Enough Arnold?
Cognitive Technology and the
Future of Humanity
Minds and Machines
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
McKibben’s 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– Today’s technology is outdated tomorrow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:
• 1.
What we
SHOULD DO...
Should we allow
"non-human-persons"
to come into being?
Three Questions:
• 2.
What we
CAN DO...
Is it
practically possible
to STOP
"non-human-persons"
from coming into being?
Three Questions:
• 3.
What we
WILL DO...
Will we
bring into being
"non-human-persons?"
Three Questions Bound Together
What we
SHOULD DO...
Should we allow
"non-human-persons"
to come into being?
What we
What we
CAN DO...
WILL DO...
Is it
practically possible
to STOP
"non-human-persons"
from coming into being?
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
T
T
T
T
F
F
F
F
C
T
T
F
F
T
T
F
F
W
T
F
T
F
T
F
T
F
Which combination is
the “correct one?”
(McKibben argues for T T T)
Related Questions:
• The “Theoretical Enough” Questions:
– McKibben says “Enough right now”
– You may disagree with McKibben …. But is
there ever a point beyond which technological
progress no longer implies:
•
•
•
•
Individual/Personal progress
Societal progress
Species progress
…
– And again: Can we stop ourselves from going
beyond that point? Will we?
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?