human augmentation

Human Augmentation: A human look at a cybernetic future

November 13, 2014 by Richard Ruth

I often wonder what the next few decades are going to look like. Many forms of media, from the commercial news to video games, seem to tell stories about androids with a human conscience and men with metal arms.

Indeed, many articles show us that such a future is not so far from reality. We have prosthetic arms that, like their biological counterparts, operate via thought. Devices such as Google Glass that are beginning to offer a deeper look into the realm of augmented reality. Virgin Galactic is in dedicated pursuit of commercialized space travel. Ocular Rift is bringing us that much closer to realizing something not too distant from The Matrix.

Yes, I say, this strange and unprecedented future is at the doorstep, and it is knocking.

This is where I begin to doubt. Follow me if you will.

Like many others I take a great interest in the content of other thinkers. My example here is Mech: Human Trials, a short film about a possible avenue of personal advancement. If you have not seen it I would recommend you view the short film now before you continue reading. I do not want to unwittingly spoil the rich, creative production provided.

I, like the man in the short film, have always wanted to do more. I have always wanted to “be” more. To do something worth doing. To live a life worth living.

My ego tells me that the science of human augmentation is going to give me that capability. Augmentations will make me faster, stronger, smarter. A true bionic man. The pinnacle of human advancement. Just thinking about such a monumental blessing literally has me salivating.

It is at this point I thank the stars for my pessimistic bent. Let me explain.

Humans have an avid tenacity for addiction. Sex, drugs, even plastic surgery. Sadly, I do not see the augmentation of ones’ own body as any different. Take a look at steroid use and its current prevalence today.

One of the most popular methods of performance enhancement is the anabolic steroid. A cursory look on any news franchise sports page is going to reveal the same conclusion. In addition you’ll also find heavy debate about the ethics of such in national sports chains. The same is true about the prevalence of plastic surgery among the glitterati.

So what? You may ask. A person has a right to their own body and I don’t even care about sports anyway.

Well, you miss the point then. The point is not about steroids or plastic surgery at all. The point is about access to the capability to augment yourself and the possible detriments it can bring.

Cybernetic, genetic and biological augmentation is no different. I do believe however, that it is a great deal more dangerous. You see, one might wreck his or her own anatomy with face-lifts and anabolic use. We can pass this off as the consequences of personal choice. However, one could become a walking death machine with cybernetic enhancements.

I tell you all, honestly and truthfully, I would be that walking death machine given the chance.

Now, here, before I incite the rage of the scientific community at large, I will explain further.

I feel no ill will toward my fellow man. I do not thirst for blood or wanton destruction. I only want to be the best me that I can be. However, there are others less interested in self-improvement. Indeed there are others that truly are interested in terror and bloodshed.

What if these people had access to the same kinds of augmentations?

Roleplaying games like Shadowrun depict gangsters with industrial grade machinery for limbs. Video games like the Deus Ex franchise show us corporate soldiers bedecked in an arsenal of killing machines, from limbs that turn into rocket launchers to skin that can turn invisible.

To give you a current, if “reachy” example, let’s take a look at ISIS. What if ISIS militants had access to cybernetic augmentations? What if terrorist organizations like them could suddenly contend with and possibly overcome first world military forces?

Should then the capability to augment yourself be controlled? Similar to a prescription you would receive from a doctor.

Should augmentations be ruthlessly controlled or even illegal?

For the moment I am unsure. What I am sure about is the need for caution. The concept of human augmentation has the same capabilities as weapons of mass destruction.

I believe it deserves the same grave consideration.

About the Author:

Richard Ruth is an avid writer, devoted Transhumanist, blogger and podcast host for the UpstartsUS blog and podcast and a driven entrepreneur. Born and raised in Montana, Richard has served abroad in the military, holds a degree in Computer Science and is happily married to his loving wife, Alissa Ruth.

Would Technological “Enhancement” Make Us More, or Less, Human?

August 13, 2013 by Daniel Faggella

Imagine you wake up in the morning after a refreshing 30 full minutes of sleep, pulling up into your retinal display your top priority tasks for that day, and manually adjusting your mood to something desirable before your colleagues have their holograms projected into your living room for your 7:00am Monday meeting.

