This is a comment prompted by a post on Always On by Jennifer Lahl, National Director - The Center for Bioethics and Culture.
Michael Olson
28 July 2007
On May I Get a Little Regulation
Dear Ms. Lahl,
The reason that I offered to connect with you on Always On several weeks ago is that there
seemed to be a chance that we would exchange opinions on the subject of ethics related to
human reproduction and evolution from time to time. Your post on IVF regulation has prompted
me to share with you a speculation that I have related to the forces shaping the future of
mankind.
My early thinking that has evolved this speculation started with Jacob Bronowski's "The Ascent of
Man" that I read many decades ago. The one key idea that his work left with me is that mankind
has survived and thrived based upon his fecundity and willingness to explore the boundaries of
his environments, whether they be of the mind, the spirit or the physical. Man is by nature an
excellent toolmaker and the creations developed from his tools are what set us apart from the
other creatures in our world. All of the global trends towards the acceleration of change,
technology and information sharing tend to support this view of the nature of man. One
consequence is that man will continue to shape his environment and consequently his own
physical and mental persona. This is not an if. It is more of a how and when.
Therefore, I speculate that given the acceleration of change and opportunity as shared by Ray
Kurzweil in "The Singularity is Near" and his other writings / books - that in this century it is quite
possible that mankind begins to redefine the definition of man as represented by his progeny.
Here are the five paths that I think are reasonable future evolutions of ourselves.
1. The natural man - mainly supported by religious groups who see God as the architect of nature
and prefer that man not tinker with his nature. Only what nature has evolved via processes it has
used over the millions of years of evolution are trusted enough to define man's evolution.
2. The genetically improved man - here the toolmaker works on first fixing the perceived defects
of our genetic heritage. The good is that clearly harmful genetic heritage may be corrected in
subsequent generations. The risk is that our lack of full understanding removes a level of
robustness in our genetic history that makes us less capable of dealing with relatively rare
threats, diseases, climate/environment change, etc. Hopefully, the good exceeds the risk. Here
your work in regulating how we manage progress is challenged with balancing clear needs with
real risks. Hence the need for posts like yours discussing the need for IVF regulation that results
in transparency in the actions of those responsible for helping advance this general area of
science.
3. The bio-electro-mechanically improved man - as we see brain implants for the control of
computers, surgery to enhance eyesight, smart prosthetics, exoskeletons for greater load
carrying (military and handicapped applications) and, not so romantic or desirable, the Borg of
Star Trek, it is clear that the need from some to recover the normal capabilities of a person will
extend into how much better can I be? As the complex needs of an ever more advanced society
expand, specialized tasks require specialized tools that extend our capabilities. Only the
imagination bounds the possibilities of how far this will extend. It is truly the grist of science
fiction.
4.. Virtual man becomes our alter ego as virtual worlds become more practical and perhaps
necessary for entertainment, socialization, training (via simulations), education and remote
collaboration environments. How this part of our nature evolves depends, in part, upon the
relative carbon costs of doing things in the real world as opposed to doing the equivalent in virtual
spaces. It also seems to be driven by the relative real cost reduction of accomplishing the same
objective by doing at least some of it in the virtual space.
5. Artificial man as represented by the continuing improvements in robotics and artificial
intelligence. This seems perhaps a stretch and many are skeptical about truly sentient AI entities.
I do not believe that man is so unique that his nature cannot be emulated and improved upon.
Only time will tell us for sure. I will place my bet on this century being the breakthrough one for
AIs as well.
These five paths are what I think our destiny offers. The paths are complex, the rules of
engagement are yet to be defined and they will evolve with our progress. I trust that those, like
you, who try to guide our evolution, balancing the risks and rewards, will keep your sights on the
potential of our species, as it ascends in capabilities, and allow our tool-making nature enough
freedom to evolve ourselves to survive beyond the realm of our planet. That day will come when
our children will grow beyond the confines of our current home. They will need new tools,
new capabilities and new "partners" to thrive in the harsher realms of our universe.
I realize this is a much broader remit than IVF regulation. IVF regulation is just one first step. The
more steps we get right, given the context of the times while keeping in mind the "our next steps
in evolution", the more likely we are to evolve where we are capable of making the most of our
existence, however we emerged on this planet - to have made the better of our chance to "live,
love, learn and leave a legacy" (Steven Covey - The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People).
Regards,
Michael Olson
28 July 2007
Can I Get a Little Regulation, Jennifer Lahl, Always On – 27 July 2007 (URL no longer active)