Immortality: The intricate intersection between life and death
We're born, we live, we die. This cycle then repeats one generation after another. The one conclusion we can derive from this endless circle is that life is too short. We miss our grandmother who hugged us like no-one else, or perhaps our father who always came late from work, or that close friend who always had a smile on his face. Death is arbitrary. When the time comes for a close person, death hits you like a brick, disfiguring your life forever. When the time comes for you, it hits you so hard you never wake up. Immortality, the ability to postpone death, redefines life. We live hurried, stressing on about our problems. In this sense, eternal life would grant us peace of mind. However, if time is truly unlimited, then it holds no value. Scarcity equals value. It might be that our desire for immortality is fueled by our capitalistic appetite for more — more things, more money, more time — and that, ironically, our capitalistic pursuit for eternal life will end up making life itself worthless. Nevertheless, perhaps immortality is the solution to all of our problems and cures the root of our sorrows.
Death makes us feel insignificant. It's difficult to accept that from one second to another, everything stops. We stop breathing, thinking, and loving. We fear the uncertainty of not knowing what comes after and have created myths to make this 'phenomenon' easier to process. In Ancient Egypt, for example, the dead were buried with their belongings for them to use in future endeavors. While we have left this practice behind, the remembrance of the dead remains through graveyards, mausoleums, cinerary urns... Even mediumship. In fact, up until the '70s, Americans were devoted Ouija players. Ouija historian Robert Murch, explains that the Ouija board helped people rationalize death: "The need to believe that something else is out there is powerful [...] [and the Ouija] is one of those things that allows them to express that belief" (qtd. in Rodriguez McRobbie). This "need to believe" is nothing more than a coping mechanism: Death is a lot less traumatic if it never actually happens — if our spirit lives on forever. That's what Eugenia Kuyda discovered when her best friend, Roman Mazurenko, died. In his article "Speak, Memory," Casey Newton explains how Kuyda created a chat-bot that mimics Roman's writing, immortalizing him — at least partly. Newton illustrates how this can be advantageous for family & friends in the grieving process. Roman's mother is grateful for the bot, her sister is relieved, and Kuyda herself "has begun to feel a sense of peace about Mazurenko's death [...] because she built a place where she can direct her grief" (Newton). Cryonics, however, goes a step further than Roman's chat-bot by exploring how to avoid grief as a whole. In The New York Time article "A Dying Young Woman's Hope in Cryonics and a Future," journalist Amy Harmon tells the story of Kim a 23-year-old terminally ill woman, whose last wish was to have her brain cryonically-preserved (Harmon). She hoped that one day, when the technology permits, she could be brought back to life. Today, her brain is frozen at -300° Fahrenheit, waiting to be revived. While many internet users critiqued her inability to accept her fate, Kim simply found a remote alternative to her death. Conceptually, it's similar to a cancer patient receiving chemotherapy in the '60s. At the time, cancer was considered incurable, and chemotherapy was known as "cancer poison" (DeVita and Chu). Correspondingly, today, death is considered unavoidable, and cryonics is regarded as a pseudoscience. This similarity can be framed through the following questions: If we could live longer, wouldn't we take it? If we could live on forever, many would hesitate, but what's the difference? Dr. Hayworth, Ph.D. in neuroscience from USC, answers these questions through utilitarianism, as he reasons, "Why destroy the wisdom we build up individually and communally every generation if it's not necessary?” (qtd in Harmon). However, some argue that dying is intrinsically linked to living. Kim's father acknowledges that "dying [...] is part of life" (qtd. in Harmon). Through this logical framework, polar opposites are used to define one another: there's no north without south, no east without west, no up without down, no right without left, no happiness without sadness, no life without death... On this note, in his article "Ever After," Miles Klee argues that life is meaningless without death: "Death is what gives life shape" (Klee). Klee furthers his argument, critiquing human's desire to live on forever, by explaining how our pursuit of immortality is self-absorbed and arrogant, referring to it as a "narcissistic proposal" towards becoming "gods" (Klee). Klee questions who would profit from this technology, calling out the "rich," the "capitalist cabal," and the "giant corporations" (Klee). Perhaps Klee is right, and our desire for immortality is a utopia used by corporations to make money, effectively taking advantage of the less informed. Cryonically preserving your brain in Alcor, the world's leading cryonics organization, costs $85,000, and while it's listed as a non-profit, that money is going somewhere: salaries, wages, research prizes... In the New York times documentary "Kim Suozzi's Last Wishes," embedded in Harmon's article, Kim's dad recognizes he is concerned cryonics is a hoax:
Objectively, Alcor is selling a pipe dream, a possibility that's probably never going to materialize. If we go back in time, the Kennard Novelty Company already made a fortune selling an illusion with the Ouija board. The board "would find its greatest popularity in uncertain times, when people hold fast to belief and look for answers from just about anywhere" (Rodriguez McRobbie). Demand rose during World War I, World War II, The Great Depression... So it's not far fetched to claim that the Kennard Novelty Company was taking advantage of people in despair. According to Murch, the company refused to explain how the board worked to keep the board's mysteriousness — or in other words, to keep their customers ignorant. The founders sold something they didn't even believe in themselves: none were spiritualists, or mediums, or prophets… not even palm-readers. The founders were simply "looking to open American's wallets" (Rodriguez McRobbie).
While the Ouija craze has since faltered, Alcor taking advantage of people's ignorance is not the only present case. In 2015 in an episode of HBO's show Last Week Tonight, John Oliver exposed how Televangelists strip people off their money. He explained that these 'religious' organizations fleece the most naive by preaching seed faith: the belief that prosperity is a sign of God's blessing, and that if you sow a seed (donate money) to the church, you will win God's favor and harvest your seed multiple times over (Oliver). The problem is repayment never occurs. Throughout the show, John Oliver incorporates various fragments of televangelists requesting donations, which are inherently ridiculous. In trying to gather donations for his church, televangelist James Payne explains this ludicrous logic: "The size of your seed will determine the size of your harvest" (Oliver, 4:53 — 5:01)). John Oliver acknowledges it would all be hilarious if not for the fact that these Televangelists target the most vulnerable: the poor, the indebted, the sick.
It's a horrendous practice, but people fall for it. One of these naive individuals was Bonnie Parker, who died of cancer after 'sowing' all her money to Copeland's church instead of using it to treat her cancer medically (Oliver, 6:40 — 7:32). Looking at this case, Klee is right: people are too greedy, will likely take advantage of the most vulnerable, and lack empathy. Our desire for immortality is fueled by the fear of losing the only thing we can't mass produce: time. From this point of view, immortality is nothing more than an extension of our capitalistic appetite, and its realization will lead to greater inequality.
