Data Is a Toaster

In the spate of recent stories on artificial intelligence (AI), Catholic News Service carries one in which they interview Fr. Phillip Larrey of the Pontifical Lateran University in Rome.

Fr. Larrey says that Silicon Valley technology companies are now consulting with religious leaders on matters related to AI—apparently including the nature of consciousness, humanity, and the purpose of life.

When it comes to defining consciousness, good luck! This is a perennial problem that nobody has a good handle on. Consciousness is something we experience, but defining it in a way that doesn’t use other consciousness-related terms has proved nigh onto impossible, at least thus far.

It’s clear that consciousness involves processing information, but being able to process information doesn’t mean having the awareness that we refer to as consciousness. Mechanical adding machines from the 19th century can process information, but they aren’t conscious.

Neither are computers, robots, or AI. The Next Generation episode “The Measure of a Man” featured a line that bluntly summarized the situation: “Data is a toaster.” He may look and act human, but Mr. Data not only has no emotions, he has no consciousness (though the episode tried to pretend otherwise). He’s just a data-crunching machine.

The same will be true of any silicon-based AIs we have or will come up with in the foreseeable future. They may be programmed to sound human, and—hypothetically—they could one day process information better than a human, but all they will be doing is shuffling symbols around according to rules. They will not have genuine consciousness.

Still, it’s good that tech companies are talking to ethicists and religious leaders about the impact that they will have on human lives. According to the CNS piece:

He [Fr. Larrey] also identified potential adverse effects of AI for everyday users, noting that minors can ask chatbots for advice in committing illicit activities and students can use them to complete their assignments without performing the work of learning.

A major downside of AI, he said, is that “we become dependent on the software, and we become lazy. We no longer think things out for ourselves, we turn to the machine.”

When it comes to minors asking AIs how to commit crimes, I’m sure that tech companies will come up with ways to stop that. (“I’m sorry, Dave. I’m afraid I can’t answer that question.”) Legal liability alone will ensure that they do.

However, education will adapt to the student use of AI—at least in some situations. Back before the 1970s, people were concerned that electronic calculators would cause kids to become lazy and not memorize their multiplication tables. But you don’t need to memorize all the stuff you used to need to when you can rely on computers to provide answers. Thus math classes today regularly include calculators.

The same thing will happen with AI in education. It will take time, and there will be some tasks for which the use of AI will be prohibited, but eventually educators will figure out ways it can be incorporated, and Fr. Larrey acknowledges this in the piece.

Perhaps the most chilling part of the story comes when it says:

The pope urged [an audience of tech leaders] to “ensure that the discriminatory use of these instruments does not take root at the expense of the most fragile and excluded” and gave an example of AI making visa decisions for asylum-seekers based on generalized data.

“It is not acceptable that the decision about someone’s life and future be entrusted to an algorithm,” said the pope.

Amen! Part of the reason is that we no longer really know how modern algorithms work. They are judged on their results (e.g., does the YouTube algorithm keep you watching videos?), but we don’t clearly understand the specifics of what’s happening under the hood.

This results in algorithms making mistakes, and companies like Google, Facebook, and YouTube are already bureaucratic black boxes that make secretive decisions to the detriment of their users.

There are thus real dangers to AI. Even assuming you don’t give them autonomous firing control in a wartime situation, nobody wants to hear, “I’m sorry, but the AI has determined that curing you would be iffy and expensive, so your fatal disease will just be allowed to run its course.”

Religious leaders need to be involved in this conversation, so it’s good to hear that tech companies are consulting them.

Data may be a toaster, but he shouldn’t become a creepy, opaque toaster with the power of life and death.

Getting Science and Religion Wrong (Plus COVID Vaccines)

It isn’t often that I come across an editorial filled with as much factual inaccuracy and misunderstanding as the recent one by Dr. Amesh A. Adalja.

This is striking, because he’s a Senior Scholar at the Johns Hopkins University Center for Health Security, and his editorial is on health security.

The piece is titled, “No, the New COVID Vaccine Is Not ‘Morally Compromised.’”

What’s wrong with the piece? Let’s look . . .

 

Pope Francis vs. U.S. Bishops?

Dr. Adalja begins by discussing the new Johnson & Johnson COVID vaccine and the concerns raised about it by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. He writes:

Is this group concerned about lower numerical efficacy in clinical trials? No, it seems that they have deemed the J&J vaccine “morally compromised”. The group is the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and if something is “morally compromised” it is surely not the vaccine. (Notably Pope Francis has not taken such a stance).

Apart from the nasty insinuation that the bishops conference is morally compromised, what’s wrong with this is that he states Pope Francis has not taken a stand like the U.S. bishops.

Adalja bases this assertion on a news story headlined “Vatican Says Covid Vaccines ‘Morally Acceptable.’”

Here’s a piece of advice for Dr. Adalja: Don’t trust what the press says about religious topics. Always look up the original sources.

Had Dr. Adalja bothered to read the primary sources, he would have come across this document from the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which was authorized by Pope Francis, meaning that he put his teaching authority behind it.

