We hear that the Chinese are leading us in the artificial intelligence (AI) race. We also hear that they are monitoring their people everywhere they go to give them “social credit” scores, determined by the Supreme Leaders, which will either allow or take away such privileges as travel, work, and possibly food and survival. The two come together as very scary prospects. We can see that with technology, the full spectrum surveillance nation is becoming possible. Where such guarantees as our Constitution are not in place, near-total surveillance is probably inevitable. Who in a ruling position would not want to have all people act as he (the ruler or rulers) desires? It would make all governmental planning so much easier. It would also give the ultimate high to those who live to acquire power. Without jealously guarded laws to prohibit surveillance and control, it is a slam-dunk.
We as Americans are particularly revolted by such a prospect. Our tradition gives to each of us the inalienable and inviolable right to pursue our own destiny, limited only by a narrow spectrum of necessary laws. We share this right equally as something both obvious and divinely given. So it is that the idea of intelligent robots is repugnant to us. Robots do not have free will, regardless of what some say about an AI “Event Horizon,” whereby an accumulation of information and programming allows robots or computers to truly think for themselves. This, I believe, is ridiculous. Unless we have a ground-breaking fundamental change in our thought processes that would allow a very different type of technology, none of our machines will ever break free from programming. Thinking robots, then, are antithetical to the very ground of our being. That is why what the Chinese are doing is so revolting to us, and so frightening - not only because thinking robots are so monstrously pathetic, but because their manufacture would inevitably bring with it the attempt to manufacture robotic thinkers. This, too, is impossible, but the attempt does incalculable violence to the human psyche. In those places it will take generations to repair and raise the culture from its moribund ashes.
And yet…Just the other day I was in a conversation with someone about human social perfection, freedom, and socialism. Time and experience have taught us that perfection cannot be arranged here on Earth through human design. It is a fact of human life, but so fundamentally unjust and tragic that young people continually refuse to accept this. Whereas in other times the young have turned to religion or art to bring about utopia, in the material age they run towards socialism and communism time and again, despite everything that shows neither works well, at least not for long. I understand the impulse, however. And so it is that even people less cynical and power-hungry than the Supreme Leaders of the Glorious People’s Republic of China might dream of a society under tighter control - just for a while, mind you, until people’s priorities are ‘set straight.”
Let us pretend we have set our priorities straight by transforming everyone into robotic androids at birth. We would have all the wonders of the human body, but with our less desirable traits removed. There would be no birth defects – no blindness, no crippled limbs, no sickle-cell anemia. There would be no genetically-caused schizophrenia or depression or bipolar disorder. There would be no insatiable desire for drugs or alcohol, and no uncontrollable need for violence or domination. We would all be healthy and well-adjusted, and comfortable with our other genetically-given traits that would determine our life’s trajectory, as either chemical or sanitation engineers, and so on. We would operate smoothly and without crime. We would no longer need strong leadership. In a word, we would all be, or at least perceive ourselves to be, equal. The tragedy and injustice of the ages would, at long last, be cast onto the dung heap of history.
Here’s the question: would we be happy? Would injustice and pain even matter to us? And if they didn’t, would that be a good thing or bad?
Put another way, are the ups of being human worth the downs? I have seen tragedy up close and personal on a small scale, and don’t ever want to see it again – although I, and most of us, probably will. This is nothing compared to, say, the large-scale tragedy and horrors attendant with war. It is apparent that the very capacity to experience the highs also makes the lows inevitable. Like any junkie, once we experience the high, we want to re-experience it. For some, that desire leads them to take away other’s joy to increase their own. Criminality, cruelty, and war thus become inevitable.
That’s at the core of our decision: since we can never replicate the full human will, so we could never replicate the full human joy. One has to be a complete human being to experience genuine human emotion. In giving up our bad traits, we would have to give up our greatest pleasures – or rather, we would no longer have great pleasure. But would that matter to, say, those who lived through the Rwandan genocide? Would they not rather give up the joy to avoid the horror?
I think the Chinese leadership would heartily agree that the lack of misery – and China has seen its share of misery – is worth the lack of joy. Only the leadership should able to experience this joy, a well-deserved perk for their genius and hard work. In Rwanda, however, they have markedly tilted towards the full human spectrum, admitting the frailty of humanity for the greater joys, not only physical but spiritual. Immaculee Ilibagiza writes of this transformation after the Rwandan genocide in her book Our Lady of Kibeho (discussed previously in the blog section). The genocide itself was meant to annihilate a disagreeing party from the country to make it more singular and, I suppose in the minds of many, more orderly. After the dust settled, the nation decided upon opening up rather than closing down human potential. It was a gamble that has so far proved itself well. Instead of turning towards despotic order, they instead have turned towards atonement, an admission of shared human guilt, and a willingness to morally evolve. Behind this willingness is a sense of deep spirituality that was ignited by the broad public witnessing of Our Lady at Kibeho.
This, I think, is the choice of our times: to either annihilate the potential for human evil by annihilating the natural human being, or to move organically towards a greater peace by embracing the spiritually transcendent. The first only requires the will of harsh leadership, while the second requires the shared will of the people. The first theoretically might eliminate evil behavior, while the latter acknowledges its eternal presence and the need to will against it. But unless we are all made into the hypothetical androids, the first can only work for a while until pent-up hostility explodes, while the latter can lead to a steady and non-ending work- in- progress. The first must also minimize great joy, which is experienced only through a full sense of self. It is only through admitting our possible expression of evil that we can fully be ourselves.
In the past, the dichotomy could only lead to one rational choice: the granting of greater liberty to unleash the greater potential. However, the android-ization of human kind might become a (near) possibility someday. It is then that we must make the choice: free will and misery and joy, versus control and a lack of joy and misery. In a limited way, people have decided for one or the other, China or Rwanda, for centuries; but someday we may be able to choose between one or the other for all time. For the spiritually orientated, the choice is or should be obvious; in an age of overwhelming secularism, however, the choice is not so clear.
We hear that the Chinese are leading us in the artificial intelligence (AI) race. We also hear that they are monitoring their people everywhere they go to give them “social credit” scores, determined by the Supreme Leaders, which will either allow or take away such privileges as travel, work, and possibly food and survival. The two come together as very scary prospects. We can see that with technology, the full spectrum surveillance nation is becoming possible. Where such guarantees as our Constitution are not in place, near-total surveillance is probably inevitable. Who in a ruling position would not want to have all people act as he (the ruler or rulers) desires? It would make all governmental planning so much easier. It would also give the ultimate high to those who live to acquire power. Without jealously guarded laws to prohibit surveillance and control, it is a slam-dunk.
We as Americans are particularly revolted by such a prospect. Our tradition gives to each of us the inalienable and inviolable right to pursue our own destiny, limited only by a narrow spectrum of necessary laws. We share this right equally as something both obvious and divinely given. So it is that the idea of intelligent robots is repugnant to us. Robots do not have free will, regardless of what some say about an AI “Event Horizon,” whereby an accumulation of information and programming allows robots or computers to truly think for themselves. This, I believe, is ridiculous. Unless we have a ground-breaking fundamental change in our thought processes that would allow a very different type of technology, none of our machines will ever break free from programming. Thinking robots, then, are antithetical to the very ground of our being. That is why what the Chinese are doing is so revolting to us, and so frightening - not only because thinking robots are so monstrously pathetic, but because their manufacture would inevitably bring with it the attempt to manufacture robotic thinkers. This, too, is impossible, but the attempt does incalculable violence to the human psyche. In those places it will take generations to repair and raise the culture from its moribund ashes.
And yet…Just the other day I was in a conversation with someone about human social perfection, freedom, and socialism. Time and experience have taught us that perfection cannot be arranged here on Earth through human design. It is a fact of human life, but so fundamentally unjust and tragic that young people continually refuse to accept this. Whereas in other times the young have turned to religion or art to bring about utopia, in the material age they run towards socialism and communism time and again, despite everything that shows neither works well, at least not for long. I understand the impulse, however. And so it is that even people less cynical and power-hungry than the Supreme Leaders of the Glorious People’s Republic of China might dream of a society under tighter control - just for a while, mind you, until people’s priorities are ‘set straight.”
