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

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– Today’s technology is outdated tomorrow• … and the pace of ‘progress’ will only accelerate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

• 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 possibleto 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

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?