Are we the last generation of humanity?
One of the unique aspects of human consciousness is a desire to understand the nature of our reality. This has manifested itself across all domains of life: spiritual, scientific, psychological, and philosophical. As a species, we are blessed with a deep dissatisfaction with whatever our current circumstances may be, leading to a drive to improve our quality of life. This has lead to the rise and fall of civilisations and religions across the ages. Distinct from this waxing and waning of interpersonal systems has been a much more steady rise in our technological sophistication. Of course there have been hiatus, often caused by an influx of newcomers into a rigid society e.g. the arrival of the Sea Peoples leading to Bronze Age collapse, or the fall of the Roman Empire due to political infighting during a period of external pressure from the Goths. Similar patterns can be detected in civilisations across the globe. But while the collapse of societal structures have delayed technological progress, they have never been able to fully press the reset button, and so sophistication accumulates.
It has been suggested that such progress is logarithmic, leading inevitably to the development of a technological singularity at which time mankind would be able to design an artificial intelligence greater than its own. Beyond this point, such superintelligences become able to improve themselves faster than man can understand, leading to an unpredictable and rapidly-evolving future. The idea is old, stretching back to the 19th century, but has received much greater attention and publicity over the past quarter-century. Theories abound as to whether singularity is possible, and whether the implications will be transformative or apocalyptic for humanity.
What is certain is that recent technological progress has done nothing to suggest that the theory is fundamentally flawed. Almost every day brings stories of startling new discoveries. For instance, it is now possible to read what another person is thinking, at least in a very rudimentary fashion. Is it really so far-fetched to assume that at some point, the technology to do so will be refined, miniaturised and made portable?
Consider your mobile phone, and how it would have seemed the height of science fiction even 30 years ago to suggest everyone would be routinely carrying around such incredibly powerful and versatile devices. It does not seem unlikely to me that such technology would continue to advance and become so integrated into our lives that it becomes integrated into our bodies, with displays directly interfacing with our retinas. Science fiction? Only just. There are already more than a dozen electronic prosthetic retinas in various stages of development and clinical trials, with an aim of restoring sight to the blind. While still primitive, money and time have a way of solving most difficulties, and both have been made available to these devices. The next obvious step would be using such technology to augment vision, instead of merely to restore it.
Even if we do not go down the road of cybernetic implants, it seems irrefutable that our degree of technological immersion will advance in other ways. Our entertainment systems, our cars, our phones, our very ability to acquire and process new information: all are already heavily influenced by electronic networks. It seems almost irrelevant whether they become physically part of us; they are already mentally – and emotionally – part of us.
The great hope of many transhumanists is that technological singularity and our increased integration with electronic networks will lead to a form of immortality, at least of consciousness. This has the vague air of eschatological myth, albeit built upon scientific hopes rather than religious ones. One might even describe this unconscious desire for ego dominance over death as a power phantasy.
I am not so convinced; everything I see suggests we are on a path to a very different kind of existence, with potential for a signifiant degree of self-actualisation within its broader scope.
Unfortunately, I do rather suspect the transhumanists are over-optimistic on the timeline. They suggest singularity sometime around the middle of this century or a little later i.e. within my lifetime, with luck and good health. I have a sneaking suspicion that it will arrive somewhat later. I will have to make do with other ways of seeking Jungian individuation.
Strange to think that my generation may be the last to need to do so.





In the last five years or so, technology has really come to define our everyday lives. The technology my 1 year old will be playing with when he’s 21 hasn’t even been thought of yet, let alone invented. However, if I had to guess, I’d say that his technology will take away his privacy and give him unbounded freedom of expression in exchange
It’s an interesting trade-off that you suggest, isn’t it? I personally would not enjoy that trade-off, but it is looking increasingly likely. At the very least, it will take more effort to retain privacy, and most people will probably begin to value it less.
Thanks for the comment!
Hi Chris, it’s interesting to read your thoughts on this, you write about it very well. I think the observation that technology has advanced steadily despite the rise and decline of civilisations needs to be balanced by the general statement that other areas of human activity such as politics – for example attitudes towards and implementations of democracy, human rights and general equality – could also be seen on the surface to follow the same pattern. Whereas there are places which do not accord their citizens the rights which we consider to be the signs of an advanced society, it is also true that technologies have not diffused everywhere equally. On the whole we could see both as having advanced over time, because they have become more sophisticated.
Sophistication and complexity have accumulated as technologies have been transferred from one civilisation to another through various processes of diffusion and adoption, and when one falls, the other continues, and in turn passes the baton. This is not the whole picture of course, as you say; the more nuanced view that the history of technology can offer us is of a set of human decisions determining technological change, and negotiations between different groups for the power and authority to define how, or whether, any specific technology will spread.
This is where I take issue with the singularity idea, as I believe it downplays the human element in technological development. I appreciate that you are also quite sceptical about some of the specific claims made by the ‘singularitarians’. I have recently published an article on my own blog about the singularity hypothesis (http://michaelakay.wordpress.com/2012/03/05/preachers-of-the-machine-messiah-the-misguided-assumptions-and-assertions-of-the-cult-of-the-singularity/), I would be interested in your comments on it if you have the chance.
Thanks again!
Michael.
Michael, thank you for taking the time to read this & several other posts on this blog; I’m really glad you enjoyed them.
Regarding the underlying issue of how humanity and technology interact, I think it’s probably fairest to suggest that there’s a synergistic exchange between the two, especially in any form of essentially capitalist society. Technology increases efficiency/competitive advantage, fuelling wealth, permitting further investment in technology, and so on. Short of a disruptive external event, I would suggest such societies change incrementally rather than dramatically.
The interesting aspect of that in our modern age is that technology is working to gradually homogenise our economies/societies (crudely, and in fits & starts) which should in theory reduce external impacts. The flip side is that our societies become increasingly “knife-edge” and dependent on technological sophistication to function even barely adequately. The insanely complex logistics chain involved in something as mundane as keeping your local supermarket well-stocked and cheap by historical standards is an example of this dependency.
Of course, humans can alter this path… but it would take an uncommon decision to act in a unified and active way. The trendline, based on an aggregate of our individual actions, points in a different direction. Whether our increasing technological dependence ends in apocalypse or singularity is the question. I don’t think there’s a path to a middle ground. And in the longer term, given the increase in technology over the time of human existence, unless humanity is wiped out in an apocalypse, I think a singularity will be reached at some point.
Thanks for this and for your response on my article, I shall reply in more detail there very soon.