With the advent of intelligence technologies being developed and furthered in retail, in finance, in healthcare, and beyond, we are entering the age where these “smart” technologies have become integrated into human bodies for repair and amelioration of medical conditions. Cochlear implants have been used for years to treat deafness (in both patients born without hearing and those who have lost it), and technologies are being created (some of which have already been successful) to aide blind individuals to see again. Bionic limbs are seen as relatively normal today, and the threshold for artificial senses might not be all too far off (some of the most exciting recent discoveries to be found at Brown’s BrainGate).

A profound question looms: will we direct these repair and amelioration technologies towards augmentation and enhancement of our present human faculties?

Internal combustion engines began as a way to replace animal-powered farming equipment. Today, they power cars, chainsaws, helicopters and airplanes. Airplanes themselves were initially used to move people from one place to another – faster. Not long after we had aircraft for war, gliders for tracking weather – and then unmanned drones and spacecraft.

At present, eye tracking devices to help paraplegic individuals and stroke patients communicate even if they are unable to talk, simply by looking at specific keys on a screen – triggering a computer to speak for them or communicate basic messages. If such a technology eventually made handling email and organizing one’s desktop files twice as efficient – are we to believe that this “amelioration” technology wouldn’t find it’s way to the mainstream?

There are also exoskeletons constructed to help weak limbs function more effectively (for upper body, lower body, or both). Imagine if such technologies became affordable and could cut a business’s warehouse crew in half by doubling the efficiency of manual workers. How many businesses would jump on that bandwagon?

Along these lines of thinking – anything that can serve a function in effectiveness or efficiency is likely to be adopted. If nobody has an iPhone, then your old clunker isn’t all that bad. If everyone has an iPhone, then there’s a world of email, photos, contact sharing, GPS-ing, and web browsing that you’re missing out on. Once the internet was in place and in use, no business in their right mind would ignore it’s presence.

Once one company can answer email and sift through tasks without even using a keyboard, the others better jump onboard. Once it becomes the norm in one industry for workers to take a biotech pill that allows them to sleep only 30 minutes per night, other companies – and eventually other industries – will likely follow suit.

In this respect, the slope of human augmentation and emerging technology is a slippery one – and we’re unlikely to develop simple answers to how these transformational technologies are developed and implemented in our world. Rather than a dogmatic “for” or “against” stance on enhancement, I pose that it is important to consider the actual issues or even opportunities for human experience and human potential with the promise of these emerging technologies. Below we’ll explore two very common objections to the very notion of enhancement, and how they might be considered beyond the surface level.

“You Want to Turn Me Into a Vacuum Cleaner?”

It might useful, first to address our resistance to these potential “enhancements” of humanity using the intelligence of tomorrow. We naturally resist the idea of a transformation to something more rigid and limited – more “mechanistic” or “robotic” – into something like “R2D2” from Star Wars.

However, just as concept of “ship” had more limited and simple connotations in Greek and Roman times than it does in the present age of space travel, the concepts of “robotic” or “mechanistic” have different connotations now than they likely will in twenty or thirty years. The “computer” was associated with a certain level of capacities in the 1980s, which now seem utterly feeble with respect to what “computers” are capable of now. We fear becoming the kinds of “machines” that we use in everyday life – such as toasters, vacuum cleaners, or Honda Escorts.

Frankly, I wouldn’t want to be a Honda Escort, either, but these present notions of “machine” cast a light on all enhancement in a way that keeps it’s present connotations today. Admittedly, there are some viable reasons for questioning any transition of our “selves” into any other “shell” (and in fact, not questioning this transition would seem neglectful). However, many of the “instinctual” responses to the thought of enhancement tend to come more from robot movies and less from a perspective on increasing robot / artificial intelligence sophistication.

Even more important than identifying our own present or cultural biases (and their tendency to be projected forward), it seems we should consider the ramifications of “enhancements” that could make us more artistically creative, or more emotionally rich, or more mentally capable. Ask me (or you, or anyone we’ve ever met) if we’d want to be more like R2D2 or a Honda Escort – and the answer (even amongst the most hard-core Star Wars fans) will likely be “no.” However, if an “enhancement” could grant me the capacity to – say – never forget an important fact, idea, or skill, I might find that improvement hard to turn down (assuming there would be no negative side effects).

Even the capacity of memory, though, tends to fit too closely with the mold of “robot” that we know today. Let’s say that I was able to enhance my creative thinking abilities, or artistic capacities in writing or painting – possibly through stimulation of certain brain regions, or brain implants that provided new modes of connecting ideas or more insight and attune-ment to beauty itself.

Ask me, as another example, if I’d consider a procedure that would allow me to learn multiple languages, or study twelve topics at once and improve in them all at faster rates that I can now (such as poetry, essay writing, martial arts, billiards, etc…), and I would not be so fast to turn that “upgrade” down. Imagine if it were possible through an implant to monitor and manage our emotional states more deliberately (feeling happy, courageous, focused, etc… at my own will). In the above circumstances, the question of whether or not to “change” becomes less polarized, more grey. Unlike the question of whether or not to become more like R2D2, these enhancements would make most people think long and hard and about the real possibility of moving beyond biology.

For the most part, the concept of machines or computers enhancing aspects of our emotional life seems like science fiction (much like space travel seemed like science fiction 80 years ago). However, research, theory, and even basic models for “emotional robots” are already being developed to move this technology forward, evidenced – among other projects – by the European Feelix Growing. By modeling the emotional behavior of infants and apes, European researchers in the “Feelix Growing” project are developing robots (one named “Nao”) with a basic ability to respond with fear, sadness, joy or excitement in response to interactions with humans. This includes a memory of faces and specific experiences with the people associated with those faces, allowing “Nao” and other robots of it’s kind to maintain a kind of relationship with it’s human caretakers.

Even with the explosion of robotics and emerging technologies in the last twenty years, it seems that “emotional robots” are still nowhere near the complexity or relational intelligence as human beings. This might bring us to ask the inevitable next question – which serves as another level of resistance to the notion of enhancement:

“But – How Could it Ever Be Done?”

If I’m claiming that emotional or creative life – in addition to just “rational” or “computational” life could be enhanced – then where is the evidence that this is possible?

This same question could have been asked about putting a man on the moon less than a hundred years ago – a feat which at that time would have been almost more absurd than the ability to enhance the “human” aspects of life with machine intelligence. Heck, a hundred years ago, the Model T was a big deal, and right now we already have brain implants helping people move robotic limbs, and mice growing human ears on their backs. It might be said that “enhancement” technologies already do exist, but are – at present – being used for amelioration rather than augmentation.

With all that we’ve achieved in just the past 100 years, the “it hasn’t been done before, so it never will be done” argument seems weaker than ever. Before we could fly, it seemed natural to pose flight impossible. Before we could travel to the moon, this too seemed impossible. Breaking the 4-minute mile seemed “impossible” – even to scientists in the 1940’s. However, this natural human tendency to resist the possibility of drastic future change – or even relatively minor change, like the 4-minute mile – won’t seem to hold. I would argue that though we remain rational, any unfounded, “instinctual” resistance of change needs to be cleared away in order to make space for the conversations we should be having regarding the future of humanity and emerging technologies. Which brings us nicely to our next point:

“What Should We Be Asking?”

As mentioned before – with the advancement of technology not stopping anytime soon (or more appropriately, not ceasing to multiply in breathtaking speed any time soon) – important questions still need important answers, though many of them don’t have nearly adequate data as of now. Though some agree more whole-heartedly than others, Kurzweil’s law of accelerating returns – despite many potential failings and what some believe to be an oversimplification – is rather convincing. The “LOAR” (as it is sometimes called) states that the price / performance of information technology approximately doubles every year. From computers the size of rooms to computers in our phones, from ear trumpets to cochlear implants, this particularly convincing trend continues in myriad form.

It’s my position that we aught think seriously about why most people might instantly “turn down” ideas of enhancement as either “wrong” or “impossible” without more serious consideration. The debate – in the eyes of many (if not most) in the fields of technology and intelligence – is not a question of “possible” or “impossible.” The question also might end up being more about “human” or “inhuman,” and what elements of our biological nature we want to keep or surpass.

Whether we should or should not surpass biology is a continuing question that will inevitably lead to disagreement, but I believe a dogmatic “no” to the questions of enhancement will likely do more harm to an open mind, willing to consider issues, opportunities, and options for our human future. In this respect, fascination seems a more appropriate response than repulsion, and its safe to say that fascination (tapered with practical wisdom and hard work) will get a lot more done in terms of channeling these developments in ways that will matter most to humanity and the world.

About the Author:

Dan Faggella is a graduate of UPENN’s Master of Applied Positive Psychology program, as well as a national martial arts champion. His work focuses heavily on emerging technology and startup businesses (TechEmergence.com), and the pressing issues and opportunities with augmenting consciousness. His articles and interviews with philosophers / experts can be found at SentientPotential.com

Why Augmentation Isn’t So “Far Out”

May 7, 2013 by Daniel Faggella

The term “augmentation” – when referring to humans – has a tendency to call forth mental images of Terminator-like, red-eyed androids with steel limbs and laser guns. Tinkering with that is “human” may seem like a far-out concept, but from the vantage point of technology, it’s a process we’ve been engaged in since our earliest tools. For this same reason, many experts argue that “augmentation” is an inevitable result of our present technological efforts.

It serves us well to begin this article with definitions we can work with: (Dictionary.com)

Augment:

1. To make (something already developed or well under way) greater, as in size, extent, or quantity.

Enhance:

1. To make greater, as in value, beauty, or effectiveness; augment.

The first definitions of both terms are surprisingly similar, as they both relate to a kind of purposive betterment of something already in place. To “improve upon.” This desire for betterment and extending our capacities to achieve our objectives is the undercurrent of technology. It is also what will most likely make the transition to transhumanism inevitable.

Ray Kurzweil – in his new book “How to Create a Mind” – explains how he feels that Google and Wikipedia are like an extension of himself and of his own mental capacities. Like the first mallet or spear helped to extend man’s physical abilities, these tools help to extend our mental abilities in the present age. Kurzweil recalls that when Google and Wikipedia went on a SOPA strike in January of 2012, he felt as though part of his own mind was missing. I can imagine that an early hunter-gatherer would have felt that part of his body was missing if he’d had to spend a day trying to catch rabbit or boar with his bare hands.

Utility Wins – Why Wearable Computing is Taking Off

Google Glass has little chance of changing the world based on “cool” factor alone (though we all know a few people who will grab a pair for this reason alone). Rather, if Google Glass can meaningfully enhance our cognition by doing what it promises (price shopping online for products you’re looking at, pull up directions and maps in real time, let others “see” from your perspective), then it’s got a very good chance at being adopted.

But that’s it, right? Certainly, wearable computing is about as far as humanity will go without some kind of massive revolt. We aren’t just about to stand around and get turned into androids, are we?

Though acceptance with regards to a more literal “augmentation” of human-machine merger isn’t something we can be sure about either way, the clues seem to hint: “Go.”

When computers were the size of buildings, or large rooms of buildings, there was an initial inkling that these “devices” would never catch on. In the following decades when computers were small enough to have in our homes, there certainly must have been the same inkling (“Who needs one of these computing devices in their homes?”). I’ll admit, when the next wave hit with cell phones, I was certain that the world wouldn’t adopt the ability to be annoyed by email at any time or any place. Four years later my instinct has changed and I look confused when presented with a phone without GPS and email capability.

Google Glass represents the further extension of “wearable computing,” another trend with it’s inevitable proponents and it’s critics. It’s success, I pose, will be it’s utility to us – it’s ability to attain an end that we think we desire. Engadget.com put it well:

“That’s become clearer than ever with the advent of the personal computer, which in recent decades has drawn people away from the television, the radio, the calculator and countless other devices. More recently, we’ve seen that shift again with smartphones and tablets pulling people away from PCs, telephones, cameras and video game consoles. In each case, the new technology replacing the old has taken on a more central role in people’s lives. Whereas the personal computer became a hub in the home, the smartphone has become a source of ever-present connectivity and a near-constant accessory. Wearable computing promises to extend that always-on connection even further and, potentially, change the nature of what it means to be ‘connected.”