The document holds that—although circumstances may permit taking vaccines like the Johnson & Johnson one—those that used cell lines derived from aborted children are morally compromised, and so the document states:

Both pharmaceutical companies and governmental health agencies are therefore encouraged to produce, approve, distribute and offer ethically acceptable vaccines that do not create problems of conscience for either health care providers or the people to be vaccinated.

So, Pope Francis takes exactly the same position as the U.S. bishops. Or rather, they’re taking the same position he is.

 

The Issue at Hand

Adalja then begins his case for why the Johnson & Johnson vaccine should not be considered morally compromised, so he argues that cell lines from aborted children are widely used in biotechnology and that they are used to find treatments for diseases.

These facts are not in question, but raises them does not engage the moral issue from a Catholic perspective.

The Catholic Faith holds that unborn children are people, and therefore they must be treated as such.

You could not kill an innocent person and then harvest his body for medical consumables. That is immoral, and that is what is happening with the cell lines in question.

The problem is not the cell lines themselves. It is the way they were harvested, which was—in essence—scavenging the body of a homicide victim.

If biomedicine needs cell lines to develop treatments, fine! But get them in an ethical way!

This is not impossible. There are perfectly legitimate ways of doing it. It’s just a question of being willing.

What the bishops want to see is not a banishing of cell lines from medicine.

Instead, they want to see public agencies and private companies—like Johnson & Johnson—get enough pushback that their consciences are activated, and they stop making morally tainted cell lines and replace them with ones that have been developed ethically.

 

Adalja Disagrees

Dr. Adalja does not recognize an unborn child as a human being. He states:

An embryo or fetus in the earlier stages of development, while harboring the potential to grow into a human being, is not the moral equivalent of a person.

Scientifically, this is nonsense. (Notice that he invokes the nonscientific category of “the moral equivalent of a person.”)

Viewed from a scientific perspective (as opposed to a faith perspective), a human being is a living human organism.

An unborn child—from the single-cell, zygote stage onward—is a living human organism:

  • The unborn are living (because dead fetuses don’t grow).
  • They are human (because they have human genetic codes).
  • And they are organisms (because they are organic wholes that are not part of another organism—as illustrated by the fact their genetic codes are different than those of their mothers).

Unless you want to invoke nonempirical concepts, you have to put unborn children in the same biological category as born ones, which is the category of human beings.

And unless your system of morality allows you to kill innocent human beings, you cannot kill them.

Adalja may not agree, but if he wants Catholics to disregard this purely objective viewpoint that is based on reason—and which also happens to be the teaching of their Church—he needs to provide arguments against it, which he doesn’t.

 

Enter the Ad Hominems

Like many who can’t produce objective arguments for their position, Adalja turns to ad hominem attacks on the Church. His overall attitude is expressed when he says:

Appeals from clerics, devoid of any need to tether their principles to this world, should not have any bearing on one’s medical decision-making.

It’s true—and irrelevant—that the bishops are clerics (as if that were a bad thing!), but they are not “devoid of any need to tether their principles to this world.”

Without invoking any nonempirical concepts, they have recognized the truth—which is entirely accessible to reason—that unborn children are human beings.

But Adalja doesn’t stop there. He then produces a brief litany of assertions that are further ad hominems.

 

The Dark Ages?

Adalja writes:

In the Dark Ages, the Catholic Church opposed all forms of scientific inquiry

This is factually inaccurate in the extreme. Dr. Adalja is apparently not a historian of science, for no historian of science would make such a claim.

It was—in fact—the clerical caste in the Middle Ages that contained the principal drivers of scientific inquiry, or natural philosophy, as it was then known.

Dr. Adalja should learn more about this period before he makes further assertions about it.

Allow me to recommend a good, popular level course on the subject that he should consider taking. (And so should everybody else; it’s really good.)

 

Lust of the Eyes?

Dr. Adalja asserts that in the Middle Ages the Church was “even castigating science and curiosity as the ‘lust of the eyes.’”

The scientific revolution didn’t occur until after the Middle Ages, so science did not exist in its present form then. Adalja’s claim that the Church was “castigating science” in the Middle Ages is thus going to be in some degree anachronistic.

But if he wants to say that “the Catholic Church” was doing this, he’s going to need to quote some official source capable of speaking for the Church—like a pope or an ecumenical council.

Yet when we click the link he has provided, we find only a statement of a single theologian: St. Augustine.

And has Adalja even understood St. Augustine?

If you read the page (from Augustine’s Confessions), you discover that the kind of curiosity he’s rejecting as trivial is the kind people have for things in theaters and circuses, about astrology, and about magic and divination. He writes:

[T]he theatres do not now carry me away, nor care I to know the courses of the stars, nor did my soul ever consult ghosts departed . . .  I go not now to the circus to see a dog coursing a hare.

Those are the kinds of things Augustine considers idle curiosities.

Adalja should really read and digest the pages he’s linking.

 

“Because It Is Absurd”?

Adalja continues:

One early Middle Ages church father reveled in his rejection of reality and evidence, proudly declaring, “I believe because it is absurd.”

This time, Adalja gives us a link to a Wikipedia page about a quotation attributed to Tertullian.

And we have numerous problems.

First, Tertullian did not live in the “early Middle Ages.” He lived in classical antiquity.

Second, he wasn’t a Church Father. He has been denied that title because of his problematic views.

Presenting Tertullian as a reliable representative of Catholicism is like presenting Immanuel Velikovsky as a reliable representative of mainstream science.

Third—as the Wikipedia page points out—the quotation attributed to him isn’t accurate. As Wikipedia notes:

The consensus of Tertullian scholars is that the reading “I believe because it is absurd” sharply diverges from Tertullian’s own thoughts, given his placed priority on reasoned argument and rationality in his writings.

Fourth, the sentiment that Adalja tries to attribute to the Catholic Church is, in fact, rejected by the Church. As Wikipedia also notes:

The phrase does not express the Catholic Faith, as explained by Pope Benedict XVI: “The Catholic Tradition, from the outset, rejected the so-called “fideism”, which is the desire to believe against reason. Credo quia absurdum (I believe because it is absurd) is not a formula that interprets the Catholic faith.”

Did I mention that Adalja really should read and digest the pages he links?

 

Finishing the Litany

Adalja finishes his litany of ad hominems by saying:

This organization, which tyrannized scientists such as Galileo and murdered the Italian cosmologist Bruno, today has shown itself to still harbor anti-science sentiments in its ranks.

The Galileo situation was much more complex that Adalja presents it—as acknowledged by Galileo scholars and historians of science. (Really, Dr. Adalja! Check out that history of science course I linked earlier!)

The case of Giordano Bruno is complicated by the fact that the needed part of the records of his trial has been lost. But his cosmological views were not the key issue. As the Wikipedia page Dr. Adalja links observes:

Starting in 1593, Bruno was tried for heresy by the Roman Inquisition on charges of denial of several core Catholic doctrines, including eternal damnation, the Trinity, the divinity of Christ, the virginity of Mary, and transubstantiation. Bruno’s pantheism was not taken lightly by the church, nor was his teaching of the transmigration of the soul and reincarnation.

And, needless to say, the Catholic Church would not today support what happened to Bruno, as illustrated by its stance on the death penalty.

 

Back to the Future

All of this raises the issue of the extent to which any of this matters.

Rather than providing evidence that would undermine the Catholic Church’s position on unborn chidren, Dr. Adalja has been giving us a litany of historical ad hominems that don’t engage the issue.

His project at this point is simply to attack the Catholic Church rather than seeking to engage and interact with its views.

Yet—despite the problems with the historical examples he cites—let’s grant him all of them. Let’s suppose that things really were as bad as he says.

What does that have to do with today?

The Catholic Church clearly has a pro-science attitude in the present. Consider this quotation from the Catechism, which is just one among many:

The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers (CCC 283).

The Church runs its own astronomical observatory, as well as a special organization dedicated to the appreciation of science—the Pontifical Academy of Sciences.

Members of the academy include numerous distinguished scientists, including many Nobel laureates, and they are appointed to the academy based on their contributions to science, without respect to whether they are Catholic or whether they even believe in God.

Members have included famous scientists such as Niels Bohr, Alexander Fleming, Werner Heisenberg, Stephen Hawking, Max Planck, Ernest Rutherford, and Erwin Schrodinger.

Given all this evidence, it is clear that the charge that the Church is “against” science is sweeping and unjust hyperbole.

 

Conclusion

Dr. Adalja’s conclusion that the Church “has shown itself to still harbor anti-science sentiments in its ranks” is a bit underwhelming.

Every group of humans harbors “anti-science” sentiments in its ranks. Even scientists sometimes harbor “anti-science” views.

So what?

The question is whether a particular instance involves such views, and Adalja has done nothing to show that the Catholic Church’s assessment that unborn children are human beings is scientifically false.

Indeed, he cannot do so without invoking nonempirical—and thus nonscientific—criteria, because they objectively are living human organisms.

What Dr. Adalja does do is provide a compelling illustration of how to get science and religion wrong.

Instead of entering into the thought of the bishops he is criticizing, identifying the relevant, underlying premises, and then interacting with them:

  • He hasn’t done his research (the bishops are basing their position on Pope Francis’s)
  • He makes bare assertions about unborn children without providing evidence for them (i.e., that they only have the potential to grow into a human being, when they already are living human organisms)
  • He turns to a litany of historically oriented ad hominems that he (a) gets wrong and (b) do not reflect the Church’s stand on science

This is not how the dialogue between science and religion should proceed.

People of whatever perspective should seek to enter and understand the thought of the other before attempting to critique it. In other words, they should do their homework.

In particular, they should avoid ad hominem attacks on the other.

It’s both unfair and irrelevant to use ad hominems to attack and dismiss religious claims, just as it would be unfair and irrelevant to use ad hominems to attack and dismiss scientific claims (which could easily be done if that were desired).

Let’s hope that lessons can be learned from this unfortunate example.

Bob Lazar and Area 51 – Jimmy Akin’s Mysterious World

In 1989, Bob Lazar claimed he was employed at Area 51 to reverse-engineer UFO engines. Jimmy Akin and Dom Bettinelli discuss Lazar’s claims, including a new documentary in which Lazar says the government is still trying to silence him.

Links for this episode:

Mysterious Headlines

Direct Link to this Episode.

