92

Professor Stephen Hawking  and Elon Musk (PayPal, Tesla, SpaceX) among others, recently warned again for the consequences of our own inventions like robots and artificial intelligence (AI). Already a few years ago, Hawking advised mankind to explore space faster to find one or more planets to escape to from the consequences of our own existence. What he obviously meant is that we should put some people as they are today somewhere in a "zoo". The next evolution of mankind could still enjoy the existence of the  current one long after it became extinct. The only difference is that we put ourselves in a zoo now as opposed to wait before our successors do that. After all, we are quite convinced that our successors are already knocking at our door.

Although I do feel sympathy for my own species, I believe it's rather arrogant to believe mankind is the best thing nature can develop or even will develop.

Since about a few billion of years, species come and go. The process of "survival of the fittest" as discovered by Charles Darwin, creates new ones. Sudden environmental changes like a climate change or a meteor can reduce the number of species quite instantly. Mankind, as the current end of the food chain, has shown some destructive influence on nature too. Species became or will become extinct because they are hunted down by humans for fun or some (fake) value, we eat them until none are left, we consider them as dangerous so we just kill them to remove them from our neighborhood, we destroy their habitat by introducing diseases or new predators, or simply to grow corn or breed cattle and there are even some people who believe animals have to be killed for scientific reasons. 

The best thing we do today is preserving some leftover descendants of endangered animal species in a zoo with a breeding program so we can at least entertain ourselves with their existence. Or we're putting their DNA in a freezer so we might revive the species somewhere in the future for some reason.

The big difference with letting nature follow its usual pace is that mankind is developing its own successor at a speed which resembles to what Gods are supposed to be able to do. 

One promising track is lead by biological researchers. The human genome is read and known at molecular level and every day scientists connect specific functions or characteristics of human life to genes. Medicine is already treating people with gene-therapy, artificially modified DNA to replace natural but erroneous DNA causing a disease. It's only one bus-stop away from improving a child before it is born with characteristics from a menu. Hair color, 40 IQ points above average, resistance against almost any disease including aging, etc. etc.. After all, some scientists consider age a disease, something we can cure once we understand the repair mechanisms of cells and DNA-strings especially at both ends, the telomeres

There will be nothing we can do against that. A human "Dolly" will emerge soon (if not already there) followed by a modified one shortly there after. We can be afraid and "against" it like some are against modified corn but somewhere in the world there always will be someone experimenting further than maybe is allowed to. A new "breed" can be developed within one generation or even faster when advanced technology can reduce childhood to a few months or years.

The second major development comes from more mechanical technology: computers eventually showing human-like intelligence and beyond. It's not about math and memory. Computers have beaten mankind already decades ago with that. No, it's about human-like communication including lying and cheating, philosophy and problem solving at a level we can not  do today ourselves. Developments like IBM's WatsonApple's Siri  or IPsoft's Amelia  are already promising although there is still a long way to go. The real acceleration will come when AI starts to improve itself at a pace even a God can only dream about. I guess besides solving human problems like about energy, food and medicine it will soon find a solution for artificial reproduction too. 

It's hard to say when one of above mentioned streams will show a breathtaking breakthrough. Statistic extrapolations similar to "Moore's Law" lead to a timeframe of about 15-25 years. I know, we've said that before in the 1950's or so but there were no reliable statistics at that time like we have today. But even if this prediction proves to be a little over-enthusiastic and it takes a bit longer, still the outcome is inevitable.

It will be quite overwhelming if not seriously  problematic for mankind as a whole. On ethics, social and philosophical level but on economic level too. A first nasty question has to be answered soon: "Who has access to more intelligence for one-selves and at what price?" The second question will show up shortly thereafter: "What is the nature of the new species we have developed?". After all, if life is defined by something that can reproduce itself and can come up with thoughts like "Cogito, ergo sum" it will be hard to defy a modified human or a human-like thinking computer as a life form or even human. 

Maybe if like the robot Andrew from Asimov's Bicentennial Man the new breed shows a certain willingness to die, current mankind will accept modified humans or AI better. On the other end, that is actually a little hypocrite. With its medical and other science mankind does its best to find solutions not to die and tries to replace every part of a human body with artificial ones for medical or cosmetic reasons. Maybe mankind has an underlying wish to become as artificial as possible after all. Probably to avoid the (un)expectations of nature as much as possible.

So, what are we afraid of actually? Isn't it human nature to be proud of our creations in general and of our children more specifically? Children in their teens "know better than their parents" and try to "outsmart" them  already since the beginning of mankind. However in this case, the difference will be a little more profound. If there are only "children" with an IQ of over 200 (based on our current average), "outsmarting parents" needs a new definition. 

And then: "And what do we do with the 'old'  mankind?". Well, we can at least put them in a zoo.

 

(big thanks to Arend van Dam and Linda Bucklin for their great cartoons)