enough arnold? cognitive technology and the future of humanity
DESCRIPTION
Enough Arnold? Cognitive Technology and the Future of Humanity. Minds and Machines. The Coming of the Augments. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
The Coming of the Augments
• “GNR” technology (genetic engineering, nanotechnology, robotics technology) may soon reach the point where humans will have the ability to fundamentally change the nature of the human species.
• TWO (or more) VARIETIES OF PERSONS MIGHT COME TO EXIST:
• HUMANS -- AUGMENTS
Some Worries
• Could lead to destructive techno-race– Rifts in society
• Horizontal: ‘techno-poor’ vs ‘techno-rich’• Vertical: generational gap
– Today’s technology is outdated tomorrow• … and the pace of ‘progress’ will only accelerate
– Our children become a commodity / product• Designer Babies• ‘Playing God’
Further Worries
• Loss of Free Will– Parents ‘designed’ us
• Loss of Personal Identity– ‘Specs’ are known: Loss of self-exploration,
self-motivation, or self-fulfillment
• Maybe free will and personal identity are an illusion– Right now I don’t worry about that– But new technology may throw this in our face
The Singularity
• Some people believe that the pace of technological change will reach such a rate that we have to become cyborgs to even make sense of this new technology– If we are able to create a being that’s smarter
than us, imagine what that being could create
• Best-known proponent: Ray Kurzweil– In “The Singularity is Near”, he predicts this
will happen somewhere mid 21st century
Three Questions:
• 2.
What we
CAN DO...Is it
practically possibleto STOP
"non-human-persons"from coming into being?
Three Questions Bound Together
What we
SHOULD DO...Should we allow
"non-human-persons"to come into being?
What we
CAN DO...Is it
practically possibleto STOP
"non-human-persons"from coming into being?
What we
WILL DO...Will we
bring into being"non-human-persons?"
Three Questions Bound Together
• Will implies Can – If we will stop it, then that must mean we can
• Can does-not-imply Ought - If we can stop it, does that mean we should? And if we cannot, does that mean we should not? – Those are Ought-from-Is fallacies! – Maybe doom is inevitable
• Subtle variant: if we cannot stop it, should we therefore not try and stop it?
Three Questions Bound Together
• S: We should stop the “Age of Augments” from coming into being
• C: We can stop the “Age of Augments” from coming into being
• W: We will stop the “Age of Augments” from coming into being
Should we … Can we … Will we …Stop the “Age of Augments”?
S C W T T T T T F T F T T F FF T T F T F F F T F F F
Which combination is the “correct one?”
Related Questions:
• The “Theoretical Enough” Questions:– Is there ever a point beyond which
technological progress no longer implies:• Individual/Personal progress• Societal progress• Species progress• …
Related Questions:
• The “Species” Questions:• Do we have the RIGHT to ensure that we
remain the dominant species on Earth?• Do we have the OBLIGATION to ensure
that we remain the dominant species?• If a new and superior species of Augments
comes into being, do humans have the RIGHT to remain as a (non-dominant) species?
Related Questions:
• The “No Child Left Behind” Question:– Assume a civilization of Augments becomes
the dominant civilization on Earth• Should you as a parent be morally
OBLIGATED to have your child undergo augmentation (become an augment) to ensure that she/he will be able to compete successfully with her/his peers?