“How is having a cochlear implant that helps the deaf hear any different than having a chip in your brain that could help control your thoughts?” —Michael Goldblatt, former director of DARPA’s Defense Sciences Office, quoted in the Atlantic
What’s the difference between reading books all day and playing video games?
Come on, what’s the difference between spending your time with friends and family “in person” and spending your time with them virtually?
How is having a child through cloning any different from having a child the old-fashioned way?
Why is the feeling of happiness that you have after a good day any different from the feeling of happiness I have after I take this drug?
Why is talking with your spouse and children using your mouth and ears different, in any way that counts, from communicating with them through brain chips that link your minds directly?
We already pick our mates with some idea of what our kids might look and act like. How is that any different from genetically engineering our children so they look and act the way we want?
Don’t we already send our children to school to make them smarter? How is that any different from just downloading information straight into their brains?
If your grandmother is already in a nursing home, what’s the difference if the nurses are robots?
Memory is already so fluid and fallible that we forget things all the time; what’s the difference if we just help people forget things they would rather not be stuck remembering?
What does it matter, in the end, if a soldier is killed by another soldier or by a robot?
How is it really different if, instead of marrying other human beings, some people choose to marry and have sex with machines programmed for obedience and pleasure?
What’s the difference if our bodies are replaced by machines?
In the scheme of things, what’s the difference if humanity is replaced with artificial life? The persistence of intelligence is all that matters, right?
What’s the difference?
Friday, September 25, 2015
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Bloggers
Charles T. Rubin, New Atlantis contributing editor.
Adam Keiper, New Atlantis senior editor.
Ari N. Schulman, New Atlantis editor.
Brendan Foht, New Atlantis assistant editor.
Mark Gubrud, Futurisms contributor.
About

Blogroll
Related essays
by Charles T. Rubin
- Machine Morality and Human Responsibility
- Beyond Mankind
- Why Be Human?
- Our Bodies, Ourselves
- The Rhetoric of Extinction
- Man or Machine?
- Artificial Intelligence and Human Nature
by Adam Keiper
by Adam Keiper and Ari N. Schulman
by Ari N. Schulman
by Mark Gubrud
by other authors
- Humanism and Transhumanism (Fred Baumann)
- The Trouble with the Turing Test (Mark Halpern)
- Disenchanting Determinism (Caitrin Nicol)
- The Anti-Theology of the Body (David B. Hart)
- Ageless Bodies, Happy Souls (Leon R. Kass)
- Transitional Humanity (Gilbert Meilaender)
- Till Malfunction Do Us Part (Caitrin Nicol)
- Methuselah and Us (Diana Schaub)

Frequently-Used Tags
"There's Plenty of Room at the Bottom"
1984
2001
30 Rock
Aaron Saenz
Abraham Lincoln
academia
addiction
Adi Robertson
Adventures of Huckleberry Finn
advertising
aesthetics
Agents of Shield
Agnes Heller
AI
AirLand Battle
AirSea Battle
Al Jazeera
Alan Jacobs
Alan Rubenstein
Alasdair MacIntyre
Alcor
Aldous Huxley
Alex Backer
Alex Knapp
aliens
Allen Buchanan
Alta Charo
Amy Gutmann
Ana Maria Cuervo
Anders Sandberg
Andrew Hessel
animal uplift
Anna Salamon
anti-progress
Apple
argument from inevitability
argument from infallibility
Ari N. Schulman
Aristotle
arms control
art
Arthur C. Clarke
artifacts
Artificial intelligence
artificial life
artificial wombs
Asilomar
assisted reproductive technology
assumption of mediocrity
Aubrey de Grey
Audrey Hepburn
augmented reality
authenticity
automation
autonomous weapon system
autonomy
Avatar
avian flu
AWS
beauty
behavioral science
Ben Goertzel
Benjamin Storey