Except it's not that simple. Capitalism is not evil. In fact, it's the most successful economic system ever tested: it's based on voluntary exchanges, incentivizes resource efficiency, and leads to economic growth. Indeed, it's not perfect, but it's not even close to the dystopic system Klee portrayed. Klee even quotes Marx to brand capitalism as a "vampiric entity" (Klee); moreover, throughout the entire article, Klee completely neglects capitalism-induced progress. Bring anyone from the 1800s — perhaps even the start of the 1900s — to today, and this person would think we're all gods. In the 1500s life expectancy in the UK was below 40 years of age, and in the rest of the world life expectancy wasn't even tracked. It wasn't until 1870 that the USA recorded life expectancy. The number? 39.4 years. By 1900? 49.3 years. At this time, Mexico's was 25. One hundred years ago, in 1919? USA's was 55.3 years. Today it's almost 80 (“Life Expectancy”).
Arguably, this progress is due to capitalism. At the very least, everyone should recognize capitalism has played a significant role. Technological advancements, research & development, efficient agricultural systems, medical improvements... all bolstered by capitalism. There are still corrupt organizations, unethical lobbies, and vicious people, but a rotten apple will always be a rotten apple, regardless of the socio-economic system at place. Plus, we wouldn't have reached this level of advancement without capitalism. That's not a fact, but a pretty accurate prediction. Klee might be right in that spiritualism, blind faith, and cryonics are not the answer to immortality, but perhaps there's another alternative. The notion that we shouldn't pursue immortality because it's an extension of capitalism, and capitalism itself is nothing but a blood-sucking system, is, therefore, baseless.
However, Klee raises another concern, that of accessibility. The same argument we used to dismantle Klee's anti-capitalistic case about immortality — that capitalism has helped increase life expectancy, that it's not an evil system, and that we would look like gods in the eyes of a person from 200 years ago — supports Klee's concern about who would have access to such technology. Obviously, the first who'd access this technology would be the ones who can afford it. Following the reasoning from above, if a person who lives more than another appears godlike, a person who lives on forever is essentially a god. Immortality for the few would, therefore, imply a degree of inequality never seen before. Yet again, historically, technological advancements have always trickled down. Cars, phones, cellulars, tv, computers, <<<insert any tech here>>>. While at first it's reserved for 'the few,' with time most people gain access. However, perhaps this divide would be too significant to overcome; the tipping point — from access to the elite to access for all — would never be reached.
Inequality would transcend wealth, ethnicity, and gender. Time would become inequitable; while some would have a limitless supply, others would be on the same tight schedule. Most people would have no means to progress. Barriers of entry would grow tall; frustration, anger, and resentment would soon follow suit.
Ultimately, it all comes down to polar opposites. Either it'll be great or catastrophic, utopic or dystopic, accessible or inaccessible. Only time — our most valuable resource — will tell. ***Disclaimer: Videos are not my property. Included in Vimeo format to facilitate reference to a specific fragment.
0 Comments
The convoluted intersection between life, death, and immortalityWe're born, we live, we die. This cycle then repeats one generation after another. The one conclusion we can derive from this endless circle is that life is too short. We miss our grandmother who hugged us like no-one else, or perhaps our father who always came late from work, or that close friend who always had a smile on his face. Death is arbitrary. When the time comes for a close person, death hits you like a brick, disfiguring your life forever. When the time comes for you, it hits you so hard you never wake up. Immortality, the ability to postpone death, redefines life. We live hurried, stressing on about our problems. In this sense, eternal life would grant us peace of mind. However, if time is truly unlimited, then it holds no value. Scarcity equals value. It might be that our desire for immortality is fueled by our capitalistic appetite for more — more things, more money, more time — and that, ironically, our capitalistic pursuit for eternal life will end up making life itself worthless. Nevertheless, perhaps immortality is the solution to all of our problems and cures the heart of our lament. In any case, the intersection between life, death, and immortality is worth exploring. Death makes us feel insignificant. It's difficult to accept that from one second to another, everything stops. We stop breathing, thinking, and loving. We fear the uncertainty of not knowing what comes after and have created myths to make this 'phenomenon' easier to process. In Ancient Egypt, for example, the dead were buried with their belongings for them to use in future endeavors. While we have left this practice behind, the remembrance of the dead remains through graveyards, mausoleums, cinerary urns... Even mediumship. In fact, up until the '70s, Americans were devoted Ouija players. Ouija historian Robert Murch, explains that the Ouija board helped people rationalize death: "The need to believe that something else is out there is powerful [...] [and the Ouija] is one of those things that allows them to express that belief" (qtd. in Rodriguez McRobbie). This "need to believe" is nothing else than a coping mechanism: Death is a lot less traumatic if it never actually happens — if our spirit lives on forever. That's what Eugenia Kuyda discovered when her best friend, Roman Mazurenko, died. In his article "Speak, Memory," Casey Newton explains how Kuyda created a chat-bot that mimics Roman's writing, immortalizing him — at least partly. Newton illustrates how this can be advantageous for family & friends in the grieving process. Roman's mother is grateful for the bot, her sister is relieved, and Kuyda herself "has begun to feel a sense of peace about Mazurenko's death [...] because she built a place where she can direct her grief" (Newton). Cryonics, however, goes a step further than Roman's chat-bot by exploring how to avoid grief as a whole. In The New York Time article "A Dying Young Woman's Hope in Cryonics and a Future," journalist Amy Harmon tells the story of Kim a 23-year-old terminally ill woman, whose last wish was to have her brain cryonically-preserved (Harmon). She hoped that one day, when the technology permits, she could be brought back to life. Today, her brain is frozen at -300° Fahrenheit, waiting to be revived. While many internet users critiqued her inability to accept her fate, Kim simply found a remote alternative to her death. Conceptually, it's similar to a cancer patient receiving chemotherapy in the '60s. At the time, cancer was considered incurable, and chemotherapy was known as "cancer poison" (DeVita and Chu). Correspondingly, today, death is considered unavoidable, and cryonics is regarded as a pseudoscience. This similarity can be framed through the following questions: If we could live longer, wouldn't we take it? If we could live on forever, many would hesitate, but what's the difference? Dr. Hayworth, Ph.D. in neuroscience from USC, answers these questions through utilitarianism, as he reasons, "Why destroy the wisdom we build up individually and communally every generation if it's not necessary?” (qtd in Harmon). I wouldn't know. However, some argue that dying is intrinsically linked to living. Kim's father acknowledges that "dying [...] is part of life" (qtd. in Harmon). Through this logical framework, polar opposites are used to define one another: there's no north without south, no east without west, no up without down, no right without left, no happiness without sadness, no life without death... On this note, in his article "Ever After," Miles Klee argues that life is meaningless without death: "Death is what gives life shape" (Klee). Klee furthers his argument, critiquing human's desire to live on forever, by explaining how our pursuit of immortality is self-absorbed and arrogant, referring to it as a "narcissistic proposal" towards becoming "gods" (Klee). Klee questions who would profit from this technology, calling out the "rich," the "capitalist cabal," and the "giant corporations" (Klee). Perhaps Klee is right, and our desire for immortality is a utopia used by corporations to make money, effectively taking advantage of the less informed. Cryonically preserving your brain in Alcor, the world's leading cryonics organization, costs $85,000, and while it's listed as a non-profit, that money is going somewhere: salaries, wages, research prizes... In the New York times documentary "Kim Suozzi's Last Wishes," embedded in Harmon's article, Kim's dad recognizes he is concerned cryonics is a hoax:
Objectively, Alcor is selling a pipe dream, a possibility that's probably never going to materialize. If we go back in time, the Kennard Novelty Company already made a fortune selling an illusion with the Ouija board. The board "would find its greatest popularity in uncertain times, when people hold fast to belief and look for answers from just about anywhere" (Rodriguez McRobbie). Demand rose during World War I, World War II, The Great Depression... So it's not far fetched to claim that the Kennard Novelty Company was taking advantage of people in despair. According to Murch, the Kennard Novelty Company refused to explain how the board worked to keep the board's mysteriousness — or in other words, to keep their customers ignorant. The founders sold something they didn't even believe in themselves: none were spiritualists, or mediums, or prophets… not even palm-readers. The founders were simply "looking to open American's wallets" (Rodriguez McRobbie).
