inkbluesky

bombs and roses 

Enhancing Humanity 

The most often repeated claim is that we are on the verge of technological breakthroughs – in genetic engineering, in pharmacotherapy and in the replacement of biological tissues (either by cultured tissues or by electronic prostheses) – which will dramatically transform our sense of what we are and will thereby threaten our humanity. A little bit of history may be all that is necessary to pour cooling water on fevered imaginations. In 1960, leading computer scientists, headed by the mighty Marvin Minsky, predicted that by 1990 we would have developed computers so smart that they would not even treat us with the respect due to household pets. Our status would be consequently diminished. Anyone seen any of those? Smart drugs that would transform our consciousness have been expected for 50 years, but nothing yet has matched the impact of alcohol, peyote, cocaine, opiates, or amphetamines, which have been round a rather long time.

[  ]…So don’t hold your breath; you’ll die of anoxia. Of course changes will come about eventually. But it is the pace of change that matters. We can individually and collectively adapt to gradual technological changes; that is why they never quite present the insuperable challenges some doomsayers and dystopians anticipate. In Victorian times, it was anticipated that going through a dark tunnel in a train at high speed (30 mph) would be such a shocking experience that people would come out the other side irreversibly damaged. In one of his last poems, published in 1850, Wordsworth opined that the infantility of illustrated newspapers – the first tentative steps towards the multimedia of today – would drive us back to “caverned life’s first rude career” (’Illustrated Books and Newspapers’), and he felt that the endless influx of news from daily papers would incite us to a level of unbearable restlessness.

There is a lot of this article or really a book review combined with an essay that I tend to agree with. Though there are some details I would argue with and a few things that I would have added. One aspect that should always be considered with technological changes, including biotech is that with every benefit there is a trade off. Some people are thrilled with Twitter to announce every little move they make to the world or using MySpace to reveal the most intimate details of their lives. In Twitter’s case Even a month’s worth of glib messages will not make me feel closer to someone or give me more insights into the human condition then a Melville novel. Personal details and MySpace, well sometimes its just more then I needed to know - in many cases its poorly written Henry Miller. All OK except when a trend sweeps people up in a new social standard. Suddenly you’re reluctance to keep some personal things personal becomes a snub to others when all you’re doing is keeping your personal affairs personal. Truth or Dare becomes truth or else you’re an outcast.

The other dilemma they we’re increasingly headed toward to the better living through chemistry. That’s a little more complex and does involve questions about the fundmental nature of who we are.

Yes, we shall change; but the essence of human identity lies in this continuing self-redefinition. And if we remember that our identity and our freedom lie in the intersection between our impersonal but unique bodies and our personal individual memories and shared cultural awareness, it is difficult to worry about the erosion of either our identity or our freedom by technological advance.

Kate Winslet.    Little Children (2006), Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004), Romance & Cigarettes (2005) - The last not widely seen because of studio politics. It’s bacause of incidents like this that some studio executives and lawyers are rightly called weasels.