Horizon: Human Version 2.0
25 Oct 2006
Last night I watched one of those programmes that really messes up your brain. The science documentary, Horizon, peered into the not too distant future, 2029, the date when neuroengineers, quantum physicist and futurologists believe we will achieve ‘singularity’ – the point at which our understand of the workings of the human mind will be comprehensive, converging with an artificial intelligence equal in power and complexity to our own brain and so bring about a new form of human being – Human Version 2.0.
For some, like Hugo de Garl, a scientist who builds neural networks, this is an apocalyptic vision, a world where billions will die in a technologically driven war. For others, such as Ray Kurzweil, this will mean immortality, giving us the capability to download our memories, dreams and thought processes before uploading them again once more into a new biological body, and so allow our minds at least to go on forever. Or better still, link our brain with an artificial intelligence, enhancing our intellectual potential a billion-fold.
continued
Though the programme recognised the moral and philosophical dilemmas the possibility of the ‘singularity’ would raise, my mind couldn’t help turning to theological questions. For the ancients, immortality was sought from the gods, and humanity played out the journey from death to life in myth, ritual and eschatological vision. In our futures, immortality will be found in the ‘singularity’ and bestowed upon us by the artificial gods of our own making – God version 2.0. Our essence will forever be downloaded, and upgraded. Not myth, not even science fiction – for what all those taking part in the programme agree – we will reach the ‘singularity’ and humanity will irrevocably be altered by this event.
If you want to watch the whole thing for yourself, or simply get video-cast summaries of the main issues then you can: here.
I’d also recommend a more measured view of the future by Susan Greenfield, here: here
What I’d like to know is this: Is anyone thinking through the theological implications of rapid technological advance?
16 comments
Trackback
Comment by Stephen Garner
1.53 am on 26 Oct 2006
Well, there’s me :-) Four years worth of PhD thesis on theological engagement with this exact topic hopefully coming to an end in the next month. (See the “Research” category on my blog.)
The transhumanist Journal of Evolution and Technology had a special issue relating to religion and transhumanism last year. I’ve got an article in there on how Christian social concern interacts with these sorts of ideas. Basically, some preliminary work but might be of interest.
http://www.jetpress.org/volume14/garner.html
I’d also recommend Joel Garreau’s book “Radical Evolution” as a readable introduction to the topic, and it covers both positive and negative views of these convergent technologies.
Comment by Paul
10.20 am on 26 Oct 2006
Alan, I agree, it really messes up my brain too… here I am still thinking that digital watches are a nifty idea, as Douglas Adams would have described me…
Just a wondering, will humanity 2.0 embrace emotions? I can see how we can get have wiki on our fingertips or maybe download instance knowledge aka the matrix how to fly a helicopter, but what about thoughts/feelings/creativity/expression? Those sorts of essences of the soul?
Comment by Jon Green
2.40 pm on 26 Oct 2006
Hi Jason, this post takes me back a few years to our conversations about theology and technological advances. Also to The Culture books by Iain M Banks.
One of the guys I find helpful on this area is BT’s futurist Ian Pearson. I would love to get this guy to engage with a group of church practitioners. http://www.btinternet.com/~ian.pearson/docindex.htm
Comment by Jon Green
2.42 pm on 26 Oct 2006
Oops, sorry, didn’t realise that it was you Alan.
Comment by Helen
3.15 pm on 26 Oct 2006
I find that these sorts of things always raise questions about theology I can’t answer.
On the other hand, I find that life in general does that ;)
Comment by brodie
3.17 pm on 26 Oct 2006
Jason I agree that this is something we need to think through theologically, I do wonder however if the \
Comment by brodie
3.20 pm on 26 Oct 2006
opps I seem to have lost most of what I was trying to say in the above comment so here goes again…Jason I agree that this is something we need to think through theologically, I do wonder however if the “experts” are a tad optimistic re reaching singularity. I didn’t see the programme but read a related article on the BBC web site. The expert predicted that “power” of computers would continue to increase at the same rate as they have to date. I find it hard to accept such linear progress; there must be a tailing off in progress in this area. So yes perhaps singularity will occur, but by 2029? I very much doubt it.
Comment by Alan Mann
6.23 pm on 26 Oct 2006
Stephen and Jon, thanks for the heads-up on some thinking about such things. I’ll take a look.
