Over the last week, I have been thinking about robots and what the future holds for humanity as technology progresses. My thoughts were spawned both by a conversation with Stuart Lim and Mistah Broyles, as well as wikipedia deciding to feature an article on Transhumanism. Transhumanism is a philosophical/scientific movement dedicated to preparing for and enabling future technologies such as cybernetics, robotics, and genetic engineering. With such technologies progressing over the next century, transhumanists believe that we will eventually transition out of current “humanity,” by transcending the principles of natural evolution. New technologies will enable us to learn faster, control disease, prolong life and end much of the suffering that is part of the human condition. On the other hand, we will no longer be Homo Sapiens Sapiens as we currently perceive ourselves since cyborgization would/could fundamentally change our “genetic” makeup.
Of course genetics as we know it kind of goes out the window once you remove the current process of determination of genetic makeup which has been guiding our evolution for the last three billion years. Likewise many other issues that are fundamentally part of human nature and human society will undoubtedly affect the way in which these new technological developments are integrated into the current or future human populations.
One issue is social and economic stratification throughout the world. Optimistic transhumanists and optimistic futurists in general argue that technological evolution will eventually solve the scarcity problem in the world economy. The scarcity problem is simply that there is not enough food/money to go around in the world, which is why we have the market economy (to allocate these resources in as effective a manner as possible and promote the greatest total wealth,) and also why we have poverty, famines, and all those good externalities of capitalism. The problem is that the technological innovation that would lead to the end of the scarcity problem will necessarily occur in a society with a scarcity problem. Therefore, we can assume that the technological innovations like cybernetics or gene manipulation will necessarily be available to the wealthy and powerful before they are available to anyone else.
We will then be relying on the creators of such technology and those with enough capital to get their hands on it, to benignly share it with everyone else. Fat fucking chance. That is not what human beings do, unfortunately, since we are greedy assholes.
We are already have seen glimpses of how humanity and those with capital control deal with the issue of new technologies. One example of technological innovation that could effectively be disseminated to whoever wants it is digital technology (say digital music,) which now can be effectively replicated at minimal cost. Of course, music companies do not allow this under the guise of intellectual property, prosecuting people who attempt to take advantage of the low cost of replication, even though the concept of intellectual property law was basically invented by the courts and publishing companies within the last century. Likewise, should someone invent a method or reproducing infinite amounts of rice, or an effective AIDS vaccine, there will be a battle between the humanitarian instincts of some and the profit-minded instincts of others, as to whether to share this technology or not. As this debate is resolved in society over time, millions of people whose lives could have been saved will not be. It’s just the way it works.
But let’s get back to robots. Stuart was all for the transcendence of the human race into some sort of superior Cylonish being. And if we can replicate Tricia Helfer, I can’t really argue with the logic. During our discussion, I repeatedly reminded Stu, in my best T-800 imitation, of the following quote: “Skynet becomes self-aware,” referencing Terminator 2, where a computer responsible for United States missle defense, starts a nuclear holocaust, leading to a nightmarish machine run society involving the enslavement of remaining humanity. Sci-Fi/horror depictions of artificial intelligence (my three favorite are Battlestar Galactica, The Terminator, and The Animatrix,) tend to involve cybernetic “liberations.” In all three cases, robots are created by humans to be subservient to human needs. We view them like we view the lever or the wheel, as tools created to make our lives easier. At some point, the machines attain “self-awareness,” or “consciousness,” some sort of mental capacity that makes them on par with humans in the same manner that humans are different from the rest of the animal kingdom. The combination of the machines superior creative and reproductive faculties and human arrogance about 1) assuming our position as dominant organism within our planet and 2) assuming the “special,” nature of our humanity as opposed to their “machineness,” which is generally tied to our emotional capabilities and sense of self, both give us some sort of inherent advantage over our machine-children, inevitably prove to be our downfall. We are unable to cope with the rise of beings superior to ourselves, and viewing them as threats, we try to destroy them. Of course, by then it’s too late.
But this view of robots as a separate “race,” in the future may not prove to be correct; instead it is the synthesizing of humans and technology that probably will prove to be where the future takes us. That, at least, appears to be the direction the transhumanists are pushing us towards. In this way then, human emotions will be kept intact, (we assume,) and there won’t be the dichotomy between humans and machines that leads to the apocalyptic scenarios of science fiction.
That is not to say there won’t be other strange scenarios that haven’t been thought of or that I have not been exposed to. Here is a fun one: what if 40 years from now, Bill Gates decides to put billions of dollars into prolonging his own life as a cybernetic being, replacing his heart with something artificial, and implanting a chip into his brain that replenishes his degrading mental capabilities, giving him reinvigorated learning capacities and superior data storage to the human brain. These operations and others increase his life expectancy by an extra 40 years. Well we say, on the one hand it’s his hard earned money, and he should be able to spend it how he wants. And 40 extra years of Bill Gates means 40 extra years of him being able to help undeveloped countries become technologically advanced (with computers that run Windows, of course,) as the greatest philanthropist the world has ever known.
But 80 years from now, Bill Gates, with his superior knowledge and learning capabilities, has invested his hard earned money in newer technologies that enable himself to extend his life for another 80 years. Hmmmm. All some point in time, Bill Gates ceases to be a human, where he transcends natural mortality. But it is only through his billions of dollars that he is able to attain this transhuman state.
Is this how it will happen, that the rich and the haves, the tech-geeks and eccentrics, will be able to transcend humanity first, before the rest of us get a chance to experience the benefits cybernetic technology? Or get clean drinking water and earn more than a dollar a day?
And if we can predict this is going to happen, should I be for it (as I guess it represents progress and there is no doubt suffering that can eventually be alleviated by these technologies) or should I try to prevent it from happening? Or should I be working to be first in line to get that chip implanted in my brain? (duh!)
This reality is probably a long way off, and we have many other things to worry about in the meantime, like will we get there in the first place. There are the small matters of nuclear weapons, and plagues, and asteroids, and global warming that could derail the progress of humanity. There is the much larger matter that the human race collectively is no where near prepared to consider and debate these questions on an intellectual or moral level. How many more people are concerned with the Biblical Apocalypse as opposed to the Robotic Apocalypse (at least the Presidents of Iran and the U.S., and they have nuclear launch codes.) We have come to no general consensus on the interaction of science and life, or a global definition of life or humanity. We are still divided by abstract human creations such as nation, religion, and tribe, that cause us to kill, rob and rape each other.
Do I see us solving these issues before cybernetic technology makes it into humanity, before the transhumanists get the chance to live out their dream? Probably not. So the vast majority of humanity will be derailed by our petty arguments and our flaws from the utopia new technologies bring forth. Clearly, I must do what I can to make sure I am in that small minority that benefits.
One thing troubles me though. As a human, I share one thing with all of my fellow man: I will die. Death is one of our only truths, and it’s this fact that is the cause of much of the conflict and greed in our world, I do believe. And I just don’t know whether it’s a good idea for us to work on transcending that fact, as well as our humanity, before we’ve collectively solved the other problems of the reality of humanity. But I don’t think we’ll have that choice.
# posted by Marmaniac @ 1:26 PM