Beyond Therapy
Big Dog
Bill Joy
bioart
bioethics
bionics
body image
body modification
Brad Templeton
Bradley Allenby
Bradley J. Thames
brain in a bottle
Brain Preservation Foundation
brain scans
brain uploading
brain-computer interfaces
Brandon Keim
Brave New World
breathing
Brian Christian
Brian Malow
Bryan Caplan
C.S. Lewis
Campaign to Stop Killer Robots
Caprica
Carl Woese
cats
CCW
cell phones
character
Charles Darwin
Charles T. Rubin
Charles Taylor
chess
children
chimeras
China
Christianity
Christine Rosen
Christmas
Claremont Review of Books
Clearpath Robotics
cloning
CNN
coercion
cognitive computing
cognitive enhancement
cognitive liberty
comments
commercials
communication technologies
compression
computational biology
Condorcet
consciousness
constant connection
Constiution
creativity
CRISRP
cryonics
Cuban Missile Crisis
cyborg
Cynthia Kenyon
Dale Carrico
Daniel Sarewitz
Daniel Sportiello
Darlene Cavalier
DARPA
Darwinism
David A. Noebel
David Benatar
David Brin
David Chalmers
David F. Noble
David Foster Wallace
David Gelernter
David Pearce
David Rose
death
Deep Blue
democracy
Derek Parfit
design
designer babies
despair
despotism
dictators
disability
disruption
distraction
distributive justice
diversity
DIYbio
DOD
Down syndrome
drones
dualism
e-memory
e-readers
Earth
eclipse
Eclipse of Man
economics
Ed Boyden
Ed Regis
efficiency
Eliezer Yudkowsky
ELIZA
embodiment
empathy
enhancement
Enlightenment
entropy
environmentalism
equality of access
Eric Drexler
Eric Talbot Jensen
ethics
ETI
eugenics
everyday life
evolution
evolutionary psychology
Ex Machina
existential risks
exoplanets
extraterrestrial intelligence
extraterrestrial life
extropy
eyes in the back of your head
Facebook
faith
fantasy
fashion
faux caution
fiction
Fight Aging
First Amendment
Fixed
Flannery O'Connor
flash crash
flash war
folk psychology
Foresight Institute
Fort Hood
Frances Willard
Francis Bacon
Francis Fukuyama
Frankstein
Fred Baumann
free markets
French Revolution
Friedrich Nietzsche
friendly AI
Future of Life Institute
futurism
Futurism (art)
Futurisms
futuristic distance
G.K. Chesterton
gaming
Garry Kasparov
Gary Drescher
Gary Marcus
Gary Wolf
gene editing
genetic engineering
genetics
geoengineering
George Dvorsky
George Orwell
germline gene therapy
Gilbert Meilaender
Gizmodo
global warming
gloomy
God
Gödel
Golda Meir
goodness
Google
Gordon Bell
government
GPS
Great Mambo Chicken and the Transhuman Condition
Greg Benford
Gregor Wolbring
Gregory Benford
H.G. Wells
H+ magazine
H+ Summit 2010
Halloween
Hank Hyena
Hans Jonas
Hans Moravec
heartbreak
Heather Knight
Heidegger
Her
history
holism
hope
hubris
human cloning
human excellence
human extinction
human life
human nature
Human Rights Watch
human significance
humanism
humanities
humanoid robotics
humility
humor
Iain M. Banks
Ian Pearson
ICRAC
IEET
immortality
infanticide
IQ
Irfan Khawaja
Isaac Asimov
Isaac Newton
Issues in Science and technology
Itamar Arel
IVF
J. Craig Venter
J. M. Bernstein
J. Robert Oppenheimer
J.B.S. Haldane
Jamais Cascio
James Hughes
James Jorasch
James W. Wagner
Jamie Metzl
Japan
Jason Furman
Jason Robert
Jeffrey Thurnher
Jende Andrew Huang
Jeopardy
Jesse Schell
Jessica Scorpio
JFK
Jill Lepore
John Harris
John Markoff
John Ruskin
John Singer Sargent
John Smart
Jonah Lehrer
Joseph Weizenbaum
journalism
joy
Judaism
Juergen Schmidhuber
Julian Savulescu
jus ad bellum
jus in bello
just war theory
KAL007
Kathleen Lawand
Katja Grace
Ken Hayworth
Kenneth W. Anderson
Kevin Jain
Kevin Kelly
killer robots
Kindle
kissing
Kyle Munkittrick
L5 Society
lambda calculus
Lauren Silbert
law
law of accelerating returns
LAWS
LAWS2015
lay science
Leon Kass
Leon R. Kass
Lepht Anonym
liberalism
libertarian transhumanism
libertarianism
life extension
lifelogging
linguistics
Lisa Katayama
literature
Lockheed Martin
loneliness
Lost
love
LRASM
Ludwig Wittgenstein
MacIntyre Conference
mainstream
Malthusianism
man as beast
Marc D. Guerra
