'The Singularity is Near'
Ray Kurzweil describes a point in time where humanity must re-define itself. The fields of genetics, robotics, medicine, nanotechnology, computers and AI are expanding exponentially.. very soon the line between humanity and technology will be blurred. Mr. Kurzweil estimates this to happen in 2045.
Let's followup on the latest information... check out the TED talks, the documentary called 'The Transcendent Man' and the singularityu.org website. Then let us discuss..
What do you think?
Will this point ever be reached? When? What will it look like?
Firstly, I would just like to say, I hope the future is as bright as Ray hopes it will be. I have my doubts though. If we are the ones building these machines then they will bear all the imperfections of the makers. On the other hand, if these A.I. beings have vastly superior intelligences to ours, and our able to learn from our mistakes then that might be a good thing for everybody – or, a very, very bad thing.
ReplyDeleteThe most likely scenario is that we would merge with the A.I. and become Technos Erectus or something like that. This would be the better of the two scenarios, because the A.I would potentially not so hell-bent on eliminating us as its completion -- and is apparently what the various pre-human subspecies did many moons ago.
And tough this is all very interesting, and strange to talk about as an eventuality and not as sc-fi, I think that the most controversial idea that Ray has is that one day -- in the near future -- we will be able to circumvent death. It is not that I doubt this possibility – it seems that if we keep at our current course this will be inevitable, but I am deeply concerned with the ethical implications around human immortality or pseudo-immortality. If we are backing our minds/memories/consciences up on the net that is one thing, but if we are creating nano / genetic technologies that extend our lives indefinitely there are immediate supply and demand issues that we would have to have solutions for. Also, if this does become a possibility, then It would seem apparent that such life-extensions would come with a serious price-tag, and as such would be only open to the elite – producing further problems with supply and demand. There are more serious social consequences then that, dictators, monarchs, terrible politicians, could potentially stay in their respective posts indefinitely. This is not even scratching the service of the possible consequences of such a scenario.
The religious issues with such technological advancements are perhaps the most controversial. Would humanity move past the need for religion/gods? If so, is this a good thing? Religion and gods have taught us morality, and have kept our species in-line with various social contracts that come with such beliefs. Though these beliefs can be flawed, and at times antiquated, will we as a species ever be ready to move beyond such structures successfully? Moreover, do we as a species have any right to deny death, and proclaim ourselves as God/gods replacement? We might like to talk bad about God and religion, but is our résumé any better? I think not! I believe that our mortality the defining nature of our morality as humans... Perhaps we were created this way or simply evolved, but in either way either God our nature saw it fit to give us a shelf life – and maybe we should consider that before we go any further.
John Van Buskirk
I agree with you that a major hole in Kurzweil's arguments have to do with socio-economics. He tends to see technology as a self-perpetuating force.
DeleteI would say that there is a large spectrum of forces... would anyone back in 1969 believe that we would *not* have a moon-base 50 years later? I think not.. but back then they had compelling reasons to go to the moon. Today there is no compelling communal reason to go there. Maybe if ISIS plans to build a moon base then we will do it first.
I believe most technological forces will be driven by the 1 percenters... I think it will be only a few technologies that will roll out to the masses; and if anything there may be restrictions put on access... a la 1984.
Although I have great hope for humanity I lean slightly more dystopian than Kurzweil does. Until humankind fixes our inequality issues any new powers of longevity/medicine/bio-enhancements will be guarded by the few.
And even look at how the internet and social media is evolving.. the market forces driving Google and Apple are those same forces trying to shape our wants and desires. Targeted marketing brings in revenue and then creates more targeted marketing. It's all about control..
Let's take one of his main themes and break it down for analysis... you pick.
Randy
Let's start with the social-economic factors, and more precisely the role of the "1 Percenters" in the development of future technologies.
ReplyDeleteI know that there has been a plethora of movies and books (written to be movies – a different tangent) exploring this theme: Hunger Games, In Time, Elysium, and Repo Men to name a few. But, I do not think that it can be stressed enough that any gains in technology will be exploited fully for commercial gain, the idea that all these gains will be given to the masses for free is not only misguided, but a dangerous elixir. With capitalism crumbling around us, the elites that control such structures will need other “markets” to expand in to. Internet technologies have proven that virtual markets are one of the most lucrative ways to make cash. It only stands to reason that the integration of technologies into our bodies will be expediential more lucrative for these companies – especially since they will need to be upgraded bi-annually.
I have long said that America is a “Corporate Oligarchy”, and by giving the mega-rich the ability to upgrade themselves to something beyond “human”, will only further elevate them above us. I do not believe these to be delusional ramblings about the “future” and “rich”, but the logical way that future technologies will come to market. Hardwiring ourselves into the mainframe will not only be unavoidable in the near future, but will also end the human species as we currently classify it. We will have forcefully evolved ourselves into some sort hybrid species that “lives” in a digital serfdom. At this point the basic essentials of life will literally include wifi (or the future version of that technology); we will have essentially given-up any notion of individuality – if ever we had any – and become a collective being of some sort that is controlled completely by the Duke of Google, and the Earl of Facebook.