While the Ouija craze has since faltered, Alcor taking advantage of people's ignorance is not the only present case. In 2015 in an episode of HBO's show Last Week Tonight, John Oliver exposed how Televangelists strip people off their money. He explained that these 'religious' organizations fleece the most naive by preaching seed faith: the belief that prosperity is a sign of God's blessing, and that if you sow a seed (donate money) to the church, you will win God's favor and harvest your seed multiple times over (Oliver). The problem is repayment never occurs. Throughout the show, John Oliver incorporates various fragments of televangelists requesting donations, which are inherently ridiculous. In trying to gather donations for his church, televangelist James Payne explains this ludicrous logic: "The size of your seed will determine the size of your harvest" (Oliver, 4:53 — 5:01)). John Oliver acknowledges it would all be hilarious if not for the fact that these Televangelists target the most vulnerable: the poor, the indebted, the sick.
It's a horrendous practice, but people fall for it. One of these naive individuals was Bonnie Parker, who died of cancer after 'sowing' all her money to Copeland's church instead of using it to treat her cancer medically (Oliver, 6:40 — 7:32). Looking at this case, Klee is right: people are too greedy, will likely take advantage of the most vulnerable, and lack empathy. Our desire for immortality is fueled by the fear of losing the only thing we can't mass produce: time. From this point of view, immortality is nothing else than an extension of our capitalistic appetite, and its realization will lead to greater inequality.
Except it's not that simple. Capitalism is not evil. In fact, it's the most successful economic system ever tested: it's based on voluntary exchanges, incentivizes resource efficiency, and leads to economic growth. Indeed, it's not perfect, but it's not even close to the dystopic system Klee portrayed. Klee even quotes Marx to brand capitalism as a "vampiric entity" (Klee); moreover, throughout the entire article, Klee completely neglects capitalism-induced progress. Bring anyone from the 1800s — perhaps even the start of the 1900s — to today, and this person would think we're all gods. In the 1500s life expectancy in the UK was below 40 years of age, and in the rest of the world life expectancy wasn't even tracked. It wasn't until 1870 that the USA recorded life expectancy. The number? 39.4 years. By 1900? 49.3 years. At this time, Mexico's was 25. One hundred years ago, in 1919? USA's was 55.3 years. Today it's almost 80 (“Life Expectancy”).
Arguably, this progress is due to capitalism. At the very least, everyone should recognize capitalism has played a significant role. Technological advancements, research & development, efficient agricultural systems, medical improvements... all bolstered by capitalism. There are still corrupt organizations, unethical lobbies, and vicious people, but a rotten apple will always be a rotten apple, regardless of the socio-economic system at place. Plus, we wouldn't have reached this level of advancement without capitalism. That's not a fact, but a pretty accurate prediction. Klee might be right in that spiritualism, blind faith, and cryonics are not the answer to immortality, but perhaps there's another alternative. The notion that we shouldn't pursue immortality because it's an extension of capitalism, and capitalism itself is nothing but a blood-sucking system, is, therefore, baseless.
However, Klee raises another concern, that of accessibility. The same argument we used to dismantle Klee's anti-capitalistic case about immortality — that capitalism has helped increase life expectancy, that it's not an evil system, and that we would look like gods in the eyes of a person from 200 years ago — supports Klee's concern about who would have access to such technology. Obviously, the first who'd access this technology would be the ones who can afford it. Following the reasoning from above, if a person who lives more than another appears godlike, a person who lives on forever is essentially a god. Immortality for the few would, therefore, imply a degree of inequality never seen before. Yet again, historically, technological advancements have always trickled down. Cars, phones, cellulars, tv, computers, <<<insert any tech here>>>. While at first it's reserved for 'the few,' with time most people gain access. However, perhaps this divide would be too significant to overcome; the tipping point — from access to the elite to access for all — would never be reached.
Inequality would transcend wealth, ethnicity, and gender. Time would become inequitable; while some would have a limitless supply, others would be on the same tight schedule. Most people would have no means to progress. Barriers of entry would grow tall; frustration, anger, and resentment would soon follow suit. Throughout history, whenever inequality is 'too high,' revolutions take place.
Ultimately, it all comes down to polar opposites. Either it'll be great or catastrophic, utopic or dystopic, accessible or inaccessible. Time will tell. ***Disclaimer: Videos are not my property. Included in Vimeo format to facilitate reference to a specific fragment.
