I read The Singularity Is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology by Ray Kurzweil a few months ago, and I found it to be thought provoking book and highly recommend it (I did find Kurzweil’s fascination with living forever somewhat bizarre). One of the most interesting topics I was exposed to was on the movement known as transhumanism:
Transhumanism (sometimes abbreviated >H or H+) is an international intellectual and cultural movement supporting the use of new sciences and technologies to enhance human physical and cognitive abilities and ameliorate what it regards as undesirable and unnecessary aspects of the human condition, such as disease and aging. Transhumanist thinkers study the possibilities and consequences of developing and using human enhancement techniques and other emerging technologies for these purposes. Possible dangers, as well as benefits, of powerful new technologies that might radically change the conditions of human life are also of concern to the transhumanist movement.
There is something exciting in knowing that we are potentially part of a generation that might see major transitions from what we consider human. I doubt we will see anything that resembles a cyborg, as imagined by Hollywood, but as prosthetics, nano technology, and systems that can control limbs using thought alone get more advanced, our generation will see, and hopefully come to accept, humans that are for the most part dependent on mechanical technology to live.
I wonder about the new kinds of debates that might arise from this shift, if any. The first beneficiaries from this technology will be amputess and people who’ve been badly mauled by accidents or war. There will be little resistance there. But as the technology becomes more commonplace and “enhancements” to human abilities become as common as surgery, I wonder how much resistance there will be towards this technology.
The ongoing debate about stem cell research makes people choose between destroying potential life and preserving existing life. This is a is very difficult issue and it pins two very similar and passionate types of people against each other: those who value about life. But future debates about humans, and the technology that blurs the definition of a human, I think, will be even more complicated. What are we willing to sacrifice in order to preserve life? Our humanity?
In regards to the upcoming debates that will occur indefinitely in the near future: It depends on how the technology is implemented. If the technology is implemented to secure someone’s life or enhance it in a way that would be safe, but also enjoyable for that particular individual, that I would think it is safe to say the technology is doing some good.
But when the technology can be used to create humans (sic?) that are above and beyond what we initially imagined them to be described as by science journals, then we have a problem.
Intelligent, physically-enhanced beings of humanoid resemblance may very well cause an immense danger to society.
Two nations that wage war with each other who have differing values on the composition of human life and how it should be defined forever would find it either very easy, or very difficult to defeat any particular enemy, given the moral, ethical, and religious values of the nation, if any.
Separation of church and state should solve at least one to two-thirds of those issues.
Only time will tell.
And while I’m at it, don’t humans transcend biology every time we answer the phone?
Yes, we transcend biology everytime we use the phone. But that’s not what I am talking about.
The type of transcension I speak of is one that blurs what i means to be human. If we replace every neuron in your brain with a synthetic neuron and we do this slow enough so that the synthetic neuron takes state of the original neuron; at which point will you stop being you? If your brain is made up of completely sythetic material, can you still claim to be you? claim to be conscious? or even alive? If not, what is the cut off period? A third of your brain sythentic? Half? Ninety percent? Do this with every part of your body and next thing you know you’re made up of silicon. Can you still claim to be human? How much of a human can be replaced in order to still be human?
Humans are defined as bipedal primates who usually stand erect, so that’s what we currently are.
But, ‘primate’ itself refers to a biological order.
Post-primate may be a more accurate description of the superhuman, unless the superhuman retains the social and mental characteristics of the original brain’s, dare I say, author.
I think that if the cyborg humans posess the capacity to emulate physical human bodily functions, and if it is capable of learning as the original human did, then yes — the cyborg humanoid being is still ‘human’ and could perhaps be ‘primate’. I don’t know, I’m not a biologist.
It remains a good question, but I feel it is safe to assume that once things like this become remotely commonplace in daily life, a standard will be denominated to them.
As you seem to be interested in biology perhaps you understand that scientists cannot explain consciousness in life. We can grasp the concept that elements such as carbon and nitrogen come together in non-living forms to create living things.
Now if we cannot understand what makes us conscious who are we to dictate what makes that consciousness? A “synthetic” brain may do just as well as our current ones. Any additions/repairs to our human brains are just as much a part of us as the organic parts. It is similar to fixing a car with non-manufacturer parts.
As to creating new synthetic life, it is very well possible that they would not be called human. We would have to see how they behave, and observe their physical traits. I would certainly leave the door open to creating mammals, however.
Mike,
I agree with you completely. As we learn about consciousness, we realize that more animals are actually a lot more conscious than we ever thought.
And as to your comment about creating synthetic life: there is no reason to suspect they’d behave any differently.
this is sort of off-topic, but have you ever read the tipping point? i just finished it and it seems like the kind of thing you’d be into. i’d be interested in hearing your thoughts.
Shai,
I have heard of the book. It’s in my very big “to read list”. I’ve heard so much about it that I actually recommend it to people too. But i’ll be sure to post about it when I do get a chance to read it.
Damn it! This is a terribly interesting topic to me, but I don’t have enough time to give a proper response.
I am very interested in the potential of technology to replace malfunctioning human parts. Already technologies such as the pacemaker are replacing crucial nerves such as the SAN in the heart. Additionally xenotransplantation and grafting techniques have already been widely experimented on animals such as pigs,horses and cows. Clearly, bio-medical technology has helped save human lives.
However, if synthetic organs and tissues can replace normal functioning organs for purely enhancement purposes then this opens the window to an entirely new set of ethical issues. Eddie does point out the relevant questions as to what is the cut off point for qualifying as a human being.
Questions aside, I strongly feel that research into bio-medical technologies such as stem-cells, sensor based prosthetic limbs and iron lungs etc should continue as these are powerful technologies that can revolutionize current disease treatments.