Bio
Nordette is a freelance journalist, published fiction writer, poet, and the mother of two children. She is also a BlogHer.com Contributing Editor an...
 
 
 
 

The Cylons Cometh: Human-Machine Hybrids and our Impending Immortality

  • Share This Post
  • submit
  • 6
  • Sparkle (
    )
     

Calculating the rise and fall of science fiction books, television shows, and movies, I've determined the obvious. Science fiction is no longer dismissed easily as distractions for geeky misfits or as fanciful tales for children, and that may be because the world's observed science fiction over the years become science fact.

So, here I am at 50, a Star-Trek-Twilight-Zone-Outer-Limits-Lost-in-Space-fed child of the 1960s. When I finished high school in the 70s, universities anxiously pitched computer science to graduates with the right test scores, hoping potentials could be drafted to the future. My generation may be part of the reason television's pushing out science fiction shows -- the retired Lost; Fox's Fringe; CBS's FlashForward, which has been cancelled; and the return of V and Battlestar Galactica. The last on the list has given birth to a prequel, Caprica.

Battlestar Galactica Cylon
Image by kodiax via Flickr

My generation grew up on television, pressed the on-buttons of the first personal computers, made playing video games the cool thing to do as we nursed our Pac-Man addictions, and passed our growing dependence on technology onto our children who flock to movie theaters jonesing for special effects and silver screen spectacles that make them believe not only can Superman fly, but so can they. And they dream it into their visual arts, dance, music, and want so much more.

My daughter, 29, is working on a novel about a female general in a matriarchal society, and I am working on a novel about humans in peril on another planet. She and I had a discussion a few months ago about technology. I said, "I look at the world and see gadgets that 30 years ago would have been called impossible. We're seeing products and events today that were the stuff of science fiction in the fifties and sixties. I mean, I remember when the big deal was to have a car phone, a big clunky thing that cost too much and had to stay in the car. Here we are with cell phones almost anyone can purchase that are small enough to lose in a purse. Cell phones are like the size of Star Trek communicators."

She nodded. Living with me, she's watched me skip popular drama television to watch documentaries that plod along about evolution or mutation of the Y chromosome or the coming age of nanotechnology. She's joined her brother and me to watch films featuring Stephen Hawkings, not the popular stuff he's done lately, but the old stuff where a narrator's dry voice tells of black holes and Schrödinger's Cat and have interviewers with theoretical physicists who say Hawkings is not as bright as less popular physicists. She's been there when my son, now 19, has looked from the television to her to me to his own body and exclaimed, "OMG! We're a nerd herd."

Consequently, she was not surprised when I came home with a copy of the May 22-28 issue of The Economist with the cover "And Man Made Life: The first artificial organism and its consequences." Its editorial piece on that article is subtitled, "Artificial life, the stuff of dreams and nightmares, has arrived."

TO CREATE life is the prerogative of gods. Deep in the human psyche, whatever the rational pleadings of physics and chemistry, there exists a sense that biology is different, is more than just the sum of atoms moving about and reacting with one another, is somehow infused with a divine spark, a vital essence. It may come as a shock, then, that mere mortals have now made artificial life.

Yes, my dear Virginia, humans are near designing artificial life on laptops from the comfort of their homes. As for the nightmare part, all I can say is think of the possibilities for larger creatures. Think of that movie Splice.

Science, Technology, and Bioethics

I talked to blogger Yvette Perry about this latest advance. In her own words, here's Yvette's background:

In my current job my research focus is research ethics, in particular how to educate and train graduate and undergraduate students in the responsible conduct of research. My educational background includes a graduate minor in Bioethics. In my PhD program I focused on the ethics of assisted reproductive technologies and adoption; my dissertation concerned the beliefs about genetics held by adoptive mothers.

Naturally,

  • 6
  • Sparkle (
    )
     

Comments

Post comment as twitter logo facebook logo
Sort: Newest | Oldest
Mata H 5 pts

The ethics of all this are key. If creating a synthetic being is possible, how long do you imagine it would take to create them as worker-drones? slaves? sexual slaves? I know that sounds crazy, but ...

I remember when Dolly the sheep was cloned, and the Dalai Lama was asked what he thought. If I recall correctly (I looked for it on the web just now and can't find it) he said something like "Life is Life! But he added that the intention of the developer was very central.

