A recurring theme and technological prediction of futurists is one in which human intelligence supersedes that of the previous generation through artificial enhancement. This is a popular topic on the Positive Futurist website maintained by Dick Pelletier, and one which provides food for thought. Mr Pelletier outlines a near future (2030s) where a combination of nanotechnology and insight into the inner workings of the human brain facilitate an exponential growth of intelligence. While the accuracy of such a prediction is open to debate (specifically the technological possibilities of successful development within the given timeframe), if such a rosy future did come to fruition what would be the consequences on society? Specifically, would an increase of average intelligence necessarily result in an overall improvement to quality of life? If so, which areas would be mostly affected (eg morality, socio-economic status)? These are the questions I would like to explore in this article.
The main argument provided by futurists is that technological advances relating to nano-scale devices will soon be realised and implemented throughout society. By utilising these tiny automatons to the largest extent possible, it is thought that both disease and aging could be eradicated by the middle of this century. This is due to the utility of nanobots, specifically their ability to carry out pre-programmed tasks in a collective and automated fashion without any conscious awareness on behalf of the host. In essence, nano devices could act as a controllable extension of the human body, giving health professionals the power to monitor and treat throughout the organisms lifespan. But the controllers of these instruments need to know what to target and how to best direct their actions; a point of possible sabotage to the futurists’ plan. In all likelihood, however, such problems will only prove to serve as temporary hindrances and should be overcome through extensive testing and development phases.
Assuming that a) such technology is possible and b) it can be controlled to produce the desired results, the future looks bright for humanity. By further extending nanotechnology with cutting edge neurological insight, it is feasible that intelligence can be artificially increased. The possibility of artificial intelligence and the development of an interface with the human mind almost ensures a future filled with rapid growth. To this end, an event aptly named the ‘technological singularity’ has been proposed, which outlines the extension of human ability through aritificial means. The singularity allows for innovation to exceed the rate of development; in short, humankind could advance (technologically) faster than the rate of input. While the plausibility of such an event is open to debate, it does sound feasible that artificial intelligence could assist us to develop new and exciting breakthroughs in science. If conscious, self-directed intelligence were to be artificially created this may assist humanity even further; perhaps the design of specific minds would be possible (need a physical breakthrough – just create an artificial Einstein). Such an idea hinges totally on the ability of neuroscientists to unlock the secrets of the human brain and allow the manipulation or ‘tailoring’ of specific abilities.
While the jury is still out debating the details of how such a feat will be made technologically possible, a rough outline of the methodologies involved in artificial augmentation could be enlightening. Already we are seeing the effects of a society increasingly driven by information systems. People want to know more in a shorter time, in other words, increase efficiency and volume. To compensate for the already torrential hordes of information available on various mediums (the internet springs to mind) humanity relies increasingly on ways to filter, absorb and understand stimuli. We are seeing not only a trend in artificial aids (search engines, database software, larger networks) but also a changing pattern in the way we scan and retain information. Internet users are now forced to make quick decisions and scan superficially at high speed to obtain information that would otherwise be lost amidst the backlog of detail. Perhaps this is one way in which humanity is guiding the course of evolution and retraining the minds basic instincts away from more primitive methods of information gathering (perhaps it also explains our parents’ ineptitude for anything related to the IT world!) This could be one of the first targets for augmentation; increasing the speed of information transfer via programmed algorithms that fuse our natural biological mechanisms of searching with the power of logical, machine-coded functions. Imagine being able to combine the biological capacity to effortlessly scan and recognise facial features with the speed of computerised programming.
How would such technology influence the structure of society today? The first assumption that must be taken is the universal implementation/adoption of such technologies by society. Undoubtedly there will be certain populations whom refuse for whatever reason, most likely due to a perceived conflict with their belief system. It is important to preserve and respect such individuality, even if it means that these populations will be left behind in terms of intellectual enlightenment. Critics of future societies and futurists in general argue that a schism will develop, akin to the rising disparities in wealth distribution present within today’s society. In counter-argument, I would respond that an increase in intelligence would likewise cause a global rise in morality. While this relationship is entirely speculative, it is plausible to suggest that a person’s level of moral goodness is at least related (if not directly) to their intelligence.