The Morality of Immortality: A psychological, utilitarian, and capitalistic take of clinging to life. Can we achieve immortality? If so, should we pursue it? Is it right? Is it ethical? Would access for all alter your perspective? Yes? No? Perhaps?... There is no simple answer. If we can agree on something: life is complicated. Every day we face uncertainties, challenges, hardships. However, there is one thing harder than life: Death. Immortality, by definition, is the elusion of death. However, in avoiding death, life, as we know it, is redefined. Time goes from limited to unlimited. So does knowledge, human connections, experiences... But isn't scarcity what makes all of these precious? If so, by transcending death, wouldn’t our lives become worthless? Quite paradoxical. Maybe, obtaining eternal life is fueled by our capitalistic appetite for more — more things, more money, more time — and the pursuit of immortality will only lead to a greater divide amongst an already fragile society. Or maybe, just maybe, it’s for the best, and immortality is the solution to all of our problems. Probably, though, it’ll never happen. But you should keep reading, because it just might. Across generations, cultures, and religions, humans have struggled with death — i.e., the notion of no longer being in existence. Dying, it seems, is difficult for the human brain to process. How can you be — think, love, live — and then simply cease to exist? Poof. And it's over. Often, we have created myths to make this 'phenomenon' easier to process. In Ancient Egypt, for example, the dead were buried with their belongings for them to use in future endeavors. While this practice is no longer, the remembrance of the dead remains through graveyards, mausoleums, cinerary urns... Even mediumship. In fact, up until the '70s, Americans were devoted Ouija players. Ouija historian Robert Murch, explains that the Ouija board helped people rationalize death: "The need to believe that something else is out there is powerful [...] [and the Ouija] is one of those things that allows them to express that belief" (qtd. in __). This "need to believe" is nothing else than a coping mechanism: Death is a lot less traumatic if it never actually happens — if our spirit lives on forever. That's what Eugenia Kuyda discovered when her best friend, Roman Mazurenko, died. In his article "Speak, Memory," Casey Newton explains how Kuyda created a chat-bot that mimics Roman's writing, immortalizing him — at least partly. Newton illustrates how this can be advantageous for family & friends in the grieving process. Roman's mother is grateful for the bot, her sister is relieved, and Kuyda herself "has begun to feel a sense of peace about Mazurenko's death [...] because she built a place where she can direct her grief." Yet what if we could avoid grief as a whole? What if we could actually become immortal? The New York Times article "A Dying Young Woman's Hope in Cryonics and a Future" sheds light on how this could someday be possible. Journalist Amy Harmon tells the story of Kim, a 23-year-old terminally ill woman, whose last wish was to have her brain cryonically-preserved. She hoped that one day, when the technology permits, she could be brought back to life. Technological reincarnation, basically. Today, her brain is frozen at -300° Fahrenheit, waiting to be revived. While many internet users critiqued her inability to accept her fate, why would anyone accept death if it's not necessary? Death is not even fair. Some die at birth — others at 80. If we could all live longer, wouldn't we all take it? If we could live on forever, many would hesitate, but what's the conceptual difference? Dr. Hayworth, Ph.D. in neuroscience from USC, answers these questions through utilitarianism, as he reasons, "Why destroy the wisdom we build up individually and communally every generation if it's not necessary?" I wouldn't know. However, some argue that dying is intrinsically linked to living. Kim's father acknowledges that "dying [...] is part of life" (). Through this logical framework, polar opposites are used to define one another: there's no north without south, no east without west, no up without down, no right without left, no happiness without sadness, no life without death... On this note, in his article "Ever After," Miles Klee argues that life is meaningless without death: "Death is what gives life shape" (). Klee furthers his argument, critiquing human's desire to live on forever, by explaining how our pursuit of immortality is self-absorbed and arrogant, referring to it as a "narcissistic proposal" towards becoming "gods." Klee questions who would profit from this technology, calling out the "rich," the "capitalist cabal," and the "giant corporations." Perhaps Klee is right, and our desire for immortality is a utopia used by corporations to make money, effectively taking advantage of the less informed. Cryonically preserving your brain in Alcor, the world’s leading cryonics organization, costs $85,000, and while it is listed as a non-profit, that money is going somewhere: salaries, wages, research prizes... In the New York times documentary "Kim Suozzi's Last Wishes," embedded in Harmon's article, Kim's dad recognizes he is concerned cryonics is a hoax:
Objectively, Alcor is selling a pipe dream, a possibility that's probably never going to materialize. If we go back in time, the Kennard Novelty Company already made a fortune selling an illusion with the Ouija board. The board "would find its greatest popularity in uncertain times, when people hold fast to belief and look for answers from just about anywhere" (). Demand rose during World War I, World War II, The Great Depression... So it's not far fetched to claim that the Kennard Novelty Company was taking advantage of people in despair. According to Murch, the Kennard Novelty Company refused to explain how the board worked to keep the board's mysteriousness — or in other words, to keep their customers ignorant. The founders sold something they didn’t even believe in themselves: none were spiritualists, or mediums, or prophets… not even palm-readers. The founders were simply “looking to open American’s wallets” ().
While the Ouija craze has since faltered, Alcor taking advantage of people's ignorance is not the only present case. In 2015 in an episode of HBO's show Last Week Tonight, John Oliver exposed how Televangelists strip people off their money. He explained that these 'religious' organizations fleece the most naive by preaching seed faith: the belief that prosperity is a sign of God's blessing, and that if you sow a seed (donate money) to the church, you will win God's favor and harvest your seed multiple times over (). The thing is, repayment never occurs. Throughout the show, John Oliver incorporates various fragments of televangelists requesting donations, which are inherently ridiculous. In trying to gather donations for his church, televangelist James Payne explains the ludicrous logical framework: “The size of your seed will determine the size of your harvest" (4:53 — 5:01)). John Oliver acknowledges it would all be hilarious if not for the fact that these Televangelists target the most vulnerable: the poor, the indebted, the sick.
It's a horrendous practice, but people fall for it. One of these naive individuals was Bonnie Parker, a seed-faith believer who died of cancer after donating all her money to Copeland’s church instead of using it to treat her cancer medically (6:40 — 7:32). Looking at this case, Klee is right: People are too greedy, will likely take advantage of the most vulnerable, and lack empathy. Our desire for immortality is fueled by the fear of losing the only thing we can’t mass produce: time. From this point of view, immortality is nothing else than an extension of our capitalistic appetite and its realization will lead to greater inequality.
Except it's not that simple. Capitalism is not evil; I would even argue it's a great system. Of course, it's not perfect, but it's not even close to the dystopic system Klee portrayed. Klee is biased. He has an anti-capitalistic agenda and neglects capitalism induced progress. Bring anyone from the 1800s — perhaps even the start of the 1900s — to today, and this person would think we're all gods. In the 1500s life expectancy in the UK was below 40 years of age — in the rest of the world, life expectancy wasn't even tracked. It wasn't until 1870 that the USA recorded life expectancy. The number? 39.4 years. By 1900? 49.3 years. At this time, Mexico's was 25! One hundred years ago, in 1919? USA's was 55.3 years. Today it's almost 80.