Marcus Hutter
Marilynne Robinson
Mark Blitz
Mark Gubrud
Mark Walker
Martine Rothblatt
Marvel
Marvin Minsky
Marxism
Maryanne Wolf
materialism
Matthew Crawford
Matthew Waxman
Max More
memory
Methuselah Foundation
Methuselarity
METI
Micah Mattix
Michael Anissimov
Michael Nielsen
Michael Pollan
Michael Schmitt
Michio Kaku
Mike Treder
Milan Kundera
military
Millie Ray
mind as computer
Mind Children
mind control
minds
Modern Times
modesty
molecular manufacturing
monstrosities
moral relativism
morality
morphological freedom
Morris Johnson
Moshe Dayan
movies
multitasking
nanotechnology
NASA
Natasha Vita-More
Nathaniel Comfort
National Geographic
National Nanotechnology Initiative
natural law
natural rights
Neal Stephenson
Ned Seeman
neuro-everything
neurobiology
neuroelectronics
neuroengineering
neuroscience
Never Say Die conference
New America Foundation
Nicholas Carr
Nick Bostrom
Nick Carr
Nietzsche
Nikita Khrushchev
Nikki Olson
Nikolai Fyodorov
Noah Goodman
Noel Sharkey
normativity
nuclear weapons
Oculus Rift
Olympics
ontological fortitude
Orphan Black
Orwells
Outline of History
Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics
P. W. Singer
paradox of choice
parenthood
Patrick Hopkins
Patrick Lin
Patrick McGuire
patriotism
pattern-identity
Paul Ramsey
Paul Scharre
personal identity
personhood
Peter A. Lawler
Peter Singer
Peter Thiel
philosophy of mind
photography
Pioneer
plastic surgery
plastination
Plato
politics
positive sum game
postmodernism
predation
President's Council on Bioethics
Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues
progress
progressivism
psychology
public relations
quantum computing
racism
Radiohead
Ramez Naam
Randal Koene
rationality
Ray Kurzweil
Ray Tallis
recommended reading
regulation
religion
relinquishment
René Descartes
repugnance
resentment watch
response to critics
resurrection
rhetoric of inevitability
Richard Feynman
Rick Weiss
rights
ritual
Road to Wigan Pier
Robert Ettinger
Robert P. George
Robin Hanson
robotics
robots
Rodney Brooks
Roger Scruton
romance
Ron Bailey
Ron Fouchier
Russia
Ryan Gariepy
S. Jay Olshansky
Sagan
Santa Claus
science
science fiction
scientific enterprise
scientism
scientists
secrecy
sectarianism
seduction community
self-driving cars
semi-autonomous
September 11
Seth Lloyd
SETI
sex
sex selection
sexual enhancement
Sherry Turkle
simulation
Singularitarianism
Singularity
Singularity Hub
Singularity Summit
Singularity University
Slate
sleep
smart phones
SMBC
social interaction
social robotics
society
Socrates
Sonia Arrison
Sorites paradox
space
space colonization
space exploration
sports
Stanislav Petrov
Star Trek
Star Wars
stem cell research
Stephen Cave
Stephen Hawking
Stephen Johnston
Stephen Wolfram
Steve Jobs
Steve Sailer
Steve Talbott
Stuart Hameroff
Stuart Russell
substrate chauvinism
suffering
superstition
suspended animation
synthetic biology
systems
tacos
Tao
Tea Party movement
Techno-Human Condition
Ted Fishman
Ted Goertzel
Teddy Ruxpin
Terminator
terrorism
The New York Times
The New Yorker
The Prospect of Immortality
the rhetoric of extinction
thinking
Thomas Malthus
thought experiments
Tim Tyler
Time magazine
Tocqueville
Todd May
Total Recall
totalitarianism
Transcendence
transhumanism
transhumanist tech fail
translation
travel
truth
Turing Machines
Turing Test
TV
Twitter
Tyler Cowen
tyranny
U.S. government
U.S. military
UAVs
UGVs
uncanny valley
unemployment
United Nations
United States government
uploading
USSR
USVs
utilitarianism
Utopia
UUVs
Vasili Arkhipov
Vatican
verification
Vijay Kumar
virtual reality
virtue
virtues
Voyager
Wafaa Bilal
Walker Percy
Walter Kirn
Washington Post
Watson
we are already x
whole-brain emulation
William Boothby
William Dickens
Winwood Reade
Wired
wisdom
Witherspoon Council
women's lib
work
XKCD
Yom Kippur War
Yuval Levin
Zeitgeist
Zoltan Istvan
Well put! Indeed, what is the difference if we lose the willingness to tell the difference?