Of course, there are notable exceptions to this rule whereby intelligent people have suffered from moral ineptitude, however an increased neurological understanding and a practical implementation of ‘designer’ augmentations (as it relates to improving morality) would negate the possibility of a majority ’superclass’ whom persecutes groups of ‘naturals’. At the very worst, there may be a period of unrest at the implementation of such technology while the majority of the population catches up (in terms of perfecting the implantation/augmentation techniques and achieving the desired level of moral output). Such innovations may even act as a catalyst for developing a philosophically sound model of universal morality; something which would in turn, allow the next generation of neurological ‘upgrades’ to implement.
Perhaps we are already in the midst of our future society. Our planet’s declining environment may hasten the development of such augmentation to improve our chances of survival. Whether this process involves the discarding of our physical bodies for a more impervious, intangible machine-based life or otherwise remains to be seen. With the internet’s rising popularity and increasing complexity, a virtual ‘Matrix-esque’ world in which such programs could live might not be so far-fetched after all. Whatever the future holds, it is certainly an exciting time in which to live. Hopefully humanity can overcome the challenges of the future in a positive way and without too much disruption to our technological progress.
4 comments
Comments feed for this article
7 April, 2008 at 5:19 pm
DENNIS QUINE
As usual, my friend, you raise more issues in your essay than you resolve. (So why else write them?)
I do have a few reservations. Like you, I grew up as a technological optimist. Science and technology constituted the path of forward progress for humankind. But here we are now, and it is evident that for every step forward, there is a concomitant step back some place else, usually unanticipated.
Nuclear technology gives us power plants and nuclear medicine, and also the potential for proliferation of nuclear weapons technology into the hands of nut cases around the world. Television gives us a “window on the world”, and a means for distorting the facts and manipulating the opinions of millions of people all at once. Medical progress, which we all applaud, gives us massive challenges in paying for the medical care of the millions who cannot afford insurance. Oil-fueled cars give us personal freedom of movement unheard of a century ago, and concomitant dependence on unsavory and unstable regimes in the Middle East (not to mention contributions to CO-2 loading of the atmosphere).
It strikes me that there are no unblemished technology gifts: every deal we make is Faustian. Nanotechnology is the same; however it develops in the ensuing decades, there will be unanticipated pushback in other areas we never expected.
The potential for beneficial results from a general raising of human intelligence is arguable. The Flynn Effect (“What is Intelligence”, James R. Flynn, 2007) indicates that mean measured intelligence (using several standard tests) has grown anywhere from 5 to 25 points (in IQ) over the past 75 years. There is still a huge debate about why we are “smarter” than our ancestors, but the increases in average IQ in all “advanced” countries where testing is done are undeniable. So do we live in a better world than our forebears, or just one more crowded and competitive? The argument that conscious augmentation of intelligence makes for better people, better institutions, more effective government, etc., must, I think, contend with this issue: it doesn’t seem to have made much difference so far.
Each of us might like being smarter (e.g., an IQ of 150 instead of 120), but the problem is that a world where everyone is 30 IQ points smarter is just as primitive and competitive as the “dumber” world we had before. The competition has now moved to a new level (e.g., computer games marketing, web startups, consumer electronics, etc.). The criminals are now pursuing more subtle “white collar” endeavors, where they steal a million dollars from corporate pension funds through rigged computer programs, instead of the Bonnie and Clyde approach of shooting up a bank (although we still get that around here, and the crooks always pick a bank close to a freeway so they can make a quick getaway – innovative use of new transportation technology!)
So, I do question whether the promises of the nano revolution will actually make much difference to us, when we balance the (currently unanticipated) downsides against the hoped for benefits. I have no doubt, if the technology is feasible, that someone will try to augment human intelligence (and other characteristics). What they will get, methinks, is the “X-Men”: a bunch of neo/non humans who no longer can fit in human society.
