Autoevolution is a concept that is still in its philosophical infancy, yet it has had an increasing importance on our technological society. This paper, if it is to serve its purpose, should act as an introduction to this exciting and controversial topic. I will appropriately start by answering two questions: what is autoevolution?, and what is it's basis? I will then go on to discuss a few examples of autoevolution that will likely have an enormous impact on our society in the relatively near future. Finally, I will assess two objections to autoevolution; the first being that autoevolution is 'playing God', and the second being that autoevolution leads to elitism. The term transhumanism may occasionally come up in the following paragraphs, so I should make a clarification. Transhumanism is concerned with transcending humanity, autoevolution is one of several means towards that end. The transhumanist is eager to exploit autoevolution in order to achieve transcendence. The transhumanist is not limited by the power of autoevolution, rather, autoevolution is limited by it's usefulness to the transhumanist.
Background Issues
Richard Dawkins argues that for an account of human evolution we must disregard the idea of the gene as the sole influence in our survival. While genetics is very important to our survival, the transmission of ideas through non-genetic means is equally paramount. Through the human use of language we can culturally evolve at a pace far faster than through genetic mutation. While the human gene has undergone very little change in the past 5000 years - our civilization is barely recognizable. These factors are the basis of autoevolution; broadly understood as the human ability to transcend genetic limitations. At this point one might want to justly point out that our intellect is the result of genetic endowment, while this is the case, the advancements we've made in the past 5000 years has little (if any) genetic basis; rather, Dawkins' claims that this result is rooted in the fact that "engineering and technology all evolve in historical time in a way that looks like highly speeded up genetic evolution, but really has nothing to do with genetic evolution"1. While autoevolution has effected our species for some time, it is useful to the new field of transhumanism largely because of its exponential nature. It is the incredible rate at which autoevolution has been progressing that has made the dream of transcending humanity seem not only possible, but probable. "We, alone on earth, can rebel against the tyranny of the selfish replicators [gene]"2.
Autoevolution in Action
With an idea of the basis of autoevolution, we are thus prepared to discuss the nature of the field, and where it might take us. To give an exhaustive list of the areas of research that fall under this heading would be to go beyond the scope of this paper, nevertheless a few examples should suffice our purposes. There are however many exciting technologies that I will not talk about in this paper. For a more complete list see Nick Bostrom's: What is Transhumanism?
The field of genetic engineering has gained momentum over the past few decades, and the ability to successfully manipulate the human genome is at our doorstep. The power of genetic engineering is far reaching; and while there is little objection to using this technology to fight disease and deformity, could we use it to manipulate our very being? The central concept of the human essence has often been taken to be our intellect - so the transhumanist has to ask how we can manipulate and control this elusive entity. While psychological research into intelligence has produced a dichotomy in the nature-nurture debate (or genetic-environment if you prefer), no such dichotomy actually exists. Just as Kant showed us that the dichotomy between the rationalists and empiricists was illusionary, so to is the dichotomy between genetic and environmental influence. Neither of these factors can work in isolation of each other, but that is not to take away from the weight of either. Further, it is trivially true that "nature prevails enormously over nurture when the differences in nurture do not exceed what is commonly to be found among persons of the same rank in society and in the same country"3. It follows from this that we can genetically alter significant aspects of our intelligence.
Genetic engineering is by no means the only tool in autoevolution. While American AI researchers have been frantically working to create artificial neural nets through the use of perceptrons and parallel distributed processing, Japanese researcher Aizawa "is building a brainlike computer with real nerve cells intermingled with electronic devices in an effort to fabricate a crude, semiartifical neural network"4. The success that has been met with by Aizawa has lead many AI researchers to conclude that not only is integrating computer components into the human brain a conceptual possibility, but an empirical one. The ability to download massive amounts of data into our brains (or digital components of our brains), as well as the ability to mechanically enhance many other areas of our mental life is an exciting prospect for autoevolution. It only seems limited by how much cognitive scientists will discover about the workings of our biological brain. I should note that this technology does not rely on the thesis that the brain is a computer, it does not matter, Aizawa has shown that a brain and a computer can work in unison, regardless of whether they can be considerd the same type of artifact.
The integration of the biological and the mechanical is not limited to the human brain. In San Francisco Mark Pauline has spent years building what he refers to as "mechanical animals". Pauline builds robots that act like animals, in fact, he builds them as biologically as he possibly can - then he lets them loose on each other to fight to the death; survival of the fittest meet the mechanical animal. While Pauline is interested in turning machines into animals, he is also interested in turning animals into machines. Pauline lost his fingers playing with bottle rockets as a boy, and now he dreams of replacing his hands with mechanical ones. He doesn't understand why we should feel such an attachment to our feeble biological bodies when we can build them faster, better and stronger. Pauline is unlikely to see himself transformed into a mechanical animal, but the knowledge base being built by himself and others opens this possibility to the future.
Playing God
A common objection to autoevolution is that it is indefensibly 'playing God'. I intend to argue that not only is playing God defensible, the use of 'playing God' as an objection is incoherent. I should note that the Atheist need not worry herself with the playing God objection, for, it rests on the premise of an Absolute Being, if this premise is rejected the conclusion will go with it. When adopting a playing God objection, you must either hold that playing God goes against His will, or it does not. If playing God does not go against His will, it loses the basis for objection. For if it is compatible with His will, He himself has no grounds for objection. If God objected to this concept, it would not be compatible with His will. (I refer to God with male pronouns because it is the Judeo-Christian tradition to do so, I would not suggest that an Absolute Being could possess gender).
