Two Roads Diverged In A Yellow Wood

We are threatened. By the past and by the future. Frost may have foreseen a different scenario in his time, but concerns have changed.

We're admonished that if we don't learn from the past we're condemned to repeat it. That would be a positive outcome, because it speaks to future possibilities, but our future doesn't look that hopeful – especially since history suggests that it's likely to contain some challenges that will be hard for us to meet.

Let me start with the past and then I'll get back to the future.

It is not fashionable – at least in centers of liberal thought – to note the threat of Radical Islam. It's “Islamophobia” and it's not politically correct. Yet it's hard to deny the rapid rise of Islam throughout the world. In the early seventh century CE, about the time of Muhammad's epiphany, when he was the sole adherent of the new faith, there were approximately 203 million people in the world. There are now more than 1.6 billion Muslims out of a population of 7.1 billion. Put differently, the Muslim population has risen 1.6 billion times while the world's population is only thirty-five times what it was in Muhammad's time. (Islam is now the world's second largest religion, behind Christianity, which it is expected to pass in about fifty-five years.)

How did Islam gain so many adherents? Natural growth, of course, was one of the factors. But however prolific Muhammad and his followers, that would certainly be a minor factor. Another mechanism was the proselytization of others – starting with those around him. The Qur’an attests to this being problematic. It certainly contributed to the number of believers, but the contribution doesn't nearly account for the numbers.

The new believers, however, were passionate and resolute. Muhammad had written in the Qur'an

“[F]ight and slay the pagans wherever you find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity, then open the way for them: for God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.” (9:5)

Convert to Islam or die. It was a simple, and very convincing, argument. And the policy was carried out without mercy. To an alarming degree the new religion was spread not by the word, but by the sword. And, sadly, that medieval approach exists today among many – for just a small percentage of 1.6 billion is a lot of people, and many of them are ready, and even eager, to die for their beliefs. Their determination is evident from news broadcasts we hear daily. The sword threatens us today. Terrorism is rampant around the globe ("[t]errorism is rampant around the globe dozens of Swedish citizens received threatening letters with 'ISIS' signatures, calling for them to either convert to Islam, pay tax to the terrorist organization, or be killed – according to a Russia Today Arabic report") and, notwithstanding the struthious attitude of many, including world leaders, the vast majority of perpetrators of multi-victim terrorist attacks are “radical Muslims.” (Less frequently the insane and imitators.) The media also promote a head-in-the-sand approach: they decry prejudice by advertizing their own bias. And it's not just political correctness. It's bias.

What about the future – a future in which the number of Muslims (including radical terrorists) will increase? Humanity will become even more dehumanized than it already is. Robots will increase. In a sense, the history of robots is a long one, dating back to several centuries before the Common Era. But for most of the time what was theorized, drawn, or built were little more than toys. They were non-moving or moving statues that served no practical purpose. The first such construction that actually did something was built in 1865. John Brainerd created the Steam Man which apparently was used to pull wheeled carts and other objects. And their existence was literary in 1921, as noted in robotshop.com, “[T]he term 'robot' was first used in a play called 'R.U.R.' or 'Rossum's Universal Robots' by the Czech writer Karel Capek.” The plot was simple: “man creates a robot to replace him and then robot kills man!” And while there were other tales of robots, R.U.R. raised a serious problem dealt with by Isaac Asimov in his laws of robotics.

A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

But scientists, good and bad, don't accept limitations. There are robots now and it is certain that sooner or later there will be others programed to go about on their own without any intervention or limitation by human beings. H.A.L., in “2001: A Space Odyssey,” defied human control in fiction, and, as is so often the case, science imitates science fiction, and this ability will probably be installed in some future computers and robots. And along with that will come the ability to produce additional examples of themselves. Horrifying as it might seem, it is not difficult to imagine the ultimate control of humans by those machines.

Muslims who live in the past or robots likely to be created in the future? Neither is an especially attractive prospect. And the answer? There is none I can imagine. I may not be around to see it, but one or the other seems likely to me. I'm not sure what we can learn from the past. I'm not certain what we can do to prevent the challenges we face from overwhelming us. It's up to the politicians and the generals to find a solution if one exists. We're in trouble if we have to rely on politicians and generals, but I fear that that's the reality.