And, arguably, it's thanks to capitalism. Or at least I would think everyone can recognize capitalism has played a significant role. Technological advancements, research & development, efficient agricultural systems, medical improvements... all bolstered by capitalism. There are still corrupt organizations, unethical lobbies, and vicious people, but a rotten apple will always be a rotten apple, regardless of the socio-economic system at place. Plus, we wouldn't have reached this level of advancement without capitalism. That's not a fact, but a pretty accurate prediction. Klee might be right in that spiritualism, blind faith, and cryonics are not the answer to immortality, but perhaps there's another alternative. The notion that we shouldn't pursue immortality because it's an extension of capitalism, and capitalism itself is nothing but a blood-sucking system, is, therefore, baseless.
However, Klee raises another concern, that of accessibility. The same argument we used to dismantle Klee's anti-capitalistic case about immortality — that capitalism has helped increase life expectancy, that it's not an evil system, and that we would look like gods in the eyes of a person from 200 years ago — supports Klee's concern about who would have access to such technology. Obviously, the first who'd access this technology would be the ones who can afford it. Following the reasoning from above, if a person who lives more than another appears godlike, a person who can live on forever is essentially a god. Immortality for the few would, therefore, imply a degree of inequality never seen before.
Yet again, over the course of history, technological advancements have always trickled down. Cars, phones, cellulars, tv, computers, <<<insert any tech here>>>. At first it’s practically inaccessible, but, after a while, most people gain access. However, perhaps this divide would be too significant to overcome; the tipping point — from access to the elite to access for all — would never be reached.
Inequality would transcend wealth, ethnicity, and gender. Time would become inequitable; while some would have a limitless supply, others would be on the same tight schedule. On top of this, most people would have no means to progress. Barriers of entry would grow so tall, frustration, anger, and resentment would increase in popularity. Over the course of history, whenever inequality is 'too high' revolutions take place.
In a way, this discussion is worthless. We’re in a society that reacts to change, not prepares for it. Driving laws were set after people bought cars — not before. When camera’s became a thing, people didn’t know if the photo belonged to the photographer or the individual being photographed — the debate still continues. The internet? Same thing. It’s been 30 years since the World Wide Web’s release and there are still serious questions about digital ownership and control. The point is: When we are able to do something, we do it. When we were able to go to space, we went to space. When we were able to start fracking, we started fracking. When we were able to create buildings, we created buildings. When we were able to create an atomic bomb, we created an atomic bomb. When we are able to become immortal, then we’ll become immortal — or at least some of us will. Ultimately, it all comes down to polar opposites. Either it’ll be great or catastrophic, utopic, or dystopic, accessible or inaccessible. Time will tell. ***Disclaimer: Videos are not my property The Morality of Immortality: A psychological, utilitarian, and capitalistic take of clinging to life.
Can we achieve immortality? If so, should we pursue it? Is it right? Is it ethical? Would access for all alter your perspective? Yes? No? Perhaps?... There is no simple answer. If we can agree on something: life is complicated. Every day we face uncertainties, challenges, hardships. However, there is one thing harder than life: Death. Across generations, cultures, and religions, humans have struggled with death — i.e., the notion of no longer being in existence. Dying, it seems, is difficult for the human brain to process. How can you be — think, love, live — and then simply cease to exist? Poof. And it's over. Often, we have created myths to make this 'phenomenon' easier to process. In Ancient Egypt, for example, the dead were buried with their belongings for them to use in future endeavors. While this practice is no longer, the remembrance of the dead remains through graveyards, mausoleums, cinerary urns... Even mediumship. In fact, up until the '70s, Americans were devoted Ouija players. Ouija historian Robert Murch, explains that the Ouija board helped people rationalize death: "The need to believe that something else is out there is powerful [...] [and the Ouija] is one of those things that allows them to express that belief" (qtd. in __). This "need to believe" is nothing else than a coping mechanism: Death is a lot less traumatic if it never actually happens — if our spirit lives on forever. That's what Eugenia Kuyda discovered when her best friend, Roman Mazurenko, died. In the article "Speak, Memory," Newton explains how Kuyda created a chat-bot that mimics Roman's writing, immortalizing him — at least partly. Newton illustrates how this can be advantageous for family & friends in the grieving process. Roman's mother is grateful for the bot, her sister is relieved, and Kuyda herself "has begun to feel a sense of peace about Mazurenko's death [...] because she built a place where she can direct her grief." Yet what if we could avoid grief as a whole? What if we could actually become immortal? The New York Times article "A Dying Young Woman's Hope in Cryonics and a Future" sheds light on how this could someday be possible. Journalist Amy Harmon tells the story of Kim, a 23-year-old terminally ill woman, whose last wish was to have her brain cryonically-preserved. She hoped that one day, when the technology permits, she could be brought back to life. Technological reincarnation, basically. Today, her brain is frozen at -300° Fahrenheit, waiting to be revived. While many internet users critiqued her inability to accept her fate, why would anyone accept death if it's not necessary? Death is not even fair. Some die at birth — others at 80. If we could all live longer, wouldn't we all take it? If we could live on forever, many would hesitate, but what's the conceptual difference? Dr. Hayworth, Ph.D. in neuroscience from USC, answers these questions through utilitarianism, as he reasons, "Why destroy the wisdom we build up individually and communally every generation if it's not necessary?" I wouldn't know. However, some argue that dying is intrinsically linked to living. Kim's father acknowledges that "dying [...] is part of life" (). Through this logical framework, polar opposites are used to define one another: there's no north without south, no east without west, no up without down, no right without left, no happiness without sadness, no life without death... On this note, in his article "Ever After," Miles Klee argues that life is meaningless without death: "Death is what gives life shape" (). Klee furthers his argument, critiquing human's desire to live on forever, by explaining how our pursuit of immortality is self-absorbed and arrogant, referring to it as a "narcissistic proposal" towards becoming "gods." Klee questions who would profit from this technology, calling