On a more positive note, I believe that the upside to this will be that there will be great stability in the world, the whole “Pax Romana” notion.
Or maybe I’ve just watched too much sci-fi!
I agree that this has been a common theme in sci-fi for a long time.. as a kid I was never sure if I wanted to be a Morlock or an Eloi (H.G. Wells, "The Time Machine").
ReplyDeleteI believe that some of these ethical decisions about inequality will come to a head in my lifetime. It is almost happening already.
Imagine this scenario:
Technology exists via nano-technology to cure a fatal disease.
Technology is so expensive that only the elite can get it.
A father has a daughter with the disease but cannot afford it.
What should society do? Let the child die?
Today it is not quite at that point.. there is enough gray area in medicine that you cannot make cure claims.. only probabilities. So we accept unequal care because the outcome is not certain. And there is the divide between the first and second/third world that we use to rationalize our lack of support for others.
I have some questions on your post..
Do you think capitalism is crumbling?
Do you believe that it is inevitable that we will be able to upload or duplicate consciousness to a machine?
I have my own thoughts on those that I will share later on..
great discussion!!!
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteSorry for the late response... I have swamped the last couple of days.
DeleteI have also really enjoyed this discussion – though I feel a bit daft most of the time. I have not put enough thought into any of these ideas to really feel worthy of writing of them. Nevertheless I will answer the two questions you have put to me to the best of my ability.
To answer the question regarding whether we will be able to preserve our conscience:
Simply put: yes. To some degree that is. I am not sure exactly what kind of “existence” that it would be. My neighbour suggested that we would become shadow like – in the same way that the Greeks viewed the existence in the afterlife. I think that this idea might be somewhat true. Even though I believe that we will someday get there technologically speaking, I also believe that we will also lose our humanity in the process, and perhaps wish to be human again (which could also be possible through clones or something similar). Whether or not it is a good thing to attempt to accomplish is another discussion altogether.
On the questions of Capitalism crumbling:
Simply put: yes. To some degree that is... I don’t think that capitalism has actually ever really existed... In the same way that I don’t believe that democracy has ever existed. Shadows of these two ideologies have certainly existed and have been the primary beliefs of Westerns for the last couple centuries, but that is all they are, shadows of the original ideas. Capitalism in its ideal form is the summed up as: the self-regulation of the market forces through free markets – or something like that. Markets have been taxed and controlled, by all countries ever since the idea of Capitalism first began to operate, and as such have never been “Free”. I believe that the present incarnation of Capitalism is in bad shape, and probably needs to have a major overhaul – though this unlikely. Why do I think this? Capitalism seems to be operating in the “Modern” understanding of the world, by this I mean in a “Pre-Post Modern” understanding of the world. The oil industry is an excellent example of this. These companies pretty much want to milk the world of its fossil fuels and resources no matter the long term consequences to the future of the planet, and all this for the mighty Shareholder. In this way Capitalism is a crumbling ideology because they expect infinite growth out of a finite resource. This is ridiculous and cannot carry on for the foreseeable future.
John
I agree with your assessment about consciousness and humanity.
DeleteI just finished reading 'The End of Absence' ... interesting book. Harris states that as we continue to externalize information that our concept of self will change. For example, you can bring up almost any information within seconds on your smart device. So we do not need to remember and process information the ways we used to.
Now assume this trend continues over the next few decades. The external data connection will become shorter, faster and broader. What will be our concept of self at that point?
With respect to capitalism, I agree with you to a point..
I disagree that the oil companies are doing anything wrong. They are obligated by law to maximize profits for shareholders. Effectively we are all shareholders in some way (rsps, pension funds, bonds).
So our duty as citizens is to ensure that the regulations are in place so that they can maximize profits but do it in a way that meets our values.
I am hopeful for liberal democracies with strongly regulated capitalist economies.
- lower cost of entry for companies in to established markets
- higher estate and capital gains taxes
- true cost of doing business that includes social and environmental factors
- restrictions on campaign finance and lobbying
are we moving in the right direction? not sure yet but as i said i am hopeful..
If I can try to summarize John's argument...
ReplyDeleteFor the power-elite/one-percenters to maintain the status quo, they need:
1. a stable proletariat that continues to work
2. control of resources and production
3. control of government
you could argue that they have all this today, so the requirement is that any new technology just drops in safely into the existing paradigm.
I think there is a Canadian angle to this as well. We pride ourselves on being a single-tier state wrt healthcare, voting rights, social programs etc. Is that sustainable once advanced technology can provide a hugely compelling benefit for the very rich? or perhaps we already have a multi-tiered system.. If I have enough money I can go to the States/Brazil/Europe for whatever treatment I can pay for.
John.. you are a generation behind me.. something I have been fascinated with is the importance of social-media/gaming with the current generation. You could take away a 24 year old's voting rights, make him wait in line at the hospital... but if you took away his Halo account or Clash of Clan's account then he would be at your throat!!!
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete