Human for Humanity's Sake

What is life? An atheist would likely describe it in terms of reproduction, eating, adaptation, pleasure, and survival. A philosopher might consider it the soul, or the power that guides the unity of matter in an organism. There are as many working definitions as there are interpretations as to what makes life tick, and what makes the human life what it is. What if humanity, through technological means, suddenly ascended its biological limitations and achieved immortality? What drastic changes would shake the Earth with thisnew concept of life? The prospect of transferring consciousness from carbon to silicon-based machines is not a new one; it has been the buzz of science fiction for decades. As Hans Moravec, a research professor at the Robotics Institute of CMU suggested, “it will soon be possible to download human consciousness into a computer”(Moravec 1988). Given the explosion of computer technology in the last four decades, it should be inevitable within this millennium for humanity’s need to survive to be quenched absolutely. Though the idea of getting an infinite amount of time in which to live and grow can seem tempting, it would prove disastrous to all life on this planet. Important people would be the first to benefit, and step into the confines of a cold, calculating machine. In practice, leaders that can live forever can lead forever. Terrorists that can live forever, can terrorize forever. Life on Earth is not ready to live forever. If humanity could truly step beyond its body into a new mechanical one, would it lose anything? Indeed, the human body, even the brain itself is mechanical, guided and powered by electrical impulses, but is that all there is? Leaving behind the human brain may mean leaving behind the human soul, only to be born again in unpredictable and potentially lifeless ways. Without death, how can human beings even be alive? Everything living dies. In a world without all the drab, pain, and drama of human experience, how could life yearn towards spirituality or art, when it is fuelled by these things? The human mind has far too much to lose, to explore unknown environments.

Imagine a world where Adolf Hitler won World War Two. Now imagine a world in the not too distant future, where a man such as Hitler, having conquered the Earth and subduing all resistance, is immortal. He resides somewhere in a computer, perhaps issuing orders to his armies, perhaps leading them in some monstrous machine. There are back up copies of his consciousness in case some desperate ‘terrorist’ force should manage to destroy his metallic body. This man can theoretically rule the entire planet with an iron fist for an amount of time not even imaginable to ancient Rome. There is no argument that by transferring human consciousness into a machine, humanity could preserve its best thinkers, its greatest saints, and its most brilliant artists. However, in a real life application, it is more likely politicians would have themselves immortalized, not to mention the social conflicts that could arise between humans and ‘ascended’ humans, or “posthumans” as Hayles more accurately put it(qtd. in Christmas and Mcgee 2003). Not only the best, but the worst of humanity would be preserved. This would eliminate the ability for change, and improvement.

Since the very first atomic bomb, the destructive potential of mankind has been blatantly apparent. Humanity has always had a tendency to use its technological discoveries for destructive purposes. Indeed, devices such as RADAR and the internet were first used for military purposes. Technology always increases the most under the threat of war such as the first splitting of the atom. If the human mind were ready to transfer itself into a computer, it would be mature enough and advanced enough not to use its technology towards destructive purposes. It would take centuries for the maturity of humankind to reach the maturity of its technology, and considering the rate at which technology is improving, this is not likely to change. Einstein once said, “It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity”(qtd. in Quote Garden 2005). Humanity is not ready to move to another level of existence, when it has not reached the potential of the level it is at.

Whatever it is that makes the human experience unique, it is certainly greatly influenced by the human brain. It contains the mind, shelters it, and helps define it through the movements therein. If the mind were transferred into another container, another shelter, or suddenly another set of movements, the mind would not be the same. It would merely become some computer spitting out all the things the mind had once learned, but lacking whatever essence, whatever soul that mind contained. This religious perspective obviously includes assumptions such as the brain not being just a computer that spits out things. In the case that it is not, humans would be throwing away their very souls as they know them in trade for a flavourless existence. When the opportunity arises, humanity should turn its back on forsaking itself. It has plenty of time to grow, improve, and evolve far beyond any imagination. It does not need clumsy technology to lock it in a static, unchanging state.

To attempt to answer the question of what life is, the most dominant common characteristic between all living things is that all of them die. There is no worm, rodent, or whale that does meet its death. There is no organism that is not decaying as it grows; entropy affects all things. Human consciousness inside a computer does not need to corrode, it can be transferred to a new disk, or a new hard drive from which to remain static and stale. Since the very basic principles of life such as death are not a part of this ‘conscious’ existence, how can it even be considered alive? It does not fit the most common definitions. Philosophically it may be alive; it may be the guiding force behind the computer it inhabits, but still it will not die. Without this common trait with humans, this new robotic human would be drastically different. Without pain, could a being appreciate pleasure? Without the value of death, could a being appreciate the value of life? From a mind transferred into a computer, there may come a life form that disregards any sense of morality. Indeed, it may have no qualms in killing other beings that get in its way simply because it does not appreciate the value of that life. If humans give up their sense of value towards life, what is the point in wanting to live forever?

As far as is currently known, the concepts of beauty and the creation of art are strictly human things. Could conscious machines have a concept of art, or would it simply rate it on written aesthetic principles? The love of mystery and knowledge in mankind is a unique thing. There is no telling how the concept of beauty and art would change with a brain no longer guided by its conscious and unconscious workings or its right and left hemispheres. Art comes from some chaotic mixture of chemicals, or some madly firing synapses that scratch and glide along neurons at an insane speed, with insights that are even more insane. In the confines of a silicon computer, with a silicon brain, would there be the same chaos that pulls humanity
towards beauty and art? As Nietzsche, the nihilistic German philosopher once said “One must have chaos in one’s soul to give birth to a dancing star”(Nietzsche ch.5). What dancing stars can humanity create without the chaos of the organic brain? What beauty can humanity see, without
a soul to say ‘I have seen it all before, and it touches me like the fire in the cosmos’? Humankind must not give up that chaotic state in which miracles of comprehension are created, for they may never be created once trapped in an eternal state of computation made of cold, hard metal.

It is only a matter of time before humans discover a mode in which to transfer their minds across the organic veil of mammalian life into a silicon machine. The brain has already been discovered to closely resemble modern computers. When the option of such a transfer becomes available, humanity must be clear in its wishes to grow and evolve before it immaturely seals its fate in metal. It must be ready for such a transfer. It will not likely be ready until a very long time after the actual discovery of the technology. Given an unlimited amount of time in a mechanized reality, politicians could brutally rule indefinitely. It is hard to imagine how a logical, thinking, fallible organism could dream of a system of mind that is limited by no deadline. Without death, humans are little more than monsters, shadows of beings that once loved and lived and shiver against stone walls. Minds in silicon would be mere ghosts of the organic world in which they once lived. Without the tragedy of transience, beauty and art seems to be something totally incomprehensible, and entirely lost. Considering all of these things, any human that still wants to be immortal under the explored terms has no appreciation of what makes him or her a human being. That is what humanity needs, a little more appreciation, and a few less hasty decisions.


​