Subscribe on iTunes. | Other Ways to Subscribe.

Are We In a Simulation? Does It Matter? – Jimmy Akin’s Mysterious World

Some serious people think we could be part of gigantic Matrix-style computer simulations. Jimmy Akin and Dom Bettinelli discuss whether it’s philosophically or scientifically possible and, if it were true, would it matter to us on a practical or theological level?

Direct Link to the Episode.

Subscribe on iTunes. | Other Ways to Subscribe.

The Secret Soviet Doomsday Machine – Jimmy Akin’s Mysterious World

MYS012

During the Cold War, the Soviet Union considered and even built doomsday systems that could launch nuclear strikes even if their leaders were dead. Jimmy Akin and Dom Bettinelli discuss the theoretical and actual doomsday devices as well as their practicality and morality.

Direct Link to the Episode.

Subscribe on iTunes. | Other Ways to Subscribe.

Links for this episode:

Mysterious Headlines

Jimmy Akin’s Mysterious World – Area 51

Area 51

Jimmy Akin and Dom Bettinelli explore the mystery surrounding Area 51, the claims that the government is hiding alien spacecraft there, the earthly secret programs to develop specialized aircraft, and the secrecy surrounding the existence of the facility itself.

Direct Link to the Episode.

Continue reading “Jimmy Akin’s Mysterious World – Area 51”

Jimmy Akin’s Mysterious World – Transhumanism

MYS002

Jimmy Akin and Dom Bettinelli discuss the mysteries of Transhumanism, both its promises and dangers, including what the Church says about this effort to perfect humanity through science.

Direct Link to Episode.

Subscribe on iTunes. | Other Ways to Subscribe.

The Challenge of Transhumanism

android-arm-human-arm-michelangelo-640x353Transhumanism is a movement that wants to reshape the human race.

It believes that we will soon have the power, through scientific and technical means, to transcend our limitations and be transformed as a species. I.e., transhumanists want there to be a new race of “posthumans.”

Transhumanism hopes to manage the transition from today’s humans to tomorrow’s posthumans. The transition will be more dramatic—vastly more dramatic—than the transition from Neanderthals to Homo sapiens.

On first encountering the aspirations of transhumanists, it’s easy to dismiss them—to laugh them off as jokes or sci-fi delusions—but transhumanists are serious.

They are so serious that many have compared the movement to a religion—one with messianic aspirations and a gospel of technological salvation and eternal life.

 

Background to Transhumanism

Around 380 B.C., Plato described his ideal society in The Republic. Among the groups of people he described in his ideal society was a class of guardians to protect and to rule the population.

For such important functionaries, one would want people of high quality, so in Book V of The Republic, Plato proposed that the guardian class be specially bred—like dogs or horses. Those thought likely to produce desirable offspring would be paired up for breeding; and those expected to produce less desirable offspring would not be given the opportunity.

The dream of selectively breeding humans did not die with Plato. It has appeared in various forms in history. In the early 20th century, the eugenics movement proposed to improve the human race by encouraging people with positive traits to breed and discouraging or preventing those with negative traits from doing so.

At times, eugenicists urged the forcible sterilization of those with undesired characteristics—such as being poor, feeble-minded, alcoholic, mentally ill, etc.

In 1930, Pius XI condemned such measures, stating: “Public magistrates have no direct power over the bodies of their subjects; therefore, where no crime has taken place and there is no cause present for grave punishment, they can never directly harm, or tamper with the integrity of the body, either for the reasons of eugenics or for any other reason” (Castii Connubii 70).

This exhortation did not prevent the Nazi government from enacting extensive eugenic policies, leading up to an including the “final solution of the Jewish question,” which used death camps to commit genocide on a massive scale in the interests of improving racial “health.”

The Nazis gave eugenics such a bad name that support for the philosophy waned, and even those who supported it avoided using the name.

Now, however, transhumanism wants to alter the human race in ways that the eugenicists could not have dreamt.

The term transhumanism was coined in 1957 by the British biologist Julian Huxley—a eugenicist and brother of Aldous Huxley, author of the dystopian novel Brave New World (1932), which dealt with the scientific manipulation of human nature.

By the 1980s, people referring to themselves as transhumanists began to organize.

 

 

What transhumanism is

The most popular transhumanist organization is Humanity+ (pronounced “humanity plus”), and their web site offers two definitions of transhumanism:

(1) The intellectual and cultural movement that affirms the possibility and desirability of fundamentally improving the human condition through applied reason, especially by developing and making widely available technologies to eliminate aging and to greatly enhance human intellectual, physical, and psychological capacities.

(2) The study of the ramifications, promises, and potential dangers of technologies that will enable us to overcome fundamental human limitations, and the related study of the ethical matters involved in developing and using such technologies (“Transhumanist FAQ,” HumanityPlus.org).

These don’t convey the full drama of what transhumanists have in mind. Everybody wants to improve the human condition, and studying the potential ramifications, promises, and potential dangers sounds like a good thing to do. But there are flashes of drama when the definitions refer to eliminating aging and overcoming “fundamental human limitations.”

It’s when you start hearing specific examples that the gobsmacking nature of the change they’re after becomes clear.