Let us pretend we have set our priorities straight by transforming everyone into robotic androids at birth. We would have all the wonders of the human body, but with our less desirable traits removed. There would be no birth defects – no blindness, no crippled limbs, no sickle-cell anemia. There would be no genetically-caused schizophrenia or depression or bipolar disorder. There would be no insatiable desire for drugs or alcohol, and no uncontrollable need for violence or domination. We would all be healthy and well-adjusted, and comfortable with our other genetically-given traits that would determine our life’s trajectory, as either chemical or sanitation engineers, and so on. We would operate smoothly and without crime. We would no longer need strong leadership. In a word, we would all be, or at least perceive ourselves to be, equal. The tragedy and injustice of the ages would, at long last, be cast onto the dung heap of history.
Here’s the question: would we be happy? Would injustice and pain even matter to us? And if they didn’t, would that be a good thing or bad?
Put another way, are the ups of being human worth the downs? I have seen tragedy up close and personal on a small scale, and don’t ever want to see it again – although I, and most of us, probably will. This is nothing compared to, say, the large-scale tragedy and horrors attendant with war. It is apparent that the very capacity to experience the highs also makes the lows inevitable. Like any junkie, once we experience the high, we want to re-experience it. For some, that desire leads them to take away other’s joy to increase their own. Criminality, cruelty, and war thus become inevitable.
That’s at the core of our decision: since we can never replicate the full human will, so we could never replicate the full human joy. One has to be a complete human being to experience genuine human emotion. In giving up our bad traits, we would have to give up our greatest pleasures – or rather, we would no longer have great pleasure. But would that matter to, say, those who lived through the Rwandan genocide? Would they not rather give up the joy to avoid the horror?
I think the Chinese leadership would heartily agree that the lack of misery – and China has seen its share of misery – is worth the lack of joy. Only the leadership should able to experience this joy, a well-deserved perk for their genius and hard work. In Rwanda, however, they have markedly tilted towards the full human spectrum, admitting the frailty of humanity for the greater joys, not only physical but spiritual. Immaculee Ilibagiza writes of this transformation after the Rwandan genocide in her book Our Lady of Kibeho (discussed previously in the blog section). The genocide itself was meant to annihilate a disagreeing party from the country to make it more singular and, I suppose in the minds of many, more orderly. After the dust settled, the nation decided upon opening up rather than closing down human potential. It was a gamble that has so far proved itself well. Instead of turning towards despotic order, they instead have turned towards atonement, an admission of shared human guilt, and a willingness to morally evolve. Behind this willingness is a sense of deep spirituality that was ignited by the broad public witnessing of Our Lady at Kibeho.
This, I think, is the choice of our times: to either annihilate the potential for human evil by annihilating the natural human being, or to move organically towards a greater peace by embracing the spiritually transcendent. The first only requires the will of harsh leadership, while the second requires the shared will of the people. The first theoretically might eliminate evil behavior, while the latter acknowledges its eternal presence and the need to will against it. But unless we are all made into the hypothetical androids, the first can only work for a while until pent-up hostility explodes, while the latter can lead to a steady and non-ending work- in- progress. The first must also minimize great joy, which is experienced only through a full sense of self. It is only through admitting our possible expression of evil that we can fully be ourselves.
In the past, the dichotomy could only lead to one rational choice: the granting of greater liberty to unleash the greater potential. However, the android-ization of human kind might become a (near) possibility someday. It is then that we must make the choice: free will and misery and joy, versus control and a lack of joy and misery. In a limited way, people have decided for one or the other, China or Rwanda, for centuries; but someday we may be able to choose between one or the other for all time. For the spiritually orientated, the choice is or should be obvious; in an age of overwhelming secularism, however, the choice is not so clear.
RSS Feed