Project Vision 21

In recent days, there have been events in different cities in the United States that exemplify the disconnection between human beings (we no longer see the other as “another one like myself”) and, therefore, highlight the dangers of falling into irrational aggressiveness, that is, seeing another human being only as a threat to be eliminated.

Obviously, there are wars, conflicts, and massacres in (unfortunately) many other places in the world, but we chose the examples we will now share because in all cases the victims neither did anything wrong nor threatened the homeowners who, without saying a word and with no warning, shot the victims.

In one case, a 20-year-old girl was killed in a remote area in rural New York when the vehicle she was traveling in used a driveway to turn back onto the correct path. The 65-year-old property owner said he "didn't like" anyone using his driveway and, therefore, decided to kill the young woman.

In another case, a 6-year-old girl went to get her basketball in front yard of her neighbor's house when a 24-year-old young man living at that house, upon seeing the girl and the girl's father, went out to the street and shot them, causing serious injuries to the father and minor injuries to the girl.

And finally, in Missouri, a young musician went to pick up his siblings and unknowingly rang the doorbell at the wrong house. (His siblings were at a similar address a block away.) The 84-year-old owner shot the young musician from inside the house though a closed door, wounding the young man twice.

In all these cases, an alarming pattern of behavior is clearly seen: “the other” is considered a threat just for being in o near “my territory”, which I must defend with violence even if “the other” only made an innocent mistake (turn on the wrong street, ring the bell at the wrong house) or was just playing (running after a ball.)

This disconnection with the other is as old as Western civilization itself, as evidenced by the complaints the philosopher Heraclitus shared 2,500 years ago. In fact, it could be said that our civilization (which is most certainly about to collapse) is based precisely on an isolating individualism that in our time has been transformed into intolerant narcissism.

When talking about this connection on a social, spiritual, and even universal (nature) level, Heraclitus used the word "logos", which, among many other meanings, means both "logic" and “reason”. In that context, for Heraclitus, the disconnection from the other and, consequently, from nature and from ourselves, was something both illogical and irrational.

The few fragments and anecdotes that remain from Heraclitus make it clear that he understood the social consequences of disconnecting from the other, including, for example, electing incompetent and corrupt leaders, something that it did happen at election time in his hometown of Ephesus. 

Two and a half millennia later, nothing has changed, or perhaps we should admit that now we are much worse off.

For many decades modern researchers have wondered how the cement used by the Romans two millennia ago could last longer than the cement of our time, since Roman cement contains a not insignificant amount of rubbish. Answer: that "garbage", far from being it, was the key ingredient to give cement durability.

That well-known story came back to mind when I read a recent article (April 12, 2023) on BBC Future stating that over the last 20 years more than $3.7 billion was invested in determining how 98% of the 3 billion “letters” in human genes were just “junk” (scientists used that word, not me.)

In other words, we could keep only 2% of our DNA because that is where the “instruction manual” of our genes is kept, and get rid of the rest, considered as “material without meaning or purpose”. But that was before. According to new discoveries, what was thought to be 98% of "junk" in our DNA is now thought of now as "the place of processing and response to external information."

The article explains that the repeated sequences within our DNA, known as transposons, were initially ignored in genetic studies, until it was determined that they are "elements so extremely ancient" that they could be considered among "the earliest forms of life."

In short, without those elements previously considered "garbage" or “junk”, not only we humans would not be alive, but possibly there would be no life at all. That “junk” was something (is something) of the highest value.

As this column is not a genetics lesson, interested people can look up the full story on BBC Future. But the lesson for practical life is clear: simply because we do not understand something, or because that "something" does not fulfill a function that we can detect, that does not mean that "something" is garbage.

Even more, it is very possible that this "garbage" is precisely the central element, the cornerstone, the key to understanding what is being studied, or what is being lived.

Just as scientists claimed that Roman-made cement was full of junk, only to find out later that it wasn't junk at all, and just as scientists said 98% of our DNA was junk, when it wasn't, either, the In the same way, in our daily life we quickly classify as “junk” everything that we do not understand or appreciate.

One could argue that "junk" is a relative term. It is said that what is trash to one person is treasure to another. And it's true. But what we are suggesting is that sometimes, perhaps almost always, we are quick to dismiss something, say an idea or a suggestion, simply because we don't understand it.

Instead of being honest and saying, "This is something I don't understand at this point in my life," we say, "This is complete rubbish." But, contrary to what scientists who continue to investigate and change their minds do, we seldom go through discarded “junk” in case we misjudged its value. 

