Humans and Technology (II) — A short Future?
After exploring the past, it’s time to look into the present and future of the relationship between humans and their technological toys and explore the possibilities that lie ahead. The intelligent combination of hardware and software acts, for the individual, as a way to outsource abilities and brain power. It enables humans to access knowledge and abilities they don’t possess themselves; therefore surpassing their biological and educational limits. At the same time, it harms their willingness to learn those skills no matter how crucial they might be. Humans are naturally lazy, that’s what makes them inventive! Well, maybe mix in some genuine curiosity…
While these technologies emancipate people from direct dependence on other humans, the dependence on technology — and their producers — grows further. The rapid expansion of pocket computers and mobile data transfer has added a whole new level to this. The almost constant access to humanity’s collective knowledge makes the internet the first thing to ask instead of your fellow humans. It’s just so much smarter and free of human flaws! Well not really, since so far most information there is still provided by humans! But for how much longer?
While the knowledge and abilities of humanity as a whole expand rapidly, the percentage that any individual can know or understand shrinks with the same speed. Not that the average human knows less than a hundred years ago (which is true in some areas, but not in others), there is just so much more considered worth knowing.
Modern technologies carry within them the concentrated knowledge of centuries of prerequisite innovations. The complexity the human society is based on can be well-observed in the entirety of consumer electronics used today. Nobody involved in the design and production of a modern pocket computer would be able to ever construct one from scratch on his own, not to mention the consumers of these devices.
The existing infrastructure and tools create a path of possibilities for the future. These inherent technological path dependencies open up a space of possibilities but also limit what is perceivable as possible. New technology has to compete against existing technologies and set up infrastructures as well as forms of societal organization that result from these. It doesn’t always come down to what is best, but what is good enough and compatible with existing technologies.
The question is, if the speed of development is rapid enough and if it is pushing in the right direction to lead to a future of sufficient and sustainable equilibrium with the natural environment? The answers will differ significantly depending on whether you ask a Silicon Valley disciple or a radical environmental activist. Some doomsayers say it’s impossible, some believers think it is inevitable, but in the end, no one knows. It is a bet on the future that might hurt humanity if it goes wrong and it might still if it doesn’t. Technological development might mean, at some point, the need to overcome the biological limitations of humans or humanity in general.
All this leads to one question: What comes next? What does the future hold for humanity? There are many opinions on this topic but let’s look at the extremes. Following the argumentation of doomsayers and technological believers one ends up with the scenarios that appear most opposed to each other:
Towards collapse?
If the fragile human civilization collapses, a big part of today’s technological knowledge will be lost. There are many possibilities for this to happen. It happened to older civilizations, and it would be arrogant to believe it is impossible to happen to this one. In the past, much of the knowledge was preserved, but it lost its significance for the deteriorating societies (such as Angkor Wat’s irrigation system)*. However, ancient media for storing knowledge were much more durable than modern ones, and some of it is preserved until today. For modern society, the collapse of communication technology would result in an inability to recover most of its knowledge. Within about 50 years of the disintegration of modern civilization, most of the modern data storage mediums will be destroyed and the devices to read them as well. Additionally, the devastation would reach unknown levels, not only because of the advanced weaponry but simply because of the sheer mass of people and their dependency on the food industry and modern technology. Some people say it’s better for the present system to collapse as quickly as possible to leave the post-apocalyptic generations a planet that still supports life with ease.**All of them seem to expect that a society built out of the gravel of the present one would be better and less ignorant to the natural imbalances created by modern civilization. But this belief is rooted in what? If humanity loses the knowledge of the present day, it might as well just rinse and repeat the same shit-circle as preceding civilizations did before us.
Others just hope that after the phase of collapse, humanity can return to tribal life in harmony with its natural environment. But this time it seems impossible without great devastation as a return to hunter-gatherer or shifting cultivation societies seems hard to accomplish with more than 7.5 billion people and counting. Besides most of us lost the knowledge necessary to live a natural human life and recovering it will not be a walk in the re-growing forests.
