures put in place at the time, the damage could have been mitigated. This example demonstrates that our inability to adequately prepare even for preventable problems reflects the reality that we still do not fully control science and technology.
Even if we acknowledge the adverse effects of science and technology and agree on the need for countermeasures, there are numerous practical difficulties in implementing them. This is because the greater the impact of science and technology on human society, the more extensive its scale becomes, and the more complex the intertwined economic and administrative interests are. Therefore, predicting and responding to adverse effects requires significant time and resources. Enhancing safety demands additional research, design, and verification processes, which in turn lead to economic burdens. In the absence of specific legal regulations or institutional mechanisms, it is not easy for companies or institutions to voluntarily bear these costs. Therefore, reasonable regulation plays a crucial role in reducing the adverse effects of science and technology. For example, as regulations on automobile emissions have been continuously strengthened, they have incentivized automakers to develop technologies that reduce pollutant emissions, which has significantly contributed to reducing environmental pollution.
However, there are practical limitations to managing all aspects of science and technology—which are expanding both horizontally and vertically—through regulation alone. Furthermore, since compliance with regulations is mandatory, people are likely to adopt a passive attitude, aiming only to meet the minimum standards. So, what if, conversely, appropriate rewards were provided to individuals or companies that make efforts to reduce the adverse effects of science and technology? If the former is the “stick,” the latter is the “carrot.” A prime example is the carbon emissions trading system. In a structure where companies can gain economic benefits by reducing carbon emissions, they are incentivized to make more proactive efforts to cut greenhouse gases. Such a system is significant because it can encourage voluntary participation—something that is difficult to achieve through regulation alone.
So far, we have examined the existence of adverse effects from science and technology, the need to prepare for them, and practical response measures. Just as important as developing science and technology is ensuring that humans control it properly and use it responsibly. New technologies can enrich human lives, but they can also bring unexpected risks. Therefore, we must not only pursue technological advancement but also carefully consider the potential side effects that may arise in the process. Only when we can anticipate and prepare for the negative possibilities inherent in science and technology in advance can we look forward to a safer and more sustainable future.
