The Human Future

I bring up the subject of the singularity from time to time, and it usually gets ignored. But when you look ahead twenty years the challenges it poses to the idea of the 'human' dwarf everything else. Outside of science fiction that most people see as mere entertainment, not much is said or written about it in the mainstream.

I think because it's just so hard to get your head around.  We're in the habit of looking toward the future in the rear-view mirror, and we assume fundamental continuity with incremental changes. The idea of some major discontinuty shorts the brain circuits, and we choose to think instead about Obama's approval ratings or whatever we're comfortable with. But there is nothing going on in the world right now that has more importance; it will change everything. It would seem to be the kind of thing we should be talking more about.

And while Kurzweil might be mostly sanguine about the prospects, I think his 'engineer-think inclines him already to think like a cyborg, and  if it comes to a choice, it's  clear which side of the cyborg-human divide he'd prefer to be on. But unless something very dramatic changes in the spiritual makeup of humans soon (or some environmental cataclysm befalls us), the likely the human human future for all of us is one dominated by cyborgs.

We have no idea what that means, really.  But we have every reason to believe that a major discontinuity lies ahead, and that our kids will live through it.

 

Comments

[mathe]

Thank you for publicizing what has otherwise been an obscure topic. As with any other technological development there are two decisive questions that must be answered.
First-- who owns it, who orders the things technology that is created and second--
what is the spiritual state of its owners. I don't think it is a mystery now that almost all mathematicians, scientists and engineers create technology for fame and money from governments. They and its officials are unquestioning servants of our rulers and owners of
the technology. It is interesting to see that Kurzweil's answer to the perils is basically the same one repeated over and over. Some terrorists might use it against --he never explicitly states who but obviously it is against his bosses and the prevailing order. He of course identifies that with himself or rather "us". His remedy-- work with the U.S. Army to do what? As bright as he is it evidently never has occurred to him to ask if they really are going to use whatever he comes up with to simply "protect us",rather than use it against whomever our rulers designate as the enemy.
This points to the glaring weakness of all of these techno-schemes. The level of spiritual and psychological development of many of the most sophisticated of our scientific intellectuals and of the political and economic elite they unquestioningly obey is stunningly low. Yes, I agree a singularity is coming but I think it will most llikely be the end of humankind or-- I entertain the possibility that we are in the midst of an incredible spiritual awakening that profoundly change the way we deal with each other and with the rest of creation. It is easy to scoff at people like Edgar Tolle and many other less popular spiritual thinkers; Meher Baba comes to mind-dismissing them as new age and off the wall.But the fact is that we are in the midst of a truly profound and wrenching spiritual cataclysm very much aggravated by the results of our technical prowess. We have used it to serve the chimpanzee/reptilian parts of our brains and now things are beyond intelligence of the conventional kind to control in any way.
Sigmund Freud, Carl Jung, and other psychologists in discovering the unconscious made the first step in allowing us understand and perhaps "master" the forces that shape destructive human behavior. The work of spiritual discoverers and leaders is discover ways be can live with these forces and still be at peace with ourselves and the universe. Otherwise we cannot survive.

P.S. Should such a human society ever get past the singularity, there will be times when it is collectively decided not to develop certain kinds of technology. Ram Prieur has written about this and had a very good website talking about these issues.

[Nat Wilson Turner]

Don't underestimate the possibility that Kurzweil is full of it. There have been some rebuttals from neurologists pointing out just how insanely optimistic his timelines for replicating the human brain digitally are.
Also with coming global energy shortages will we have the resources to continue pursuing these lines of development? I highly doubt we'll be running massive server farms world-wide in 25 years.

[Steve Allison]

"We're in the habit of looking toward the future in the rear-view mirror, and we assume fundamental continuity with incremental changes."

Yes, that is right. I'm 60 now, and recall thinking with pride and optimism and excitement when I was 10 that now I'm living in a truly modern world. We went to space that year. And I expected technology change in the way usually depicted by the magazine covers of say Popular Science and as science fiction films of the fifties showed it. (recall a futuristic space travelling serial show where they used slide rules!) But not many if any anticipated what has happened and how wonderfully things would unfold. We had the VCR and personal computer revolution in the eighties, the internet in the nineties, social media (bringing with it this blog) in the 2000's. Marvelous medical and communication advances. Don't think many saw it coming about like this. Definitely not me and I'm an R&D engineer with a PhD. Perhaps Teilhard du Chardin. I listened to a book review in Philosophy of Religion Class forty years ago and thought he was crazy. Not looking so much that way now.

[mathe]

You make a good point Nat Turner but I think the technology of the type Kurzweil envisions could still develop in the midst of shortages by allocating the remaining energy production differently than it is now. You could have command and control by a very tiny minority while the majority live as we did in the 18th century- only in a very quirky way i.e.interspersed with strange 21st century anachronisms.
History is more and more determined by the spiritual and psychological state of the critical players-- whoever they are at a particular moment.
In that connection one might think about the remarkable mobilization and revolution in Egypt.I heard a rumour that there was a section of Tahrir Square occupied by people who were in continual prayer.

[Jack Whelan]

Nat--

Joel Garreau's RADICAL EVOLUTION did a pretty good job of convincing me that some kind of discontinuity is inevitable, and while he talks a lot about Kurzweil, it's not as if he's the only one or the most important one who's talking about this.

It just seems obvious to me that unless something catastrophic occurs, and technology keeps developing in its current trajectory something is going to snap. Kurzweil's mentality frightens me because it seems typical of a kind of materialistic imperative in technological development that just produces new stuff for the sake of it without taking into consideration moral or human impacts. It's as if the machine has a will of its own and it works through that mentality, and unless it is vigorously opposed, defenders of the "human" are going to have all they can handle from the machines.

[Nat Wilson Turner]

I'll check out Radical Evolution. Kurzweil frightens me because he seems to be worshiping our evil robot overlords before they're even here. He's like Igor awaiting Dracula's arrival.