That “end” might be checking email everywhere and at all times. Some people may enjoy that feature, others may not. However, it might also be a more pleasant and engaging trip to museums, where real-time information about the pieces is presented. Some people may enjoy that feature, others may not. It could also mean less money spent shopping, there grocery or clothing prices could be compared in real time online and offline. If there is enough of this added utility – and the “ends” are strong enough – then Glass with catch on.

If Glass does not, another company likely will – and fast. Think about the chips already embedded in Nike shoes, or the “Pebble” watch / phone / iPod, or these rape defense underwear that zap would-be attackers. If the utility is there, then it’s coming, and thousands of companies are battling to lead that pack already.

Slippery Slope – “Cyborgs” as the Next Step?

The potentially “scary” next step is a literal merger with computing or “computational substrates” to enhance our experience or improve our functioning. Unlike other improvements and technological advancements (the bow and arrow, the printing press, the cotton jinn, the calculator, the cell phone), this actually represents a genuine shift in the human condition / human experience – via the senses and capacities granted to us.

From one perspective, technology has already changed the human condition. Certainly my life now is drastically different from that of a hunter-gatherer in the year 2,000 BC. However, if you tool a human from even 50,000 years ago and raised them from birth in our environment, or tool a human baby now and raised them in the african sahara, it would be evident that our faculties, needs, and capacities are essentially identical.

With the advent of embedded enhancement to our memory, implants to improve sensory perception, or reality simulators that capable of mentally transporting us to any time and place all represent potential steps that bring us well beyond the plateau of “human” on which we’ve perched for the last 50 millennia.

There are lines of thought that either rule out this transition (IE: neglect to take a technological merger into account of humanity’s future), or which believe that humanity simply wouldn’t allow for this kind of blasphemy to our human nature.

This is one of the reasons that some experts believe that it is ridiculous to imagine homo sapiens in the cockpits of spacecraft in the year 3,000 – as well as a slew of other interesting predictions.

However, despite the drastic step forward that this transition would represent, it’s motivations would still remain the same: attaining an end that we think we desire. Utility.

Hence, this slope is just as slippery as the slope of the phone and mobile computing, and the chasm of “cyborg” is already being crossed. Initially, we will cure blindness and enable paralyzed people to walk, talk, or regain use of a mechanized body through their still-active brain channels. We’re “okay” with helping people “in need,” but handicapped people are not the only ones with needs, and as the ability to attain desired ends is achieved by these technologies, enhancement – I believe – will be inevitable (Here, for example, is an article about memory implants being used for people with memory problems, that one can imagine might be very desirable for “normal” folks as well).

Eternal Vigilance and the Importance of a Path Forward

The trends and ramifications above present us with a unique set of challenges relating to the future of our race, of sentient beings, and of consciousness itself. To point in any one direction as “the answer” seems misguided, naive and dangerous. The “progress” of greatest importance will be our effective collaboration of expertise around the very careful, very calibrated “roll-out” of these sentience-altering technologies.

In a very serious sense, “tinkering” with consciousness and conscious experience itself represents the ultimate moral precipice – the most ethically significant action conceivable. Creating human-level consciousness with circuitry alone, manufacturing an infinite number of virtual realities, expanding our senses and cognition to millions of times their present capacities, extending virtual life forever inside of computational substrates to house trillions of living consciousnesses… all of these transitions are potentially plausible – and their direction will ultimately be guided by how we release them into the world.

The “answers” are not to be found in any kind of clear-cut fashion, but through a collaboration of mindfulness about the emergence and use of these technologies – we can give ourselves the best chance of ensuring their being leveraged beneficially in the world of tomorrow (which isn’t that far out).

About the Author:

Dan Faggella is a graduate of UPENN’s Master of Applied Positive Psychology program, as well as a national martial arts champion. His work focuses heavily on the transition to transhumanism, and the eminent issues and opportunities therein. His articles and interviews with philosophers / experts can be found at www.SentientPotential.com