 

What transhumanists want

The first definition says that transhumanists want to use technology to “eliminate aging and to greatly enhance human intellectual, physical, and psychological capacities.”

Of these, the key ones are the elimination of aging and greater intelligence.

Eliminating aging sounds like a very ambitious goal, but transhumanists are deadly serious. In fact, they want to do more than eliminate aging: They want to reverse it.

In the transhumanist future, people would be capable of physical immortality, lived at any biological age they wished. Not only would they not die, they would be able to stop or reverse the effects of aging so that we could have perpetual youth and health (as well as beauty).

Of course, a person might still be killed by accidents, violence, natural disasters, etc., but apart from these he would be able to go on living indefinitely—hundreds or thousands of years or more.

Accompanying the elimination of aging would be a major boost in intelligence. Transhumanists commonly speak of the development of “superintelligences” that would be as superior to ours as ours are to apes.’

With unlimited lifespan and superior intelligence, posthumans would have the time and ability to make whatever other changes they desired, leading to the enhanced physical and psychological capabilities mentioned above.

These could include greater strength, ability to survive in adverse environments (e.g., on other planets), the elimination of mental illness, and the ability to control moods, stimulate creativity, and enjoy profound and lasting joy.

In other words, transhumanists are out to create a posthuman techno-utopia.

 

How transhumanists expect to do this

Transhumanists expect to achieve these goals through a blend of science and technology.

One of the great revolutions of our times is in the biological sciences. Just a few years ago the human genome was sequenced, and now the genomes of many other species are being decoded.

Transhumanists expect that soon we will have a vastly improved understanding of how genes work, and as that understanding grows, it will become increasingly possible to manipulate our genes.

One application of this will be to cure genetic diseases, but another will be to make fundamental improvements in our genetic stock—and not just in future generations but among people who are already alive.

They propose to do what the eugenicists of the twentieth century wanted to do—and more—but without using reproduction to accomplish it. Once a certain level of scientific and technological development is reached, transhumanists foresee people making changes in their own genetic codes.

This is one way they think the goals of immortality and superior intelligence may be accomplished, but they recognize there are limits to what can be done biologically.

That’s why they don’t plan on limiting themselves to medicine. They also expect to use mechanical means. For example, they envision building computers capable of Artificial Intelligence (AI) that is superior to ours.

In fact, many transhumanists see better-than-human AI as a key tool. If we can build a machine smarter than us then that machine can work of problems too hard for us and design solutions that we either couldn’t arrive at or that would take us too long. In principle, a better-than-human AI could to improve upon itself and design an even more advanced AI.

Transhumanists also see many other technologies becoming available, including the widespread use of nanotechnology, in which machines the size of a few atoms would be able to restructure matter on the atomic level.

Robust nanotechnology would be amazing, as illustrated by proposed applications like utility fog. This would be a cloud of tiny robots that could arrange themselves into any shape needed. If you wanted a house to live in, you could program utility fog to become a house. If you wanted a car, you could program it to become a car. Or you could just have the fog carry you wherever you wanted to go.

Transhumanists foresee the merger of man and machine. Many people already have artificial replacements for body parts—knee and hip replacements, artificial hearts, etc.

Sometimes the replacement parts are better than the original. I, myself, had to have cataract surgery, which left my eyes with artificial lenses that contain built-in protection from ultraviolet light.

Transhumanists expect this trend to continue, with artificial replacements and improvements for every organ in the body.

For example, the brain might be supplemented with a neural implant allowing it to connect to computers. One of the simpler applications of this would be connecting to the Internet and communicating over it—or communicating directly with people who have similar implants, producing the electronic equivalent of telepathy.

A brain-machine interface could also allow us to supplement our memories, better analyze our experiences, and improve our intelligence. At least, that’s what transhumanists are hoping for.

They even foresee the possibility of people transcending the human form an “uploading” their minds into computer systems, where they would have digital immortality and as vastly increased mental abilities.

 

When transhumanists hope to accomplish this

Transhumanists hope to accomplish these things “in our lifetimes,” but given that they’re planning on immortality, that means an open-ended timetable.

They don’t expect these things to be achieved all at once but incrementally. For example, they don’t expect to wake up one day and hear the news that someone has invented an immortality pill. Instead, they see medicine continuing to improve slightly each year and extend the human life a little bit more.

They predict that at some point in the next few decades, the average human lifespan will be growing by more than one year per calendar year.

For example, in 2030 the average human lifespan might be 90, in 2031 it might be 91.5, and in 2032 it might be 93. As long as the rate the average lifespan is increasing is greater than one year per year, the “average” person can live indefinitely.

Transhumanists would then have all the time they need to work on their goals.

And, they argue, many may come sooner rather than later. They foresee better-than-human AI coming within a few decades, which could make all of their other goals appear much more quickly.

Some have proposed that there will be a technological “Singularity” in which technological change begins happening at a fantastically accelerated rate, making it impossible to predict what comes next.

Computer scientist Vernor Vinge has suggested that such a Singularity will occur before the 2030s (“The Coming Technological Singularity: How to Survive in the Post-Human Era,” www-rohan.sdsu.edu/faculty/vinge/misc/), while entrepreneur and futurist Ray Kurzweil has predicted it before 2045 (The Singularity Is Near).