out the "rich," the "capitalist cabal," and the "giant corporations." Perhaps Klee is right, and our desire for immortality is a utopia used by corporations to make money, effectively taking advantage of the less informed. Cryonically preserving your brain costs $85,000 and while Alcor is listed as a non-profit, that money is going somewhere: salaries, wages, research prizes... In the New York times documentary "Kim Suozzi's Last Wishes," embedded in Harmon's article, Kim's dad recognizes he is concerned cryonics is a hoax: "I thought 'This is a scam.' [...] [They are] trying to get someone's money [...] saying, 'hey give me $85,000, I'll freeze your head, and maybe in 100 years we'll bring you back'" (6:20 — 6:40 ____). Objectively, Alcor is selling a pipe dream, a possibility that's probably never going to materialize. If we go back in time, the Kennard Novelty Company already made a fortune selling an illusion with the Ouija board. The board "would find its greatest popularity in uncertain times, when people hold fast to belief and look for answers from just about anywhere" (). Demand rose during World War I, World War II, The Great Depression... So it's not far fetched to claim that the Kennard Novelty Company was taking advantage of people in despair. Robert Murch explains that the founders "were very shrewd businessmen [...] [that] didn't care why people thought it worked" (). According to Murch, the Kennard Novelty Company purposefully avoided explaining how the board worked to keep the board's mysteriousness — or in other words, to keep their customers ignorant. In fact, "none of the men [the founders] were spiritualists": "they were mostly looking to open Americans' wallets" (). While the Ouija craze has since faltered, Alcor taking advantage of people's ignorance is not the only present case. In 2015 in an episode of HBO's show Last Week Tonight, John Oliver exposed how Televangelists strip people off their money. He explained that these 'religious' organizations fleece the most naive by preaching seed faith: the belief that prosperity is a sign of God's blessing, and that if you sow a seed (donate money) to the church, you will win God's favor and harvest your seed multiple times over (). The thing is, repayment never occurs. Throughout the show, John Oliver incorporates various fragments of televangelists requesting donations, which are inherently ridiculous: James Payne ("The size of your seed will determine the size of your harvest" (4:53 — 5:01)), Todd Coontz ("You're going to have a breakthrough through this $273 seed" (5:10 — 5:17)), amongst others. John Oliver acknowledges it would all be hilarious if not for the fact that these Televangelists target the most vulnerable: the poor, the indebted, the sick. The HBO host calls out Henry Fernadez ("All you've got is $1000. Listen that's not enough money anyway to buy a house [...] You get to that phone, and you put that seed in the ground and watch God work it out" (5:17 — 5:32)), Mike Murdock ("I have a feeling that somebody there wants their credit card debt wiped out, that if you use your faith as you sow [...], God's going to wipe out your credit card indebtedness" (5:58 — 6:20)), Robert Tilton ("Healing go into those knees. Arthritis go in the name of Jesus! Tumors go in the name of Jesus! [...] Lupus you foul devil you bow to the name of Jesus! (1:07 — 1:23)), and Gloria Copeland ("[Mocking a doctor] 'We know what's wrong with you, you've got cancer. The bad news is we don't know what to do about it, except give you some poison that will make you sicker.' Now, which do you want to do? Do you wanna do that or do you wanna sit here on Saturday morning, hear the word of God, and let faith come into your heart and be healed. Alleluya!" (7:40 — 8:02)). It's a horrendous practice, but people fall for it. John Oliver goes over Bonnie Parker's case, a seed-faith believer who died of cancer after donating all her money to Copeland’s church instead of using it to treat her cancer medically (6:40 — 7:32). Looking at this evidence, Klee is right: People are too greedy, will likely take advantage of the most vulnerable, and lack empathy. Our desire for immortality is fueled by the fear of losing the only thing we can’t mass produce: time. From this point of view, immortality is nothing else than an extension of our capitalistic appetite and its realization will lead to greater inequality. Except it's not that simple. Capitalism is not evil; I would even argue it's a great system. Of course, it's not perfect, but it's not even close to the dystopic system Klee portrayed. Klee is biased. He has an anti-capitalistic agenda and purposefully mischaracterized the system. <<"Evidence of Klee's anti-capitalistic agenda" Explanation of how capitalism is fair.">> Bring anyone from the 1800s — perhaps even the start of the 1900s — to today, and this person would think we're all gods. In the 1500s life expectancy in the UK was below 40 years of age — in the rest of the world, life expectancy wasn't even tracked. It wasn't until 1870 that the USA recorded life expectancy. The number? 39.4 years. By 1900? 49.3 years. At this time, Mexico's was 25! One hundred years ago, in 1919? USA's was 55.3 years. Today it's almost 80. <<EMBED OUR WORLD IN DATA INTERACTIVE MAP>> And, arguably, it's thanks to capitalism. Or at least I would think everyone can recognize capitalism has played a significant role. Technological advancements, research & development, efficient agricultural systems, medical improvements... all bolstered by capitalism. There are still corrupt organizations, unethical lobbies, and vicious people, but a rotten apple will always be a rotten apple, regardless of the socio-economic system at place. Plus, we wouldn't have reached this level of advancement without capitalism. That's not a fact, but a pretty accurate prediction. Klee might be right in that spiritualism, blind faith, and cryonics are not the answer to immortality, but perhaps there's another alternative. The notion that we shouldn't pursue immortality because it's an extension of capitalism, and capitalism itself is nothing but a blood-sucking system, is, therefore, baseless. However, Klee raises another concern, that of accessibility. The same argument we used to dismantle Klee's anti-capitalistic case about immortality — that capitalism has helped increase life expectancy, that it's not an evil system, and that we would look like gods in the eyes of a person from 200 years ago — supports Klee's concern about who would have access to such technology. <<"evidence about how downloading a person's mind would take all of the storage space available in the world.">> Obviously, the first who'd access this technology would be the ones who can afford it. Following the reasoning from above, if a person who lives more than another appears godlike, a person who can live on forever is essentially a god. Immortality for the few would, therefore, imply a degree of inequality never seen before. Yet again, over the course of history, technological advancements have always trickled down. Cellulars ____. However, perhaps this divide would be too significant to overcome. Over the course of history, whenever inequality is 'too high' — however you want to define that — revolutions take place. ... Conclude The Morality of Immortality: A psychological, utilitarian, and capitalistic take of clinging to life.