Whether the nano-augmented ultimately outbreed the normals, and become the dominant human subspecies (“Homo Superiorus”) in several centuries is questionable. More likely they will band together and run off to the Ort Cloud and create a new civilization there that will, after a century, come back to the inner system and confront normal humanity. Then at last we will have a real “alien invasion”.
Sounds like a good idea for a science fiction story. A society of Mules (al la the “Foundation”) confronts the remnants of normal human civilization still struggling on a post-global warming Earth with no resources left. Add in to it that Earth-bound societies will be deep into the post technological Dark Ages, and you have the ingredients of a good yarn. How it ends: the augmented humans decide normal humanity is not worth saving, and go off on their FTL ships to seed the galaxy.
Anyway, happy prognosticating,
Dennis
8 April, 2008 at 4:58 am
Justin
Wow, nice post. I have to read it again a couple more times though. Pretty intriguing thought, and process.
I shall bookmark your blog. =)
10 April, 2008 at 5:44 am
vulcanis
DHQ, thanks for reading.
My reservations are similar to yours in regards to the continued technological progress of society. However, I am still unsure as to whether this progression will a) remain at the rate it is currently experiencing, b) continue at a steady pace without an exponential increase or c) actually start declining.
The short of it is that humanity is facing quite an uncertain future in terms of both our biological survival and also the propagation of cultural/scientific values. The biggest threat is the one faced by our current model of society. Current environmental practices are undeniably poor, and have contributed to an attitude of excess and waste. Linked to this environmental problem is the growing energy crisis.
A commericalist culture of waste and excess has been allowed to develop for far too long; it is now firmly entrenched within the minds of those that wield the world’s power. Unfortaunately this spells bad news for the younger generation of which I am a part. We are trapped by the greed of our parents and their desire to make money rather than improve and transcend out-dated values and beliefs.
Our society is in danger of collapse. It is a potential dichotomy of great proportions; on the one hand we have the potential for a fantastic shifting of societal attitudes and industrial practices (towards ones that are actually sustainable). On the other we have a society plunged into a ‘new dark ages’ where the very nature of society is lost, stagnating scientific growth and literally wasting time that could be better spent.
Perhaps the long reign democracy and capitalism has had over society is coming to an end. It has been one of the longest running social experiments of human history. The evidence is already beginning to gather (credit crisis, global warming, crime, cultural degeneration). I am sure the next decade will see some interesting changes, for better or worse.
10 April, 2008 at 10:42 pm
DENNIS QUINE
V:
I recall reading some essay a few years ago by an anthropologist who argued that the agricultural revolution (ca 10,00BC) was the worst thing that ever happened to the human species. Before that we lived in small bands and tribes, were in substantial balance with what the environment could provide (for hunters and gatherers), and had essentially zero environmental footprint. There were probably only a few million humans on the whole planet, but the author argued that they were almost certainly happy, because the small tribal social situation was what we had evolved to desire.
After the agricultural revolution, we had formal religions teaching hatred of each other, cities with conjestion and squalor, politics with all its insane ramifications (‘let’s kill 20 million farmers who won’t convert to communism’ – Stalin in the 1920’s and 30’s), and that most efficient of human killing inventions: warfare. The latter was essential to protect the land my group needed to grow crops from being stolen by the next bunch of guys to migrate into the area. A 100-fold increase in population, but now large masses living in poverty, and associated environmental collapse close at hand.
His argument has a ring of truth to it, but where then is all our talk of “manifest destiney” to spread the human genome among the stars? All fantasizing. I have gradually come to think we may just be too dumb (as a species) to ever build a “Foundation”-class interstellar civilization. The Kardachev class .5 civilization we have now is creaking toward implosion, if not total collapse in the coming century.
But going back doesn’t work, we have to plung on. Can’t wait for the Singularity and the robots to take over. Let them clean up the mess. Humans are incompetent to do so. We are just smart enough to kill off the mamoths, not smart enough to manage all of planet earth.
Happy morose thoughts,
DHq