If playing God does go against His will, we have an incoherent objection. In the Judeo-Christian tradition God is defined as possessing several metaphysical attributes, these are: goodness, omnipotence, omniscience, necessary being and simplicity. I propose that these metaphysical attributes are incompatible with going against the will of God. Peter Geach explains Gods omnipotence as: "God is not just more powerful than any creature; no creature can compete with God for power, even unsuccessfully. For God is also the source of all power; any power a creature has comes from God and is maintained only for such a time as God wills"5. Theologians also maintain that God is simple, which is to say that His metaphysical attributes are inseparable from His Being. Simplicity holds that God's power and will (as well as other attributes) are inseparable, in fact they are one and the same - they are God's essence. Thus we have premise 1: one cannot compete or interfere with God's power, and premise 2: God's power is identical with His will. From this follows the conclusion: one cannot compete or interfere with God's will. This is a deductively valid argument and can only be shown to be unsound by a refutation of one of the premises. While one of these premises may be false, these premises are explicitly held by theologians, thus, interfering with God's will is incompatible with His metaphysical attributes, and the playing God objection is incoherent.
My argument might be objected to by stating that it leads to the conclusion that evil is incompatible with God's attributes as well. God cannot will evil for that would be incompatible with his goodness, yet evil clearly exists. I point out again that my argument is deductively valid, and it is sound insomuch as it's premises are held by the very theologians that postulate God in the first place. The existence of evil can only be explained by either denying the premise that God exists, or by qualifying the metaphysical attributes assigned to Him. I am willing to deny the premise that God exists for it supports my rejection of the playing God argument as well. If the theologians are unwilling to throw out the premise of Gods existence, they must either qualify His attributes, or deny the possibility of doing anything against His will. I should also note that qualifying His attributes does not bring the theologians out of the hot seat, for these attributes all are essential to their notion of Absolute Being. Throwing out any one of these attributes has devastating consequences for the Judeo-Christian faith, insomuch as the arguments for these attributes all rely on each other. Thus, the problem of evil is a problem for the theologians, not for me.
The Elitism Objection
The elitism objection derives itself from a few common observations. Knowledge is power, further, technology is power. Power is understood as the tool of the powerful, the tool used to exploit the weak, intentionally or not, and to widen the gap between the 'haves' and 'have-nots'. The widening of power classes is the result aimed at when the elitism objection is used. Autoevolution is a power, this power will inevitably widen the gap between the haves and have-nots, and is thus wrong. To translate this argument into a deductive model would be a misrepresentation, the argument is not open to a true/false analysis, rather it is a normative argument and is based on beliefs and values, not on facts and logic.
A problem with this argument is that it only assumes what it is supposed to prove. Labeling something elitism is not an objection in itself, not even when we assume it will further seperate the power classes. That this result would be negative is exactly what needs to be established, and that cannot be achieved simply through labeling. It may be intuitively appealing to consider elitism wrong, or possibly even evil - but intuition is not an objection. While we have not established a common criterion with which to examine elitism, I would like to make two suggestions: elitism is a natural phenomena, and is a good.
Elitism is the concept which, when applied to any living being but man, we would call natural selection, or survival of the fittest, or more generally darwinism. Elitism may seem intuitively wrong because it is unconsciously associated with other isms, such as racism and sexism. But where racism and sexism subjugate people for trivial reasons, skin color and gender, elitism is based only on the value of the individual person him/herself. Paul Cameron states: "Prejudice is unwarranted discrimination. The issue is not whether discrimination should exist - for human society to exist, it must"7. Social darwinism is darwinism, and far from being a wrong, it is a good if we assign any value to the notions of evolution and survival. Autoevolution is evolution. At this point someone might ask: who decides who are, and are not, members of the elite? - No one decides who is and is not a member, individuals either are, or are not. If an individual is a member of the elite it will be evident in their actions, intellect and will. Further, elite is not synonymous with rich, many of the weak are born rich, and many of the strong are born poor. Those with the strength to lead us into the future can overcome accidental circumstances they may be born into.
Conclusion
Autoevolution is the natural consequence of our ability to overcome our genes. The ability to pass down information non-genetically, and the non-genetic evolution of that information is what makes human beings unique on our planet. Genetic evolution moves at a snails pace, we can alter our existence through mechanical means and genetic engineering (which is not genetic evolution in the natural sense of the word), at a speed far faster than nature. More importantly, we can direct that evolution, instead of letting it direct us. Are we playing God in a metaphorical sense? - What could be a greater compliment to the human species than to raise it to the level of demi-god, we are the creatures who create our worlds and alter our very being.
References:
Related information
Daniel Grigat is a second year honors philosophy student at the University of Alberta. He also has a strong intrest in psychology and plans to do graduate work in cognitive science. Whether that work takes the form of philosophical foundations or applied research is not something that he has figured out yet. After a 15 year education and a $100,000 loan Daniel hopes to settle into a cushy job as 'Fry Guy' at McDonalds.
|
|