Why 'upgrading' humanity is a transhumanist myth | Douglas Rushkoff | Big Think

Summary

The speaker challenges the overconfidence in our ability to upload consciousness to machines, highlighting the vast unknowns of human consciousness and the complexity of life itself. They argue that the pursuit of digital immortality often overlooks the unique, unpredictable qualities of humanity. The speaker defends the value of human life, despite its flaws, and warns against the dehumanization that often accompanies technological progress. Ultimately, they suggest that the drive to transcend humanity could lead to dangerous consequences, both for our species and the world we inhabit.

Takeaways

• 😀 Human consciousness is still a mystery, and the idea of uploading it to silicon or recreating it with algorithms is premature and overly confident.
• 😀 Neuroscientists and brain researchers agree that we are far from understanding human consciousness, and the study of the brain is still in its infancy.
• 😀 We don't fully understand the natural world either—like the living nature of soil—so it’s difficult to claim knowledge about the human brain and consciousness.
• 😀 The source of consciousness, its origin, and whether life has a defined meaning are still unknown questions.
• 😀 All simulations, including those aiming to recreate consciousness, fail to capture the full complexity of human experience.
• 😀 There’s a clear difference between experiencing something in person (like being in a jazz club) and experiencing it through a medium like a CD. This difference is crucial but not fully understood.
• 😀 The rush to upload consciousness feels more like an escape from the messiness of human life rather than a forward-thinking journey.
• 😀 Life, with all its uncertainties, including human relationships, death, and societal issues, is frightening, but this complexity gives life its richness.
• 😀 The idea of a perfect digital simulation that removes human uncertainty and unpredictability may seem appealing, but it lacks the wonder, awe, and vitality that comes with real life.
• 😀 The transhumanist vision of passing evolution to digital successors and fading out as humans could lead to dehumanization and the loss of what makes us uniquely human.
• 😀 Despite humanity's flaws, we are special, quirky, and deserve a place in the digital future. Our uniqueness is not a weakness but a defining trait worth preserving.

Q & A

What is the main argument presented in the script regarding the human experience and technology?

The script argues that humans do not fully understand their own consciousness, and that the idea of uploading consciousness to silicon or recreating it with algorithms is misguided. It critiques the rush to create digital versions of humanity, emphasizing that the human experience is irreplaceable and uniquely ambiguous, despite its flaws.

Why does the speaker mention the soil and its life in the context of understanding the human brain?

The speaker uses the example of soil to highlight how little we understand about complex living systems, including the human brain. If we don't even grasp the full complexity of soil, a seemingly simple system, it is premature to think we understand consciousness or can replicate it in digital form.

How does the speaker view the rush towards uploading human consciousness?

The speaker sees the rush to upload consciousness as an escape from the complexities and difficulties of human life. While it may seem attractive to live in a perfect, predictable digital world, it would lack the unpredictability, awe, and wonder that make life meaningful.

What does the speaker believe is the problem with the transhumanist view of human evolution?

The speaker disagrees with the transhumanist view that humans should pass the torch of evolution to digital successors. He believes that human beings, with all their quirks and imperfections, still deserve a place in the future, and that transcending humanity would be a dangerous and misguided path.

What does the speaker mean by 'Team Human'?

'Team Human' is a concept introduced by the speaker to defend the value of humanity. The idea is that, despite our flaws, humans are still unique and deserving of a place in the future. It's a stance against those who believe humanity should be replaced or transcended by digital beings.

How does the speaker argue that dehumanization is linked to technological transcendence?

The speaker suggests that the desire to transcend humanity often leads to dehumanization. When people view others as less than human, they can justify harmful actions, like slavery or environmental destruction. This dehumanization is easier to enact when the idea of transcending humanity is accepted.

What is the speaker's perspective on environmental destruction and human actions?

The speaker acknowledges the destructive actions humans have taken against the environment but argues that these actions stem from times when humans have been less than human—when they dehumanize others or fail to recognize the interconnectedness of life.

Why does the speaker emphasize that the human timeline cannot be reduced to just a beginning, middle, and end?

The speaker rejects the view that human history has a linear trajectory with a clear end, especially one that culminates in digital transcendence. He warns that this perspective is rooted in a growth-based, apocalyptic myth that could lead to the destruction of humanity and the planet.

How does the speaker critique the Western, neoliberal, growth-based approach to evolution?

The speaker criticizes the Western, neoliberal, growth-based approach to evolution as an apocalyptic myth that prioritizes endless growth and technological progress over the well-being of humanity and the planet. He believes this mindset could lead to the downfall of both human civilization and the environment.

What is the fundamental flaw in thinking that simulations can replace real human experiences?

The fundamental flaw is that simulations, no matter how advanced, always miss something essential about the human experience. Real-life experiences, like being in a jazz club, carry complexities and nuances that simulations cannot replicate, which is why they will never fully capture the richness of human existence.