As for me -- it scares me.

~~ Contributing Editor, Mata H. also blogs right along at Time's Fool ( http://timesfool.blogspot.com )

n2ative1 5 pts

Iva

No Retreat -- No Surrender!

Yes!! I do remember that Twilight Zone episode. A favorite of mine.

Statistics for ratios of completion and order assignment accuracy where I work are based on what the machine tells them. These metrics are reported to upper management using colorful charts in PowerPoint. It is done with much enthusiasm, and the heartfelt knowledge that the numbers are an accurate depiction of that department's proficiency and usefulness. Wonder if the stats you mention are equally as accurate?

Nordette Adams 6 pts

Remember "To Serve Man"? :-)

I'm picturing you spending your day fixing "mess" created by automated systems.

There's probably some stat somewhere telling us how many dollars, how much time, and how many lives automated systems have saved. Still, your last thought hit a chord:
Trust me when I tell you that once this little fact becomes a part of a “thinking” machine’s self-programming, humanity will exist only to service the machinery.Nordette Adams ( http://www.bookotopia.com ) is a BlogHer CE ( http://www.blogher.com/haystackprofile/viewprofile... ) & you can find her other stuff through Her 411 ( http://her411.com ).

n2ative1 5 pts

Iva

No Retreat -- No Surrender!

What I admire about Kurzweil’s take on this is his understanding that technology can be beneficial as well as create ugliness. To realize this fact is important, but he admits his optimistic view. I don’t share his optimism.

Like it or not, evidence that the phenomenon has already begun is all around us. Those in denial or not paying attention will find themselves clueless; carried along in the wave. Those of us who understand the implications will not be surprised, but may find it isn’t what we expected. Those who think they know or believe they have some control over it are going to be deeply disappointed.

What I find troublesome is that mankind is notorious for believing it can control things it cannot. Humans often undertake vast projects with “half-vast” ideas. See also the current oil spill in the gulf. Depending on the nature of a person, motivation can range from financial greed to a desire to win scientific notoriety. It breeds a single-mindedness that typically doesn’t examine long-term repercussions.

It has been observed that technological advances mirror science fiction. You point out how our current “communicators” resemble those from the original Star Trek television series. This is just one of hundreds of things we use and take for granted today that were science fiction only a few decades ago. I don’t believe it is a mirror, but rather that those who create science fiction are also the brain power behind technology. It isn’t that they set out to imitate what they saw on the big (or small) screen. Instead, it is more likely a progression and perfection of existing ideas.

A more troubling thought is the number of warnings—if you will—in science fiction that are being ignored. “I Robot,” “Terminator,” and “2001: A Space Odessy” all imply that allowing artificial intelligence to control infrastructure ultimately ends in disaster for humanity. So, why do scientists disregard these warnings and continue to work at creating a “smart” machine? The mantra is technology makes our lives easier. Is easier really a good thing? In my work, the corporate desire to automate creates more and more work for me. I constantly find myself doing back-end manual “fixes” to overcome the mess made by the automated systems. It’s damned uncomfortable. The automation does not dig deep, or research. It merely follows protocols.

You see, the back-end fixes I must create exist to accommodate human error. Typographical errors, resistance to change and refusal to follow processes continue to confound automation. The propensity to send an email, versus have a phone call to address an issue further disconnects humanity, breaks down communication and fouls up the “system.” The system isn’t designed to think that way. At some point in time, a smart machine will recognize several very important facts and act on them. One, humans are imperfect. Two, they (the machines) are already in control. Three, eliminating human interaction would greatly improve automation. Trust me when I tell you that once this little fact becomes a part of a “thinking” machine’s self-programming, humanity will exist only to service the machinery.

Nordette Adams 6 pts

Please do that, and thank you for commenting.

Nordette Adams ( http://www.bookotopia.com ) is a BlogHer CE ( http://www.blogher.com/haystackprofile/viewprofile... ) & you can find her other stuff through Her 411 ( http://her411.com ).

launcher 5 pts

Nice essay.

I'm heading to the Neural Interfaces conference on Monday. I'll report back if Kurzweil's prediction about human-machine hybrids in 20 years is reasonable. ;)

http://www.neuralinterfaces2010.com/