 

An influential minority

The number of people who identify as transhumanists is small. Humanity+ represents approximately six thousand people, though there are many transhumanists who do not belong to it.

Despite their numbers, transhumanists are disproportionately influential, making them a “creative minority.”

An illustration of their influence is that in 2012 Google hired Ray Kurzweil as its Director of Engineering, where he works to transform the company’s search feature by incorporating artificial intelligence and the ability to understand natural language requests for information rather than just search terms.

And aspects of the transhumanist agenda are being pursued by people who don’t identify as transhumanists. Medicine, science, and industry are all working on projects that fit in to the transhumanist agenda.

But how much of that agenda will be achieved?

 

An uncertain future

Transhumanists acknowledge that the future is uncertain—and that the technologies they propose could be dangerous.

The atomic age made us familiar with the dangers posed by nuclear weapons, but the transhumanist vision features multiple technologies with similar threat potential—including AIs that can out-think and out-compete humans, genetically engineered plagues, and runaway nanotechnology turning everything into “grey goo.”

They argue that the potential benefits outweigh the risks and urge that serious consideration be given to how to mitigate the dangers of these technologies.

 

How much will happen?

It’s virtually certain that science and medicine will continue to progress. We may expect new cures, somewhat longer lifespans, and technologies with the power to improve—and threaten—human life.

However, transhumanism assumes that key trends will continue indefinitely into the future, and this is not clear.

Even if medical science progresses to the point that it’s able to add more than a year to the average human lifespan per calendar year, there’s no guarantee that this trend will continue long term and turn into practical immortality.

Technologists are concerned that Moore’s Law—a well-established trend suggesting that computers double in power every two years—may already be breaking down. Computers will still improve in the future, but perhaps not in the exponential way they have in recent decades.

Some of the advances transhumanists want may not happen for a long time—or at all. Some experts think that better-than-human AI is unachievable.

And some transhumanists goals seem flat out impossible. The idea of “uploading” your consciousness into a computer is metaphysical nonsense. Even if there was a way to make a digital representation of all your memories and thought processes, it would still just be a digital representation—not the real you.

However, the fact some transhumanist dreams are silly does not mean the movement shouldn’t be viewed with concern.

 

The Holy See on genetic engineering

The Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) has already expressed concern about the misuse of genetic engineering. In 2008, it warned against some of transhumanism’s aspirations:

Some have imagined the possibility of using techniques of genetic engineering to introduce alterations with the presumed aim of improving and strengthening the gene pool. Some of these proposals exhibit a certain dissatisfaction or even rejection of the value of the human being as a finite creature and person. Apart from technical difficulties and the real and potential risks involved, such manipulation would promote a eugenic mentality and would lead to indirect social stigma with regard to people who lack certain qualities, while privileging qualities that happen to be appreciated by a certain culture or society (Dignitas Personae 27).

In other words, non-therapeutic genetic engineering could lead to the creation of a genetic elite that would lord it over the unmodified.

Transhumanists argue that, in their preferred future, such modifications would be voluntary, and those who chose not to have them wouldn’t be forced to do so—thus some number of “normal” humans would still exist.

However, this does not mean that normal humans and their choices would be just as valued. Thus the CDF argues that tampering with our genetic codes this way “would end sooner or later by harming the common good, by favoring the will of some over the freedom of others” (ibid.).

This prospect is also discussed by C.S. Lewis in his book The Abolition of Man, in which he explores the consequences of manipulating human nature the way transhumanists want.

 

Playing God

Perhaps the most fundamental problem with transhumanism is that, by wanting to produce a new, posthuman species, its advocates want to play God. Discussing radical genetic engineering, the CDF writes:

[I]t must also be noted that in the attempt to create a new type of human being one can recognize an ideological element in which man tries to take the place of his Creator (ibid.).

This is exactly correct. It is one thing to improve the human condition by fighting disease and inventing new technologies, but it is another to have the creation of a new, superior species of posthumans as your explicit goal.

That goal means you want to play God, and that’s dangerous territory.

The account of the Tower of Babel in Genesis 11 features a similar effort by men to ascend to heaven through their own power, and that ended with disaster.

Even if God chose not to intervene directly to thwart transhumanist plans, the attempt to play God could by itself bring on terrifying disasters, some of which we have already mentioned.

People are already describing transhumanism as a kind of secular religion, and in recent history we’ve seen a eugenically-inspired secular messianism and what it did to millions it deemed genetically inferior back in the 1940s.

Transhumanists could argue that this is an unfair comparison since their emphasis on individual rights and choices would prevent that kind of thing from happening again.

However, it is reasonable to ask whether, if they began to achieve even some of their goals, transhumanists would begin to look down on unmodified humans who refused to “get with the program.” Unmodified humans might then be viewed as second class citizens, as people to be out-competed, dominated, and replaced—the way our ancestors replaced the Neanderthals.

After all, that would be only human.

 

The Transhumanist Declaration

This declaration was developed in 1998 and adopted by the Humanity+ board in 2009.