Comment by dh
10.02 pm on 26 Oct 2006
To me it brings to mind many of the things the Book of Revelations indirectly talks about (aka one world government, mark of the beast, anti-Christ,etc.) I know many of the EC camp cringe at the terms but to me the coincidence of this subject in line with the Book of Revelations seems more than a coincidence. Not that this will be soon but it is fascinating to see events that show the “growing pains” of Christs impending return. It is wonderful to know that God could come now or He could come 1000 years from now but the point in all of this is to be anxious for Christs return and to agree with you Jason live for Him whatever the timeframe may be. :)
Comment by Stephen Garner
10.11 pm on 26 Oct 2006
Brodie, one of the most popular pieces recently in which an “expert” doesn’t buy into the techno-optimism of the Singularity is Bill Joy’s “Why the future doesn’t need us.”
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy.html
The novels “Prey” by Michael Crichton and “Blood Music” by Greg Bear also look at when it all goes wrong in the current or near future.
BTW – the Singularity relies upon exponential technological developent not linear development. This gives the Singularitarians their increasingly compressed time scale.
A related, but off the topic, theme would be how pastoral ministry interacts with decisions that ordinary people have to make in the face of emerging biotechnology and information technology.
For the academically minded, Karen Lebacqz’ paper “Bioethics—Eleven Approaches” in Dialog: A Journal of Theology, 43/2 (Summer 2004) looked at the pastoral implications for each different approach with respect to patients receiving medical care.
Comment by brodie
9.36 am on 27 Oct 2006
Stephen – thanks for the correction, exponential is what I meant but not what I wrote.
I think one of the things that worries me is ethics has become such a specialist area within theology that many people who do a theology degree and become thinkers and leaders within the church do not really have the tools to navigate through such complicated issues. We therefore often default to opinions which are often simplistic.
Comment by Stephen Garner
6.45 am on 28 Oct 2006
I’d agree with you, Brodie.
An even then, the ethical teaching people get is slanted towards ethics that come out of “personal morality” – so sexual ethics and “what would Jesus do?” in my personal situation. Little in the way of social ethics.
If technology is the “air that we breathe” in Western society then a more widespread approach to thinking about that environment is needed. And the church *should* be able to draw upon not just theologians but its own practitioners at the coal face in health, business, politics, education and science/technology to raise issues and help educate the church (and church leadership and theologians etc.) about our world.
Still, most engagement seems to be at the level of building church web sites and how to use Powerpoint effectively in worship.
I’ve never seen anyone do a study, for example, on ethical issues relating to technology in worship.
Comment by ZooMuse
1.41 pm on 28 Oct 2006
I have been recently thinking about the Tower of Babel, though not sure why! I wonder what those engaged in the building process thought? I wonder what those around as observers thought and felt as they watched this go up. I wonder if there is any correlation between Babel and Singularity. If so, what will be the 21st century equivalent of God’s response at Babel? If we were to graph the process of tehcnological advancement, and then overlay it on a graph of the increased moral degradation we are experiencing (Government is now talking about prison ships to deal with overcrowding; can’t transport them to Australia any longer!), we would see any correlation between the two graphs? The moral issues you refer to in your post are the current issue of nuclear power in Iran and North Korea, writ larger and more frightening. We’re not doing well with what we have. Human irresponsibility and moral equivocation (in the face of those who think humankind is improving) stands in the shadowy background of our increasing ability to “rule over” the earth. Perhaps this is why we’re cuationed in Hebrews to consider how to stimulate one another to love and good deeds, as well as to encourage one another, and all the more, as we see the day of Christ drawing near.
Comment by Simon S
8.08 am on 29 Oct 2006
Horizon always sensationalizes things! All that was shown was the equivalent of a TV remote control. You can control things with your brain. Great, something less to lose in the sofa when I want to switch channels!
There’s still no reporting of any understanding of how emergent features such as consciousness comes from a group of brain cells firing electrical / chemical signals at each other.
An interesting question is whether machine consciousness (if it happens) modelled on our own will have a need for God!
Comment by ZooMuse
4.10 pm on 29 Oct 2006
I am reminded of a poster I saw in Germany: Der Mensch plannt…und Gott Lacht.
A person plans…and God laughs.
Comments are now closed.