Digital Future
Technology is everywhere; in almost everything we do, everything we see and everything we have there is some form of technology. Think, for a moment, what life would be like without technology. How would you communicate? How would you live? Where would you live? When it comes down to it, technology is responsible for our present. This then stems the question: how will technology shape our future? In the movies, the digital future is one filled with robots, artificial intelligence, human-machine hybrids, cyborgs, cloning, and everything else the mind can think of almost always resulting in something incredibly harmful to humanity. But where did technology begin? And it is really plausible to consider that the plots of so many science fiction movies could have an element of truth for our digital future? In this essay I will attempt to explore our possible digital future by examining the history of technology, as we know it, contemplating the possibilities that the future of technology and mankind may hold and my opinion regarding the ethical issues that arise from these technological possibilities.
Technology, as we know it today, has been evolving since the original development of the alphabet. The alphabet revolutionised communication by creating a way in which information to be stored indefinitely. Over time the alphabet became more complex and sophisticated and could communicate more and more information. The alphabet as we know it today can be traced back “some twenty-three centuries to its home in central Italy” (Taylor, 71). Arguably, this is the first and most significant technological development of all time; without language, there would be no basis upon which one could build and advance. That is, if some form of complex written communication that had the power to convey complex and very detailed information accurately had not been created, technological advancements would never had happened. Technology, as we know it today, is built by using complex information and languages, which would not have been possible, had the builders and inventors only had their memory to rely on.
Jumping ahead from the development of the alphabet to the technology we have today, there is a lot of emphasis on interactivity. Technology progressed from a device into which a user had to input information with an external source (such as typing on a computer with a keyboard) to being able to input information in a much more natural way. Think, for example, the iPad: it has a touch screen on which the user can ‘push’ objects around (such as pages, icons, etc). This pushing motion seems a lot more natural to the user than learning to navigate an unknown interface. This concept of interactivity developed, in no small part, as a result of the research and work done by Myron Kreuger. Krueger, after being discontented by the way in which information had to be input into a computer, designed an interactive computer system that not only recognised the user’s body and used the user’s whole body as a means of inputting information, but it also reacted and adapted to that user’s movements and actions. The process of inputting information then leaked into more modern technologies, with the uprise of touch screens and devices, which sense a user’s body movements and use them as a method of gathering and understanding commands. Kreuger believed that “evolution prepared us to see ourselves on television screens combined with computer images”. This version of evolution is interesting, it is as though we as the human species remain the same (rather than mutating) and instead develop technology as a substitute form of evolution.
Considering this new form of evolution, it seems logical that in our digital future humans will begin not only creating technology that can be used externally, but will also begin to create technology that alters or enhances the human form. These alterations, could be additional limbs, ways in which the body could be preserved, etc which would give birth to the human-cyborg or a kind of advanced and enhanced humanoid. On the other hand, it is very possible that technology could synthetically create beings with human characteristics, such as a sentient human clone or a robot that is in every way human, except that it is made of synthetic materials rather than biological ones. While the notions of cloning and humanoids are fascinating, I am much more interested in the ethical and moral implications of these possible technologies, as I feel they play a significant role into whether or not these technologies will be developed commercially.
Having briefly discussed the history of technology as well some of the possibilities of humanity’s digital future, it is important at this point to consider the ethical and moral issues that arise from these possible directions for humanity. The most prominent, arguably, is that of rights; if, for instance a human was successfully cloned, whether sentient or not, would this clone have rights? Would this being ever be considered human, or a separate species? This same consideration applies to other plausible technological possibilities; humanoid robots, intelligent systems or artificial intelligence and cyborgs could all bear the characteristics of being human, so to what point should each of these be called human, if at all? And, if these were to be labelled as human, would they have the same rights as, for lack of a better term, naturally born humans? Assuming that clones, cyborgs, humanoid robots and artificial intelligence did have rights and were considered human, how would society accept them? Would society accept them at all?
Ethical considerations such as these begin to stem into the realm of science fiction. Many movies have brushed upon the issues of rights or attitudes of naturally born humans towards artificial humans or humanoids.
To answer these questions, one must consider the technologies that are already accepted in our current society that can be classified as ‘artificial human’: artificial or bionic limbs, pacemakers, hearing aids, etc and extrapolating each scenario to include more extreme examples of the digital future.
Take, for instance, a bionic arm. When considering bionic limbs on humans in today’s society, these limbs are always a replacement for one, which has been lost in an accident or otherwise. This, with our current method of thinking, is completely reasonable. Others without bionic limbs may ever pity those with replacements, as they are missing part of their natural selves and has had it replaced by a technological shell. This way of thinking implies that the technological replacement is inferior to the original limb. This may be because the technology of artificial limbs is still relatively primitive to what is sure to come in the near future. According to Linda J. Marks, the developments surrounding prosthetic and artificial limbs promise to advance the technology drastically, providing increased comfort and mobility to those who use replacement limbs. Marks also comments that artificial limbs that are directly attached to residual bone, also known as skeletal attachment, may become more common over a period of a few decades as further testing must still be done. This, however, remains an acceptable use of technology to repair the human body.
