Tonight we watched Oppenheimer. As a physics grad with a keen interest in the scientific transformation of the 1920s and 1930s, I found fascinating the detail in what others may have found tedious. But, the physics of the small aside, the big picture is as relevant today as was the torment in Oppenheimer’s day. 

We are still living with the repercussions of the development and first (and second) use of a nuclear weapon. Following the end of World War II we had a choice. We could all agree that any subsequent use of a nuclear weapon is so destructive that we all acknowledge global cooperation in their prevention is paramount. Or, we could take the other tack and argue that a weaponization war combined with mutually assured destruction (MAD) could also work, and has for almost eighty years. 

We took that latter tack, and ever since then the Union of Concerned Scientists has maintained a Doomsday Clock that perennially hovers just before midnight. MAD has been costly, is dangerous, and encourages country after country to subscribe to the mad, mad, race. The world has been destabilized as a result. 

We are now closer to midnight than at any other time, even compared to the worst of the Cold War and the Cuban Missile Crisis. We cannot turn back time, though. Once a technology exists, it cannot de-exist, just as the bell cannot be unrung. 

It is not science’s fault, though, even if it is science’s consequence. The marketplace for ideas rightfully rewards new concepts or ideas. If Einstein did not determine that energy equals mass times the speed of light squared, someone else would have discovered that same rule in the fabric of space-time within a few years to perhaps a decade. It is not the idea or the equation, but what is done with it. The scientist is almost never the technologist who applies the science for power or profit.

Robert Oppenheimer expressed remorse for showing first that an atomic bomb was possible, and then for building three of them (including the Trinity test bomb). If he had not demonstrated the science, Russia would have, and Germany might have too, were it not for allied triumph in conventional forces. Canada, the United Kingdom, and France all had the means to demonstrate a successful A-bomb as well, although Canada chose not to go down that path. 

But, Oppenheimer was not the one who converted the science to a technology. Science is the idea, but technology is its application. While one should not and perhaps even cannot contain scientific thought, we can and must make choices about technology. If we view the conversion of science to technology as a race as well, we find ourselves in the same unfortunate place. Some politicians or capitalists will use the technology to expand their power base or market share. 

It is true that scientists also cultivate human capital in esteem for discovering concepts before anybody else. The most lucrative rewards beyond pats on backs may be a million dollars or so for a Nobel Prize. No, the real money is in technology, and that is why some will put humanity aside to get ahead. 

We remain in a cold war over nuclear threats even today, with Russia still rattling that saber. But, we also now realize that such innovations as Artificial Intelligence show great promise for humankind but may also impose great danger and instability. As an economist, I am all for the creative destruction that occurs with new and better technologies that free up resources for their next best use. But, we are ill-prepared for the displacements that such technology brings, or for its misapplications that may even make the world a more dystopian place. 

A shift in the concentration of wealth from the poor and middle class to an increasingly concentrated new cadre of barons of a modern Gilded Age is an immense danger. I laud the technologies of Tesla and SpaceX but I fear that the riches these innovations create may be used in ways that increase social divisiveness. I am glad I can write this article in Google Docs, but I know that, as I write, an algorithm is analyzing my words and sending to my news feed more stories about Tesla and SpaceX so my cocoon is even more self-contained. My mere expression of ideas can be marketed and monetized to make others wealthier. 

These dark sides to technology still assume humanity is good, or at least benign. What if people try to leverage technology to do evil, abridge human rights, and amass power? AI powerhouse nations see the advantages of automation and robotization on their GDP, but some, and perhaps all also so how it can be used to surveille, to manipulate thought, to weed out dissent, or to manufacture narratives that destroy the lives of those who may threaten the order they wish to promote. 

As much as we like to think we live in nations that celebrate self expression, embrace the marketplace of ideas, and laud the triumph of transparency and honesty, some profit, or cut their losses, by trying to control or manipulate free expression. While markets may marvel at the value of full information, individuals often try to horde information. Technology is a double-edged sword that can stimulate the spreading of ideas or be used to prevent the dissemination fo free thought and expressions. 

This is the struggle of Oppenheimer. It is not the scientist that is the problem. It is the technologist without values or with self-serving values at the expense of others that is the challenge. A nation blamed Oppenheimer for years after Truman dropped his bombs, and politicians persecuted him. But, in the end, and after his death, we all too late recognized our blame was misplaced. It is us, in the decisions we make, the products and companies we patronize, and the politicians we elect that are opting for technologies that can be used for good and for evil. We decide, or, more frequently, we let others decide for us, but we all pay a price not unlike the price Oppenheimer paid. We just don’t know it until often it is too late.