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– Today’s technology is outdated tomorrow• … and the pace of ‘progress’ will only accelerate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 weSHOULD DO...

Should we allow"non-human-persons"to come into being?

Three Questions:

• 2.

What weCAN DO...

Is itpractically possible

to STOP"non-human-persons"

from coming into being?

Three Questions:

• 3.

What weWILL DO...

Will webring into being

"non-human-persons?"

Three Questions Bound Together

What weSHOULD DO...

Should we allow"non-human-persons"to come into being?

What weCAN DO...

Is itpractically possible

to STOP"non-human-persons"

from coming into being?

What weWILL DO...

Will webring 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?” (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?