  1. Humanity stands to be profoundly affected by science and technology in the future. We envision the possibility of broadening human potential by overcoming aging, cognitive shortcomings, involuntary suffering, and our confinement to planet Earth.
  2. We believe that humanity’s potential is still mostly unrealized. There are possible scenarios that lead to wonderful and exceedingly worthwhile enhanced human conditions.
  3. We recognize that humanity faces serious risks, especially from the misuse of new technologies. There are possible realistic scenarios that lead to the loss of most, or even all, of what we hold valuable. Some of these scenarios are drastic, others are subtle. Although all progress is change, not all change is progress.
  4. Research effort needs to be invested into understanding these prospects. We need to carefully deliberate how best to reduce risks and expedite beneficial applications. We also need forums where people can constructively discuss what should be done, and a social order where responsible decisions can be implemented.
  5. Reduction of existential risks, and development of means for the preservation of life and health, the alleviation of grave suffering, and the improvement of human foresight and wisdom should be pursued as urgent priorities, and heavily funded.
  6. Policy making ought to be guided by responsible and inclusive moral vision, taking seriously both opportunities and risks, respecting autonomy and individual rights, and showing solidarity with and concern for the interests and dignity of all people around the globe. We must also consider our moral responsibilities towards generations that will exist in the future.
  7. We advocate the well-being of all sentience, including humans, non-human animals, and any future artificial intellects, modified life forms, or other intelligences to which technological and scientific advance may give rise.
  8. We favor allowing individuals wide personal choice over how they enable their lives. This includes use of techniques that may be developed to assist memory, concentration, and mental energy; life extension therapies; reproductive choice technologies; cryonics procedures; and many other possible human modification and enhancement technologies.

Pray for Terminally Ill Baby Charlie Gard

charlie_gard

Charlie Gard is an eleven-month old baby in England. He has a rare genetic disorder known as mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome.

According to press accounts, Charlie is terminally ill at this point. His parents have raised more than $1 million to try an experimental treatment to help him, but hospital officials—backed by British and European courts—have forbidden his parents to take him from the London hospital where he currently is.

Officials have also forbidden his parents to take him home to die.

According to the British tabloid newspaper, The Sun:

Charlie’s mum and dad say he is a “prisoner” in hospital and Great Ormond Street [hospital]’s treatment has been “inhuman”.

You can read more about the treatment controversy surrounding Charlie here.

 

Why are officials denying the wishes of Charlie’s parents?

According to their public statements, they believe that Charlie’s condition is too grave and that the proposed medical treatments are not in his interest (meaning, they would be too burdensome, too likely to be ineffective, or both).

Consequently, rather than undertake the treatments desired by his parents, hospital authorities state that it would be in Charlie’s best interests to allow him to die.

They therefore propose discontinuing the things keeping him alive.

 

What does Catholic moral theology hold about situations like this?

The Church does not have a teaching addressing Charlie’s specific condition, but it has articulated principles that address situations like this in general.

The usual obligation to use medical procedures to extend life does not apply when the treatments would be “heroic” or disproportional to the good to be achieved.

In other words, if the treatments would be too burdensome, too unlikely to succeed, or both, they are not obligatory.

Experimental treatments like the one proposed for Charlie typically are riskier than approved treatments—commonly involving both a higher burden on the patient (e.g., more side-effects) and lower chances of success.

Because of this, such experimental treatments generally are not morally obligatory.

 

If the treatment is not morally obligatory, what’s the controversy about?

Ordinarily, a patient would speak for himself regarding whether he wishes to receive such treatments.

However, in this case the patient is a baby and cannot do so. Therefore, the parents—by natural law—are the logical ones to make the decision.

Only if the parents are incapable of making a rational decision would it be warranted for others to step in and make the decision in their place.

Note the test required for intervention by others: It isn’t that the parents must make the correct decision. People can have a legitimate diversity of opinions on which medical procedures are warranted in a case. That’s why patients are often encouraged to seek “second opinions” from physicians.

The standard that must be met is that the parents aren’t capable of making a decision that is within the pale of reason. They must be making a patently irrational one before others should intervene.

In this case, the treatment proposed for Charlie has worked for others, indicating a rational hope it would work for him.

Consequently, the attempt by the hospital officials and the relevant courts to impose their will on Charlie, against his parents’ explicit wishes, appears a monstrous and inhuman overreach.

The refusal to let the parents take baby Charlie home to die (as if palliative care couldn’t be given in a home environment!) only twists the knife.

The way the situation has played out, it looks like an Orwellian, faceless bureaucracy is determined to kill this child against the reasonable will of the parents.

That bodes ill for all of us, given the statist and anti-life trends on the loose in Western culture.

 

What has the Catholic Church in the UK said about this situation?

Archbishop Peter Smith issued a statement which you can read here.

He expressed sympathy with the parents and reviewed some relevant moral principles.

Toward the end of his statement, Archbishop Smith said:

We do, sometimes, however, have to recognise the limitations of what can be done, while always acting humanely in the service of the sick person until the time of natural death occurs.

The statement as a whole was carefully balanced, but this sentence could come across as discouraging the parents’ efforts to save Charlie’s life.

A much more problematic statement was issued in the name of the Pontifical Academy of Life in Rome.