ReplyDeleteThe original quote is a bit ambiguous. If someone is suffering from Tourette's syndrome, for example, "a chip in your brain that could help control your thoughts" might be regarded as a form of therapy.
ReplyDeleteIn general, we can distinguish therapy from modification ("enhancement" is a loaded term), and those who claim we can't usually refute their own case by citing examples that everyone recognizes as falling into one category or the other, and then asking "What's the difference?"
We know which is which and the fact that we might not immediately know how to say why does not prove that we can't say why. We have a general standard of normal human health, form and capability, and then we have people who, in comparison with this norm are clearly sick, deformed or disabled, and suffering as a result. Interventions (of whatever form, including drugs and technical implants) which are intended to relieve such suffering, relative to the norm, can be called therapy.
I think the answers to your examples are varied, but all stem from the issue pointed to most directly by your last question: "What’s the difference if humanity is replaced with artificial life?" The difference is that, being human, we should not desire that humanity be replaced by anything. We should desire that humanity continue the chain of human life. Why should we? Because that "should" is intrinsic to being human, and any defiance of it is pathological.
No, the persistence of intelligence is not all that matters. Those who think that way have been brainwashed by a culture and educational system that elevates "intelligence" and with it human competition to a pathological degree. Intelligence is no more a moral end in itself than any other natural phenomenon. Our intelligence evolved to support survival, and if it now works to undermine human survival it has become pathological.
My guess is that by "a chip that could help control your thoughts" Michael Goldblatt meant something that would improve the performance of soldiers; this falls into another category of pathological thinking, along with the notion of killer robots. Super-soldier fantasies appeal to certain typically male insecurities and desire for power over others, but most of the notions of chip implants and other "enhancements" are wildly impractical, would probably impede rather than enhance human performance, and in any case would be irrelevant to future war scenarios, since by the time my two previous statements might no longer be accurate, technology will have evolved to the point where "killer robots" completely overmatch human soldiers.
As we face the prospect of technology that equals and exceeds human capabilities in general, the crisis we face is the need to transcend human competition both as an economic organizing principle and in national and global security, because in both domains competition will become technology pitted against technology, with humans left to become collateral damage.
Classic Moves in Transhumanist Rhetoric.
ReplyDelete1. Why is it okay to change X about humans into Y?
Well, consider:
1 -> 2: No real difference, we do it all the time already!
2 -> 3: No real difference, we do it all the time already!
.....
∴ X -> Y: No real difference!
2. Ah. So why should we make this change?
Because it's never been done before and it's our mission to make ourselves new and it will change everything.
A major problem with both transhumanism and anti-transhumanism: The belief that "we" change. In the absence of a State commanding a change, only a few people will change and if that goes awry, it will stop there.
ReplyDeleteWhile many transhumanists tend to be libertarians, not all are--so the question of state command cannot be assumed away. And even those who reject it seem to expect that social/economic pressures will force change even when the state does not act; the case they make is not unreasonable assuming a vaguely market based technical meritocracy. I am less worried about the risk of obvious failure that early adopters take, failures that would make something "stop there," and more about successes that "progressively" erode our humanity.
ReplyDelete“How is having a cochlear implant that helps the deaf hear any different than having a chip in your brain that could help control your thoughts?”
ReplyDeleteWell, when you put it that way—actually, when you put it that way it sounds like you don't think there's a difference between mind control and a hearing aid. Does this guy think the reason people find technological thought-control unsettling is that it involves a prosthetic?
But then, I guess cults have been brainwashing people for years without putting chips in their brains, so obviously it should be fine for the government to do basically the same thing with neuroelectronics now.