On the other hand, maybe the human race is only able to learn from falling on its nose. Maybe humanity needs the pressure of impending doom to get its shit together. At least no one would argue that the two regionally devastating world wars of the 20th century weren’t a great motivator to establish peace in Europe and the first serious attempt to build a global government — though with the UN; a very flawed, undemocratic and inefficient one. The appeasing effects of past devastation might come with an expiration date. With the memories of the cruel past moving further and further away, the European Union and the NATO seem to struggle to keep their coercive forces. Now, don’t ask me if that is good or bad. But it’s something. It might open up space for new and more successful experiments or cast another wave of devastation over humanity. But the point is that if the devastation results in a global collapse of modern civilization, rejuvenating effects like after the World Wars shouldn’t be expected…
Towards Singularity?
Looking in the other direction — one of continual advancement, especially of computing and robotic technology, the picture for a future of the human race could look equally as grim — at least from a biological perspective. Many believers argue that the moment of technological singularity will come sooner or later; either by Whole-Brain-Simulations — uploading and connecting human brains in cyberspace — or by creating an AI that is in all ways more capable than its creators and exponentially self-improving. Such an ‘entity’ would be a quantum leap leading to completely new kinds of scientific research as well as creating an environment of much more rapid technological changes than we experience nowadays. The mighty bureaucracies of states and corporations of the present day would be replaced by an artificial superintelligence (ASI) or an interconnected all-human consciousness. An ASI might take over the organization of all human activities or even completely eradicate the human race as it could be deemed an unnecessary obstacle to manufacture a civilization around biological limits. On the other path, humans might transform into mere digital consciousness’s that can but don’t need to be hosted by a physical body. In any case, humanity would lose most of its defining biological features. It might be a necessary step in human development to prevent the collapse of modern civilization by means of environmental destruction or violent conflict. However, it might mean the destruction of humanity itself. If humans are able to reach this point in technological development, the individualism that is visible today could cease to exist, and their society might take a big leap towards what an interconnected supraorganism looks like — including an almost complete loss of individuality.
Towards nowhere?!
Looking back on these extremes, it seems almost like a modern reinterpretation of religious prophecies of Paradise or Armageddon. Interestingly enough, both scenarios can be interpreted either way depending on one’s perspective. A collapse can be seen as a catastrophe but also as a cleansing, like Noah’s flood, leaving behind the possibility for a better world, like many Anarcho-primitivists would argue. An ongoing development towards Transhumanism can be seen as salvation through technological evolution or as the final step out of paradise that disconnects us from nature and stands opposed to the purpose of life as naturalists, conservatives and saviourist religions might propose.
After all, nothing of this might come true and humanity will simply continue meddling around, improving its technologies and societies in incremental steps rather than revolutionary ones as it did in the last few hundred years.
Maybe it will be able to employ AI in a way that is beneficial for all and pushes for positive social innovations, creating a workless society of abundance.
Maybe it will never overcome the inequalities of modern civilization and end up in one of the many dystopian futures imagined by science-fiction authors; maybe it already is one.
Maybe it will be forced into a slow decline as resources become less accessible and substitutes are not to be found fast enough. With a slow decline of populations people might give up living ‘civilized’ lives. It happened in the past when city-state experiments failed and people returned to their old more ‘primitive’ but less disruptive lifestyles.
The problem with not knowing what the future holds is human’s innate desire to not accept it. Knowledge of the future has always been one of the most valued resources only available to people in touch with the supernatural. Shamans, oracles, and prophets can still be found around the world, and in more secular circles they got replaced by pundits and experts stating with decisive certainty things about a future they can barely imagine. Predictions in a system as complex as the nexus of human society and natural environment just have to fall short as soon as they extend further than a couple of years in the future. That shouldn’t be surprising, but it certainly is unsettling for many people as uncertainty never makes for comfort.
Instead of predictions humanity should talk about visions for a potential future. Visions can be self-fulfilling prophecies if they help to create the society they imagine. The question is:
Is there a vision that can unify enough of the seemingly endless number of Ideas about how society should be?
Can humanity unify behind a common goal of a sustainable community of life, maintaining a complex society on a planet with limited resources?
Can humanity stay ‘civilized’ now without turning ‘barbaric’ in the long term?
Or is it barbaric already and needs to create a real — sustainable and egalitarian — civilization?
* See ‘Collapse’ by Jared Diamond
** Endgame by Derrick Jensen
