Category Archives: Philosophy


At the time of writing, the flames still lick the roofs of the cathedral of Notre-Dame. But they are said to be under control. The monument survives. Its iconic spire fell, and part of the roof was lost; but it survives.

I am optimistic about its recovery. People forget that we live in a world of technological wonders. There are thousands of satellite images, hundreds of thousands of high-resolution photographs, and a myriad of three-dimensional replicas that are faithful to the original building, down to the smallest detail.

What took more than a century to build, we now have the technology to recover in a few years. We have but to find the will – the human spirit, and the financial commitment. Today, we came close to losing one of the most beautiful buildings from our cultural heritage. But we have everything we need to rebuild. We can successfully replicate the magic.

The question that bothers me the most: if we value such buildings so dearly, why did we stop building them?

Photography by Madhurantakam – CC BY-SA 3.0

Dentist-Monkeys From the Future

I once took a course where the teacher said that, given the right gear, he could teach a monkey to perform a root canal.

At the time, we made fun of the concept. It was an exaggeration, of course, to promote the wares peddled by the course’s sponsor. But the idea stuck. And today, I think back on it with some sympathy. 

Performing a root canal is mostly a mechanical act. It requires a certain sensitivity; you need the knowledge of how to treat each canal relative to its shape and thickness. But, when it comes down to it, it’s manual labour of mechanical repetition.

I confess my ignorance regarding a monkey’s motor skills. But I don’t see why, within the next 10 years, we can’t have a robot doing the work of a dentist. And doing it better than most dentists!

Does this mean that dentists would face unemployment? No; at least not immediately. I think it would take a few more decades until the robots would be able to discern what to do in each case.

The robot would be better than the human at knowing the pressure to be applied; how to handle the instrument; how deep to go, safely; the exact amount of irrigation to apply to the canal; etc. But it would rely on the dentist for:

  1. Determining what kind of treatment to perform.
  2. Specifying the operation’s parameters (I.E .: choosing the appropriate program for the type of canal)

That is, the dental profession would be less about manual labor, and more about diagnosis and identification of the proper treatment process. Which would free dentists for more intellectual work, and give them the capacity to work on many more cases.

Of course, this has a drawback: in some countries (this is the case in Portugal) we already have more dentists than we have work for them. So what would happen when the dentists most likely to acquire technology became hundreds of times more productive, freed from the need for manual labor?

And this being a problem that affects such an extremely specialised professional class, what to say about simpler jobs, such as driving trucks or collecting garbage? The robots will need a human supervisor, but they will replace many more workers than will be needed to control them… After all, they are more efficient and don’t need to sleep.

Mechanization is at our doorstep. We have to think seriously about a way of disassociating the income needed for a dignified life from one’s working hours. 

Because in our future, there are many robots, and much less work for almost everyone.

Photo Credit: DocChewbacca Flickr via Compfight cc

Sleepwalking on Information

“Our awareness seems to shrink in direct ratio as communications expand; the world is open to us as never before, and we walk about as prisoners, each in his private portable cage. And meanwhile the watch goes on ticking.”

Reads like it was written yesterday, right?

But no. It’s an excerpt from the essay “On Disbelieving Atrocities,” written by Arthur Koestler in January of 1944. The author means to portray the phenomenal ability of the British and American populations to dismiss what was happening in Germany, Greece, Poland, and France as gross exaggerations.

There is a bug in our human operating system. An error that makes it difficult to maintain empathy over long distances, and in large quantities. The example given in the essay is that if we see a dog get run over in front of our house, we are more emotionally affected than by reading in the newspaper that thousands of people were tortured and executed in grotesque ways in Poland.

This doesn’t make us immoral. It is not a choice. It’s a programming error. And it is one that is amplified by distraction, by the megaphones of information that assault our senses. The more information we process in our day-to-day life, the more insensitive we become in relation to what is happening in the world around us.

And today, in 2019, the megaphones are in greater quantity, and of greater power, than they ever were.

The modern paradox: to be awake, you have to limit your exposure to information. Curation, then, becomes more important than ever before.