I can't find any other way to start this column than by sharing a question that is being heard more and more frequently, but to which little attention is paid and which, in my opinion, continues to be ignored by most people: which truly human element will be the last one to disappear? And what is that element?

There is little doubt that in the next few decades (and probably even in the next few years) humanity as we know it will disappear, either because there will be no more humans, or because humans will come under the control of superhuman intelligences, or some partial combination of those. and other scenarios.

And this is neither science fiction nor an unfounded concern.

In her recent book The Battle for Your Brain, Dr. Nita Farahany states that advances in neuroscience and neurotechnology, while potentially of great benefit in curing or remedying brain diseases, are likely to become a threat to privacy of our thoughts.

In fact, according to Farahany, we are on the threshold of the disappearance of cognitive freedom, since in a short time all our thoughts will be "universally controlled" by new technologies, so that in a matter of years everything we think will be known by artificial intelligence and, therefore, we will no longer have self-determination.

And this is not a science fiction book, but a warning issued by the highest global authority on ethical and legal issues of emerging technologies. (Farahany is a professor at the Duke University School of Law.)

At the same time, a report published last February by the Pew Research Center indicates that there is "general agreement" among a large group of experts consulted by that organization about the fact that by 2035 humans will have lost our ability to make decisions on their own. our account, that is, our personal autonomy will have disappeared.

That same year, experts said, artificial intelligence will reach such a level that it will make its own decisions without intervention and with little chance that humans can participate in those decisions.

In other words, within a decade humans will neither be in control of our lives, nor will we be able to control the technology that we are now creating. Or, to put it technically, the technology "will have become opaque even to its creators."

While all this is brewing, there is a possibility, according to Ray Kurzweil, that in 2030 two incredible events will coincide (and not coincidentally): the technological singularity (artificial intelligence greatly surpassing human intelligence) and human immortality (achieved thanks to technological advances). (Kurzweil, 75, is a American computer scientist, author, inventor, and futurist.)

So, what options do we humans have to continue being human? What exists within us that makes us truly human and that nothing and no one can take it from us? Which element manifest to the fullest what it truly mean to be a human being?

Paradoxically, technology cannot answer those questions, but it can prevent us from thinking about them.

Although only a few decades have really passed, I remember those now prehistoric and obsolete times when I first saw a color television, used a photocopier, enjoyed a hologram, and held a cell phone in my hand (which was the size and the weight of a brick).

But none of those advances, which at the time seemed wonderful and insurmountable to me, can be compared with current technology that, due to its achievements (read: artificial intelligence) is getting dangerously close to magic.

Arthur C. Clarke had already warned that any sufficiently advanced technology would be indistinguishable from magic. In other words, at some point in technological progress, technology begins to be perceived as a mystical and supernatural force that generates inexplicable phenomena.

Or, to put it another way, technological advances blur the lines between advanced technology and magic, causing those usually neatly separated concepts to intersect in such a way as to become nearly indistinguishable.

Consider, for example, the possibility of an imminent artificial intelligence superior to human intelligence. Or the ability to edit (manipulate) our DNA. Or the fact that, due to technology, humanity is evolving into four different species of human beings, including synthetic humans and digital humans.

At some point, machines (for example, airplanes) achieved what was previously considered impossible. The same is now happening with artificial intelligence and quantum computers. And, in many cases, that fact of achieving the impossible generates exactly the same "mystical effect" that previously generated spells, incantations or potions.

In this context, we must not forget that some of the early modern inventions, such as telephones and the photographic camera, were initially created to communicate with the other world and to document it visually, respectively.

Be that as it may, the arrival of virtual reality (increasingly real than reality itself) takes the intersection of technology and magic to a new level, because now we can interact with a "parallel world", which does not exist in the physical realm. , but that is not why it is less real. Within that "magical world" we can be what we want and be where we want.

There is no doubt, then, that although technology and magic are still separate concepts at this time, their growing interconnectedness makes it increasingly difficult to separate one from the other. Is ChatGPT a new oracle for our time? Will we have a magic wand that cures everything?

But where does this “magical thought” come from? As the Argentine historian Ariel Petruccelli explained in a recent essay, we are in an irrational age and that is dangerous:

"In our scientific-technical world, magical thinking is a guarantee of subordination to those who dominate science and technology, thus creating a high risk of disaster if those who control the techno-scientific complex allow themselves to be won over by magical or irrational beliefs," says Petruccelli, citing the example of well-known tyrannies and devastating wars in the first half of the last century.

Godlike technology, “magical” beliefs, irrational thinking. What is happening to us?