Can we achieve immortality? If so, should we pursue it? Is it right? Is it ethical? Would access for all alter your perspective? Yes? No? Perhaps?... There is no simple answer. If we can agree on something: life is complicated. Every day we face uncertainties, challenges, hardships. However, there is one thing harder than life: Death. "Thesis... the polarizing nature of immortality." Across generations, cultures, and religions, humans have struggled with death — i.e., the notion of no longer being in existence. Dying, it seems, is difficult for the human brain to process. How can you be — think, love, live — and then simply cease to exist? Poof. And it's over. Often, we have created myths to make this 'phenomenon' easier to process. In Ancient Egypt, for example, the dead were buried with their belongings for them to use in future endeavors. While this practice is no longer, the remembrance of the dead remains through graveyards, mausoleums, cinerary urns... Even mediumship. In fact, up until the '70s, Americans were devoted Ouija players. Ouija historian Robert Murch, explains that the Ouija board helped people rationalize death: "The need to believe that something else is out there is powerful [...] [and the Ouija] is one of those things that allows them to express that belief" (qtd. in __). This "need to believe" is nothing else than a coping mechanism: Death is a lot less traumatic if it never actually happens — if our spirit lives on forever. That's what Eugenia Kuyda discovered when her best friend, Roman Mazurenko, died. In the article "Speak, Memory," Newton explains how Kuyda created a chat-bot that mimics Roman's writing, immortalizing him — at least partly. Newton illustrates how this can be advantageous for family & friends in the grieving process. Roman's mother is grateful for the bot, her sister is relieved, and Kuyda herself "has begun to feel a sense of peace about Mazurenko's death [...] because she built a place where she can direct her grief." Yet what if we could avoid grief as a whole? What if we could actually become immortal? The New York Times article "A Dying Young Woman's Hope in Cryonics and a Future" sheds light on how this could someday be possible. Journalist Amy Harmon tells the story of Kim, a 23-year-old terminally ill woman, whose last wish was to have her brain cryonically-preserved. She hoped that one day, when the technology permits, she could be brought back to life. Technological reincarnation, basically. Today, her brain is frozen at -300° Fahrenheit, waiting to be revived. While many internet users critiqued her inability to accept her fate, why would anyone accept death if it's not necessary? Death is not even fair. Some die at birth — others at 80. If we could all live longer, wouldn't we all take it? If we could live on forever, many would hesitate, but what's the conceptual difference? Dr. Hayworth, Ph.D. in neuroscience from USC, answers these questions through utilitarianism, as he reasons, "Why destroy the wisdom we build up individually and communally every generation if it's not necessary?" I wouldn't know. However, some argue that dying is intrinsically linked to living. Kim's father acknowledges that "dying [...] is part of life" (). Through this logical framework, polar opposites are used to define one another: there's no north without south, no east without west, no up without down, no right without left, no happiness without sadness, no life without death... On this note, in his article "Ever After," Miles Klee argues that life is meaningless without death: "Death is what gives life shape" (). Klee furthers his argument, critiquing human's desire to live on forever, by explaining how our pursuit of immortality is self-absorbed and arrogant, referring to it as a "narcissistic proposal" towards becoming "gods." Klee questions who would profit from this technology, calling out the "rich," the "capitalist cabal," and the "giant corporations." Perhaps Klee is right, and our desire for immortality is a utopia used by corporations to make money, effectively taking advantage of the less informed. Cryonically preserving your brain costs $85,000 and while Alcor is listed as a non-profit, that money is going somewhere: salaries, wages, research prizes... In the New York times documentary "Kim Suozzi's Last Wishes," embedded in Harmon's article, Kim's dad recognizes he is concerned cryonics is a hoax: "I thought 'This is a scam.' [...] [They are] trying to get someone's money [...] saying, 'hey give me $85,000, I'll freeze your head, and maybe in 100 years we'll bring you back'" (6:20 — 6:40 ____). Objectively, Alcor is selling a pipe dream, a possibility that's probably never going to materialize. If we go back in time, the Kennard Novelty Company already made a fortune selling an illusion with the Ouija board. The board "would find its greatest popularity in uncertain times, when people hold fast to belief and look for answers from just about anywhere" (). Demand rose during World War I, World War II, The Great Depression... So it's not far fetched to claim that the Kennard Novelty Company was taking advantage of people in despair. Robert Murch explains that the founders "were very shrewd businessmen [...] [that] didn't care why people thought it worked" (). According to Murch, the Kennard Novelty Company purposefully avoided explaining how the board worked to keep the board's mysteriousness — or in other words, to keep their customers ignorant. In fact, "none of the men [the founders] were spiritualists": "they were mostly looking to open Americans' wallets" (). While the Ouija craze has since faltered, Alcor taking advantage of people's ignorance is not the only present case. In 2015 in an episode of HBO's show Last Week Tonight, John Oliver exposed how Televangelists strip people off their money. He explained that these 'religious' organizations fleece the most naive by preaching seed faith: the belief that prosperity is a sign of God's blessing, and that if you sow a seed (donate money) to the church, you will win God's favor and harvest your seed multiple times over (). The thing is, repayment never occurs. Throughout the show, John Oliver incorporates various fragments of televangelists requesting donations, which inherently are ridiculous: James Payne ("The size of your seed will determine the size of your harvest" (4:53 — 5:10, 5:01)), Todd Coontz ("You're going to have a breakthrough through this $273 seed" (5:10 — 5:17)), amongst others. John Oliver acknowledges it would all be hilarious if not for the fact that these Televangelists target the most vulnerable: the poor, the indebted, the sick. The HBO host calls out Henry Fernadez ("All you've got is $1000. Listen that's not enough money anyway to buy a house [...] You get to that phone, and you put that seed in the ground and watch God work it out" (5:17 — 5:32)), Mike Murdock ("I have a feeling that somebody there wants their credit card debt wiped out, that if you use your faith as you sow [...], God's going to wipe out your credit card indebtedness" (5:58 — 6:20)), Robert Tilton ("Healing go into those knees. Arthritis go in the name of Jesus! Tumors go in the name of Jesus! [...] Lupus you foul devil you bow to the name of Jesus! Lupus you bow to the name of Jesus! You go in Jesus name! (1:07 — 1:23)), and Gloria Copeland ("[Mocking a doctor] 'We know what's wrong with you, you've got cancer. The bad news is we don't know what to do about it, except give you some poison that will make you sicker.' Now, which do you want to do? Do you wanna do that or do you wanna sit here on Saturday morning, hear the word of God, and let faith come into your heart and be healed. Alleluya!" (7:40 — 8:02)). It's a horrendous practice, but people fall for it. John Oliver goes over Bonnie Parker's case, a seed-faith believer who died of cancer after donating all her money to Copeland’s church instead of using it to treat her cancer medically (6:40 — 7:32). Looking at this evidence, Klee is right: People are too greedy, will likely take advantage of the most vulnerable, and lack empathy. From this point of view, our desire for immortality is nothing else than an extension of our capitalistic appetite; its realization will probably lead to greater inequality. For all of human history, we've grappled with the concept of death. Dying, it seems, is difficult for the human brain to process. How can you be -- think, love, live -- and then simply cease to exist? Poof... And it's over. All it takes is one missed heartbeat. From the after-life to reincarnation, people preach unproven theories as facts. For all we know, our memories, experiences, consciousness... our life vanishes the moment we die. But is this true? Maybe, though maybe not. The New York Times article "A Dying Young Woman's Hope in Cryonics and a Future" tells the story of Kim, a 23-year-old terminally ill woman, whose last wish was to have her brain cryonically-preserved. She hoped that one day, when the technology permits, she could be brought back to life. Technological reincarnation, basically. Today, her brain is frozen at -300° Fahrenheit, waiting to be revived. While the Smithsonian article "The Strange and Mysterious History of the Ouija Board" does not specifically address immortality, various parallelism can be drawn regarding society's attitude towards cryonics and the issues that could potentially arise once -- and if -- the technology becomes widespread.