Compare the scenario of a man losing a limb and replacing it with an artificial one to a scenario in which a man has had a bionic limb installed in addition to their natural limbs. This, one can imagine, would not be met with the same acceptance that a replacement limb is. Perhaps this is because it is ‘unnatural’ or ‘unhuman’ – it is certain many people, religious institutions in particular, would see it that way. However, perhaps this is because it is making aware the difference between technology as a replacement for something lost and technology as an enhancement. An enhancement such as this to the human body would have a very different reaction to that of a replacement limb; those without additional limbs and especially those without an understanding of this kind of technology would very likely fear and distrust those with this additional arm, leg or other biotic addition.
Extend this consideration of public to reaction to that of human cloning. It is logical to assume that if human cloning were to ever become a serious consideration for our digital future, there would be at least some discomfort rega
rdless of whether or not the clone was sentient, could feel pain or had any of the characteristics that we define as human. It, again, raises the question of when something can be considered human. If, on the other hand, clones were created sentient and were in every way human, one may assume, incorrectly in my opinion, that they would be accepted into society. I, on the other hand, consider that human cloning, especially that of sentient human cloning, would result in a new kind of class system. This class system would situate ‘natural humans’ – that is, those born of another human by procreation as we know it today – above ‘synthetic humans’ – those born by a synthetic process such as science (this of course ignores practices such as IVF which use both synthetic and natural methods; an embryo is created using artificial methods then carried to term naturally. However, for the purposes of this argument, IVF will be considered ‘natural’). This class system would, quite possibly, mimic racism in its execution; synthetic humans would be considered less than natural humans and would most likely be considered less than human, thereby nullifying human rights. In my opinion, human cloning would result in slavery and mistreatment of synthetic humans.
The outrage that would be created by bionic and technological additions to the human body as well as the class system that would develop as a result of human cloning can both be attributed to a lack of understanding by natural humans and society in general. This could be due to religious beliefs that man should not ‘play god’, but for those without religious beliefs or preconceptions, this discomfort could be a mindset much like that of racism; a term such as ‘techno-humanism’ (that is, discomfort or fear caused by the alteration or creation of humanity by technology) could be coined to describe this more accurately.
Techno-humanism would, like racism, be lessened through education, exposure and understanding which could result in the successful integration of humanoid robots, those with additional and unnecessary biotic implants or cyborgs, and human clones into society. However, this attitude of difference would be difficult to overcome. Should these technologies become more common and viable for our digital future, it is very likely that an attitude like that of techno-humanism would remain prominent or at least present in society.
By examining the history of technology from the development of the alphabet to the technology that is currently available, as well as speculating the sorts of technology that will be available in the future, one can paint quite a clear picture of what our digital future looks like. Also, by contemplating and discussing the ethical issues that could arise from the technological possibilities of synthetic humans, one can consider the effect that these possibilities have not only in a scientific or technological sense, but also in a sociological sense. This not only gives a different view on our digital future, but also allows for analysis – are these possibilities of our digital future really worth the trouble they could cause? Do the positives outweigh the negatives? In either case, our digital future is not without fault; as simplified and easy as technology makes our lives, it also has the power to complicate and change them.
Bibliography:
The alphabet: an account of the origin and development of letters, Volume 1 by Isaac Taylor, P.70-74 https://books.google.com.au/books?id=XS4y4dWcA64C&printsec=frontcover&dq=the+alphabet&hl=en&ei=SqYbToarFer1mAXa8rDpBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
Myron Krueger - Videoplace, Responsive Environment, 1972-1990s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmmxVA5xhuo
Human Cloning in the Media: from science fiction to science practice by Joan Haran
P.16-20
https://books.google.com.au/books?id=esWrZ4T1jmAC&pg=PA19&dq=%22technological+genealogies%22&hl=en&ei=nJEbTsaWAsidmQXR3KXYBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false
Introduction to Artificial Life, Volume 1 by Christoph Adami
P.3-7
https://books.google.com.au/books?id=2wouAc-WOnYC&printsec=frontcover&dq=artificial+life&hl=en&ei=75MbTvTtCu7qmAX0rLTQBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false
Foundations of Digital Government by Stephen Coleman in Digital Government: E-Government Research, Case Studies, and Implementation by Hsinchun Chen et al
P.3-19
https://books.google.com.au/books?id=7NMb4DU7s3YC&pg=PA15&dq=digital+interactivity&hl=en&ei=6JUbTqivD6PjmAW-pIDjBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CDsQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=digital%20interactivity&f=false
Developing Virtual Reality Applications: Foundations of Effective Design by Alan B. Craig, William R. Sherman, Jeffrey D. Will
P.8-12
https://books.google.com.au/books?id=2P91gPYr5KkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=virtual+reality&hl=en&ei=xZobTqeEFc6MmQW81-jPBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CGAQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q&f=false
Figurations of the Cyborg in Contemporary Science Fiction Novels and Film by Christine Cornea in A Companion to Science Fiction by David Seed
P.275-288
https://books.google.com.au/books?id=PiphRocVYRwC&pg=PA275&dq=cyborg+in+contemporary+film&hl=en&ei=IJ4bTqW8I8f0mAWTpNTxBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=cyborg%20in%20contemporary%20film&f=false
Cyborgism: cyborgs, performance and society By David Kreps
P.39-55
https://books.google.com.au/books?id=VC8MaNqVmbYC&pg=PA39&dq=stelarc&hl=en&ei=Gp8bTtmGG6uJmQX_v5j3Bw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=stelarc&f=false
Marks, Linda; Michael, John. Artificial limbs. 2001
https://www.bmj.com/content/323/7315/732.full