Claim and evidence Close ×
Joy's essay of April 2000 argues that robotics, genetic engineering and nanotechnology could make humans an endangered species, and asks whether, if extinction is a likely or even possible outcome of technological development, we should not proceed with great caution. Copy claim link
Copy claim reference
Machine-checked, not reviewed by an editor Stated in source Supported
Supporting evidence: primary · 1 source
Date 2000-04 · publication Records dated 2000 → Role Earliest located Register (kind of text) Nonfiction Scope and limits Joy treats intelligent robots alongside genetic engineering and nanotechnology, not AI alone, and argues for limiting the development of dangerous technologies. Quotations in the essay from a 1995 manifesto keep that earlier date and are not used here. Earliest located among the texts the searches found, after a cross-family check located it; it is not evidence of coinage.
The evidence 02 primary source Supports the claim
Why the Future Doesn't Need Us ↗ Wired (wired.com) · 2000-04
Copy source reference
Cite the original source Cite the original document, not Selekoa. Check these details against it.
Copy APA
Download BibTeX Download RIS Download CSL-JSON
Source excerpt “Our most powerful 21st-century technologies—robotics, genetic engineering, and nanotech—are threatening to make humans an endangered species.” Location in source Deck under the title
How it was read Retrieved directly from the publisher
Machine-checked · 2026-10-31
Source details and check notes Authors Bill Joy Version The essay as served by Wired at wired.com, which dates the page 1 April 2000 for the magazine issue of April 2000; the deck above the essay is the magazine's. Its wording can change; earlier wording is not authenticated. Retrieved at admission on 2026-10-31 (SHA-256 05e86cb7b852e1bc4d9c9517652bd261a4e7e4de3a3b5df90f8f02fb31ae568e). Canonical address Open the canonical source ↗ Accessed 2026-10-31 Language English (en) Attribution Bill Joy, “Why the Future Doesn't Need Us”, 2000-04. Reuse No open redistribution licence asserted. Bibliographic metadata, editorial paraphrases and short attributed quotations (at most 50 words each). Recheck terms before wider redistribution. Check notes Added at the admission of the risk-debate pack (research/risk-debate). The quotation (16 words) matched a fresh retrieval of 2026-10-31 (SHA-256 05e86cb7b852e1bc4d9c9517652bd261a4e7e4de3a3b5df90f8f02fb31ae568e). Matching ignored differences of whitespace, case, quotation marks, dashes and Unicode compatibility forms. The cross-family check of 2026-10-31 proposed the record and read this passage. The deck is the magazine's summary of the essay; the essay's own wording is in the next passage. No human editorial review. primary source Supports the claim
Why the Future Doesn't Need Us ↗ Wired (wired.com) · 2000-04
Copy source reference
Cite the original source Cite the original document, not Selekoa. Check these details against it.
Copy APA
Download BibTeX Download RIS Download CSL-JSON
Source excerpt “And if our own extinction is a likely, or even possible, outcome of our technological development, shouldn’t we proceed with great caution?” Location in source Paragraph before the section on the dream of robotics, closing question
How it was read Retrieved directly from the publisher
Machine-checked · 2026-10-31
Source details and check notes Authors Bill Joy Version The essay as served by Wired at wired.com, which dates the page 1 April 2000 for the magazine issue of April 2000; the deck above the essay is the magazine's. Its wording can change; earlier wording is not authenticated. Retrieved at admission on 2026-10-31 (SHA-256 05e86cb7b852e1bc4d9c9517652bd261a4e7e4de3a3b5df90f8f02fb31ae568e). Canonical address Open the canonical source ↗ Accessed 2026-10-31 Language English (en) Attribution Bill Joy, “Why the Future Doesn't Need Us”, 2000-04. Reuse No open redistribution licence asserted. Bibliographic metadata, editorial paraphrases and short attributed quotations (at most 50 words each). Recheck terms before wider redistribution. Check notes Added at the admission of the risk-debate pack (research/risk-debate). The quotation (22 words) matched a fresh retrieval of 2026-10-31 (SHA-256 05e86cb7b852e1bc4d9c9517652bd261a4e7e4de3a3b5df90f8f02fb31ae568e). Matching ignored differences of whitespace, case, quotation marks, dashes and Unicode compatibility forms. Added at admission so that the record rests on the author's own words; not part of the cross-family check's selection. No human editorial review. Status and meaning Editorial status. Not reviewed by an editor . An exploratory record that no editor has accepted. This status does not say whether a person has read any linked passage. Each evidence record above shows how it was checked.
Relation. A passage of the document meets the proposition’s criterion. The record documents what the text states, in its register (fiction and satire are labelled); it is not evidence that the proposition is true and implies no influence on or from another text.
Date. Wired, issue of April 2000; the page dates it 1 April 2000.
Record ID rd-r07-joy-2000-why-the-future