When reading the Smithsonian article I was unsettled by the thought of regular kids 'playing' with the Ouija board. How was 'playing' with the ouija board in the 1950s seen as normal back then, and insane today? Personally, it seemed incredible that just 50 years ago, the Ouija board was "marketed as [...] family entertainment." Kids would play. It was common, not frowned upon, nothing wrong with it. Today it's completely the opposite. I thought about this, and after a while, came to an obvious yet not so obvious conclusion: society's shared believes are subjective... what we believe is true today could be seen as ridiculous in a couple of years. It's hard to believe that society's attitude towards a given product can change so drastically, but it did. In fact, I think it's a pretty common phenomenon (take cigarettes, for example). As the article put it: "Almost overnight, Ouija became a tool of the devil." Today, cryonics is not regarded as socially acceptable. Many people don't believe it's right. Kim faced resistance not only from his family but from the internet community. They called her out: "rodent", "long-shot attempt at self-preservation", and "selfish retard", amongst others. However, after realizing how society's views are easily changed, I predict that in the future, self-preservation methods such as cryonics will be seen in a much more possitive light. As soon as this technology becomes widely accessible, many people will opt-in. However, there are major roadblocks before we get to wide-spread use of cryonics. Funding, biological constraints (such as freezing damage), technological limitations... The list goes on and on. The Ouija board article indirectly exposes one of these barries: our limited understanding of how the human brain functions. The article explains that the reason people believe the Ouija board works is based on confirmation bias: people believe they're establishing contact with a spirit, and when they see any motion in the board they simply confirm their original theory. In fact, what's going on is that people are unconsciously causing the movement. By studying the interaction between people and the Ouija board, researchers came to the conclusion that the human mind has multiple levels. We don't know how many there are, nor how they function, but we know there is some sort of unconscious processing going on. This finding is not very encouraging for cryonics: how can we preserve something if we don't even know what information it encodes? Would the person be the same person without their unconscious identity? To what extent??? Can we become immortal? Is it unnatural? And if so, does that make it unethical? Will we ever have this ability? And if we do, who decides whether to 'make' an immortal version of ourselves? Who owns one's life? What is life???... Both Newton's and Klee's articles — "Speak, Memory" and "Ever After," respectively — address these questions. However, while Newton contemplates the possibility for 'afterlife' as something worth exploring, Klee does the opposite, criticizing our desire to live on forever.
Across generations, cultures, and religions, humans have struggled with death — i.e., the notion of no longer being in existence. Often, we have created myths to make this 'phenomenon' easier to process. That is, coping mechanisms. In Ancient Egypt, for example, the dead were buried with their belongings for them to use in future endeavors. While this practice is no longer, the glorification and remembrance of the dead remain through graveyards, mausoleums, cinerary urns... Technological advancement in AI provides an alternative: Creating a bot version of the deceased from his/her digital footprint. Newton explains Roman Mazurenko's case, who once dead was immortalized by her close friend Eugenia Kuyda through a chat-bot that mimics his writing. Newton illustrates how this practice could be advantageous for family & friends in the grieving process. Roman sister believes the bot has "continued Roman's life and saves ours." While it's true that Newton acknowledges the potential limitations — "if used wrong, it enables people to hide from their grief," "your loved ones may see a side of you that you never expected to reveal," "it's just a program" — the emphasis lies on the positives. Newton ultimately wraps the article up by explaining how Kuyda "built a place where she could direct her grief," and how it has helped Roman's mother cope with his son's death: "I'm getting to know him more" ... "I'm grateful that I have this" ... "We are still in the process of meeting Roman" ... "It's beautiful"... Klee, on the other hand, focuses on how practices like these could be dangerous. Klee questions who would profit from this technology, calling out the"rich," the "capitalist cabal," and the "giant corporations." Moreover, Klee claims life would be meaningless without death: "Death is what gives life shape." Klee furthers his argument by explaining how our desire to extend our lives is self-absorbed and arrogant, referring to it as a "narcissistic proposal" towards becoming "gods." Should we, therefore, not pursue immortality? Perhaps. Food for thought: Haven't we been extending our lives already by treating diseases? What's the difference? Where do we draw the line??? In the essay "Learning to Love Our Robot CoWorkers", author Kim Tingley discusses how the interaction between people and robots in the workplace is gaining relevance. While the rise of automation started years ago, companies are now trying to find ways to make humans and robots complement each other. Compare this to the mistified rivalry between humans and robots in pop-culture, and the picture is quite different. Tingley quotes David Mindell, an MIT professor in aerospace engineering, to explain this phenomenon: "We're moving into an era where people and infrastructure are in a more fluid relationship." This "fluid relationship" refers to a "collaborative" interaction in which both the human and the robot help each other — it is not only about co-existence but about making each other better.
Tingley's writing about how our perception of robots alters how fast we adopt this technology was especially interesting. Obviously, the more comfortable we feel with robots, the easier it is to integrate them with human labor. He cited Julie Shah to explain how humans can feel threatened by robots: "Every time you see a robot doing what a human does, there's a visceral response — it's human nature." I partly agree with Shah. While it's true that people are bound to fear the unknown, using "every time" seems hyperbolic. The fact that the more automated a society is the less anxious people are about automation (Asia vs the West), suggests that once familiarized, people embrace robots. Leaving aside the "Uncanny Valley", perhaps our comfort level with robots can also be explained as exponential: once past the point of taboo, people not only become comfortable working besides robots but also look forward to it. However, there's more to the story: Reed's experience as an area supervisor in GM with two different robots shows how it's not only a matter of acquaintance but also about making them 'human-friendly: "That one I'm scared to death of; it could crush me [...] This one is completely safe. It's kind of like a pet dog. I forget it's there." As such, to make workers more comfortable, companies are introducing robots that seem non-threatening. There are, however, some real-world implications. Questions arise... Could we possibly become too comfortable? Will some people forget they are interacting with a machine and not a human? Where do we draw the line??? The lens texts show how this line is already blurry; our empathy for artificial intelligence is increasing. In UC Berkeley a vigil was held in honor of a Kiwi bot that caught fire. Whether people were taking it seriously or just performing a mockery is another story.... the fact is it actually happened. In 2016, HBO released West-World, a series in which robots and humans clash, yet it tells the story from the robots' perspective. The robots are the victims, while humans are the terrorists. Compared to previous material within the genre the roles are switched: the robots are humane, while the humans are vicious machines. As a result, the audience feels sympathy for the robots... not the humans. I am left with this question: If this is happening now, how will people view robots once (as Nick Borston explains in his Ted Talk) robots surpass us in capabilities that are linked to our human identity such as intelligence? |