Human Obsolescence

In the second chapter of Jaron Lanier’s book, “You Are Not a Gadget,” the author brings up the concepts of Singularity and Rapture. Each term is a variation on the human apocalypse, as brought on by either robots or God. While Lanier discusses the topic in length, I want to probe further. Given theme of humans becoming obsolete, where do we stand as a society today?

“All of reality, including humans, is one big information system,” as Lanier describes the first tenet of a new technological culture. This concept, “that we’re all connected,” is far from merely a technological one. It is a philosophical one that stretches back as far time goes. Whether its Pocohantas singing with the colors of the wind, or Neytiri saying she sees you, many cultural philosophies theorize that all of life is a giant network. The difference today is that this network is scientifically measurable. Not only are there social networks like Facebook, we can also track dollar bills around the world or study trends in demographic data. Seemingly because of technology, our life is more systematic and connected  than ever.

By discussing this concept of a networked life, we must ask how this influences the obsolescence of humanity. Well I can see it being argued two ways: 1) the network empowers the individual for being part of a larger entity 2) the network renders the individual human insignificant within the grander system. Which argument you side depends on your perspective. Do we understand humanity through gestalt or detail? Do we consider a human being as a single person or a collection of atoms? My tendency is to look at these things as part of the whole. Therefore, each member of the network of life is empowered through the connections that it offers. Because of technology, we can find new friends and support groups, create and access more information, and form a stronger interdependence on our fellow man. While we can all do this in the pre-digital age, the methods to do so have never been as fast, effective, or efficient, as they are today.

Lanier infers that there is “a new kind of manifest destiny… making the digital system we call reality function at ever-higher “levels of description.” The issue is how and when computers surpass the human mind at these higher levels. It seems inevitable. What happens when computers can program other computers to be more efficient than themselves? What happens as this cycle continues to the point humans no longer matter? That would be the aforementioned singularity. While it seems obvious that we should simply not design technology like this in the first place, the human desire for artificial intelligence will only grow as we grow lazier and rely heavier on convenience. To ensure our own preservation, what do we do?

Consider Singularity’s counterpart, Rapture: the purported time when the evil are condemned to hell and the righteous are sent to heaven. Until then, we are recommended to follow a code of ethics towards our fellow man and to God. When developing increasingly sophisticated technology, we must also follow a code of ethics and not forget who the technology is being used for. If we create not for ourselves, but for humanity, than we can help ensure our own success. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. We are stronger as a society than as a group of individuals. Maybe if we all work together, we can stop the robot uprising and Arnold Schwarzenegger will never try to come back in time and kill us. Otherwise, we had better hope Will Smith is still around.

Tags: culture, Lanier, response, technology