Week+7+- How+could+new+technologies+radically+change+what+it+currently+means+to+be+human?

It is a question that has, in fact, already outdated itself: New technologies have already - and continue to - radically change what it means to be human.

Prosthetic limbs, bionic ears, synthetic drugs which alter body chemistry for pleasure or medical intervention, hormones which alter gender balance, transplants replacing faulty organs with plastic or animal parts, nanotechnology - examples of which include the introduction of technology into a chimps’ brain which allows the animals’ thoughts to move objects in a room without touching them, nuclear, biological and chemical advances which have the power to not just alter but completely eliminate human, plant and animal life on earth - all these technologies exist today and represent the tip of an iceberg of transhuman potential.

This does not even begin to consider existential risks - those unknown unknowns we are yet to develop, but cannot exclude.

In a launch for his 2005 book //Radical Evolution:////The Promise and Peril of Enhancing Our Minds, Our Bodies and What It Means to Be Human’//, author Joel Garreau pointed to what he calls an extremely primitive example by modern standards: the introduction of steroids for athletic performance enhancement.1.

Anabolic steroids, first synthesised in the 1930’s, mimic the effects of testosterone and dihydrotestosterone in the body, to, among other things, enhance the growth of muscular strength through high intensity exercise and diet.2. In addition, they are known to, or suspected of also delivering side effects including depression, psychosis, osteoporosis, aggression, addiction and suicide. But the key controversy lies in their use by competitive sports people. Some argue that all athletes should be allowed to access performance enhancing substances - thus ‘raising the bar’ on elite performance outcomes. With their illegality in professional sport and the social stigma attached to their use remaining, steroids offer some insight into the potential redefinition of what it means to be human - and the risks involved.

Garreau admits our potential for redefining what it means to be human is unprecedented - and unlimited. This is partly because our rate of change has never been faster. “For the first time in human history, we’re seeing a curve of exponential change in our ingenuity.” Garreau refers to the self-fulfilling prophecy of Gordon Moore’s Law, which, in 1965 prophesised that computer power would increase by a factor of two per year.3. While Moore himself conceded in 2005 that this law had its own inbuilt limits, Garreau considers that the evolution of what it means to be human knows no such bounds, other than those of:
 * Quantum mechanics
 * Human ingenuity
 * The marketplace
 * And our ability to ensure our culture and values shape the change, rather than the change shaping us

He paints three possible scenarios as we evolve:

1. **The Heaven scenario.** Likening this to a manifesto of Christian ideals, this scenario is favoured by futurist Ray Kurzweil4. who sees the curve of change pointing due north, as humans discover ways to conquer pain, suffering, stupidity, ignorance, ugliness and even death.

While there are enormous implications in all of these projections, the ability to extend human life spans represents both a major opportunity for humanity - and a significant danger. Ethically speaking, it suggests that technology which transforms life expectancy is completely desirable.

Technology //has// changed what it means to be human in many positive ways: Our ability to provide clean water for many disadvantaged communities of the world radically improved life expectancy in the 20th century.

But the idea of artificially extending a life span beyond its ‘natural boundaries’ begs the question: What are our natural boundaries? Are we even living a full life now? What are the advantages of living longer? Does it benefit society - or just the individual? It raises questions about quality of life and right to life - in the sense that an alteration to natural life cycles would increase an individual’s consumption of resources, goods and services, occupation of and impact on the environment. Potentially, such an extension on ‘lease of life’ might inhibit the quality of life of others. And will this longevity be available to all - or purchased at a premium price? What of the impact on an already overpopulated planet?

Already science is developing ways to significantly extend memory. Again, if memory can be purchased for human use in the same way it is purchased for computers, what might this mean to people of disadvantaged countries, in their ability to interact, trade and compete with advantaged peoples? The same questions apply for all forms of human enhancement.

In this projection, the curve is the mirror opposite of Heaven - it shoots straight down. One vocal advocate for this outcome is Bill Joy, former Chief Scientist of Sun Microsystems. In an article for Wired Magazine titled “//Why the future doesn’t need us//”, Joy reveals his horror at the realisation of possibly devastating unintended consequences as a result of spiralling technological advance.5. Discovering many of the scientists he admired were already working towards and accepting a future where they might be only ‘partly human’ and where technology had the potential to destroy equally as it could create, he wrote “Unfortunately, as with nuclear technology, it is far easier to create destructive uses for nanotechnology than constructive ones.”
 * 2. The Hell scenario.**

Add to this, the ability of machines to self-replicate and our ability to supervise and apply human ethics to technology could become obsolete. There are many science fiction movies which explore this theme - Terminator, Soylent Green, The Matrix: Are they so far from reality?

By 2005, the IBM Blue Gene supercomputer already had, according to Garreau, the same amount of processing power as the human brain. It was then looking at proteins - the basic building block in the human body. If these are replicated by technology, a supercomputer will be capable of shaping humanity - literally.

In the Hell scenario, changing what it means to be human offers two possible outcomes - both terrible. In one, we destroy the entire human race within 25 years. That’s the good news. In the other, we take all forms of life on the planet with us.

While the other two scenarios focus on technology as the driver of change, this focuses on how human connections and our ability as a species to prevail in the face of sometimes significant hurdles, by communicating, sharing ideas and together evolving in a pattern of co-evolution: where solutions are developed at a rate which matches our challenges.
 * 3. The Prevail Scenario.**

Garreau refers to the Dark Ages, where oppression and human suffering endured for an extended period - until the invention of the printing press. Not a linear solution to a problem, however, it lead to liberation, shared wisdoms, thoughts and ideas and eventually enlightenment and the pursuit of great human advance.

Technology has the potential to deliver on any of these scenarios. It seems the question today is no longer //how// technology can change what it means to be human, rather, how we will ensure technology is our tool, not our master. It lies in our ability to apply human barriers, values and ethics to the use of such technologies so that ultimately, we remain in charge of our own evolution.

**REFERENCES**

1. Garreau J, Politics and Prose Bookstore, June 18, 2005, Digital Archive accessible at http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/BeHu 2. Wikipedia, //Anabolic steroids,// accessible at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anabolic_steroid 3. Moores Law accessible at http://www.mooreslaw.org/ 4. Wikipedia, //Ray Kurzweil//, accessible at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Kurzweil 5. Joy, B, Wired Magazine, //Why the future doesn’t need us//, April 2000, accessible at http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy_pr.html