 

What did the Pontifical Academy of Life say about Charlie’s situation?

Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia, president of the academy, issued a statement which you can read here.

This statement also expressed sympathy for the parents. However, it went on to say:

The proper question to be raised in this and in any other unfortunately similar case is this: what are the best interests of the patient?

We must do what advances the health of the patient, but we must also accept the limits of medicine and, as stated in paragraph 65 of the Encyclical Evangelium Vitae, avoid aggressive medical procedures that are disproportionate to any expected results or excessively burdensome to the patient or the family.

Archbishop Paglia has mischaracterized what Evangelium Vitae says. It does not say that we should “avoid” such medical procedures. It says that refusing them is not the same thing as euthanasia. It says “one can in conscience refuse” such treatments, but not that one should or must do so.

Evangelium Vitae leaves open the question of what treatments can be used in an effort to preserve life. If a patient—or those who speak for him—feel it is appropriate to use aggressive or experimental treatments, that is not precluded by Evangelium Vitae 65.

Even more unfortunately, Archbishop Paglia continued:

Likewise, the wishes of parents must heard and respected, but they too must be helped to understand the unique difficulty of their situation and not be left to face their painful decisions alone.

Although this could be taken as a statement of abstract principle, in this context it comes across as a paternalistic statement regarding Charlie’s parents and how they “must be helped to understand the unique difficulty of their situation”—as if an archbishop in Rome were more familiar with it than the parents who are having to live the situation!

The statement was therefore widely criticized. It came across as out-of-touch, pastorally insensitive, and precisely the kind of thing that would drive hurting parents away from the Church.

Fortunately, Pope Francis walked it back.

 

What did Pope Francis say?

According to Crux:

Wading directly into a charged moral and political debate in the UK, and also appearing to recalibrate an earlier statement from the head of his own Pontifical Academy for Life, Pope Francis on Sunday expressed hope that the desire of 10-month-old Charlie Gard’s parents “to accompany and care for their own child to the end” will be respected.

“The Holy Father follows with affection and commotion the situation of Charlie Gard, and expresses his own closeness to his parents,” reads a statement issued by Greg Burke, the pope’s spokesperson.

“He prays for them, wishing that their desire to accompany and care for their own child to the end will be respected.”

Pope Francis also Tweeted:

To defend human life, above all when it is wounded by illness, is a duty of love that God entrusts to all.

Following this, the pediatric hospital Bambino Jesu (“Child Jesus”) in Rome—which also treats the popes—offered to treat Charlie.

American President Donald Trump also offered to facilitate treatment in America, saying:

If we can help little #CharlieGard, as per our friends in the U.K. and the Pope, we would be delighted to do so.

Thus far British officials have sent mixed signals regarding whether the parents will be allowed to take Charlie from the hospital where he is currently being held.

Let’s all pray for this horrific situation.

Waiting for the Kindle Fire

Kindle-Fire-home-3A while back I pre-ordered a Kindle Fire from Amazon, and now it's about to be released. Amazon says it should be shipping in 2-3 days.

I'm very interested to see it. I've used Kindles for a long time–ever since the Kindle 2 added text-to-speech functionality (the absence of which kept me from buying the first generation Kindle). Overall, I've been quite impressed with the experience, and I enjoy using my current Kindle–and its associated apps. I spend at least as much time using Kindle for PC or Kindle for Mac as I do the actual Kindle itself. On the computers I appreciate the search and note taking functions, and on the device I appreciate text-to-speech.

So my prior experiences with Kindles has me looking forward to the new version, which is billed as a major upgrade. It's color, has a touch screen, and is supposed to have a very fast web browser.

The shift to color and the touch screen puts it in competition with Barnes and Noble's Nook, which I also have and am not as impressed with, though in part that may be because of the trouble I've had getting my books formatted for it, which was much more difficult than getting them formatted for Kindle.

I might like the Nook more if I used it just as a reader, but I don't. I find myself using Kindle for reading and research purposes.

A device that I don't have (yet, anyway) is the iPad. I already have an iPod Touch (which I use to do my square and contra dance calling), and an iPad is basically a giant iPod Touch. That means that the price point for an iPad is too high for me. I've certainly been tempted by the larger screen, but I can't justify spending that much money just for a larger screen (and a few specialized apps that only work on the iPad).

If the price comes down on iPads in the future to where I can justify the price, I'd love to get one, but we ain't there yet.

The Kindle Fire, though, seems to be Amazon's answer to the iPad–at least in broad terms. It's going to allow ebook reading, web surfing, music and video playback, and Droid apps. 

It's also vastly cheaper than an iPad.

The new software they've designed also means that it's likely to affect how ebooks, such as The Fathers Know Best and Mass Revision, will display on it, so between the price break and the need to check out how my books format on it, I decided it was worth the price, and I pre-ordered one.

I'll let you know how I like it!

The demand for these is supposed to be high, though, and they're shipping on a first-come-first-served basis, so if you think you might want to get one–either for yourself or as a Christmas present for someone–you might want to go ahead and order.

There is also a new generation of more traditional (and even more inexpensive) Kindles, too, so if you aren't interested in the Fire right now, you might want to . . . CHECK THEM OUT.