When life becomes technology and technology comes alive

Citation

Kristensen, H.S. (2002), "When life becomes technology and technology comes alive", Foresight, Vol. 4 No. 5. https://doi.org/10.1108/fs.2002.27304eaf.001

When life becomes technology and technology comes alive

Henrik S. Kristensen Project Manager at The Copenhagen Institute for Futures Studies (CIFS), Copenhagen, Denmark.E-mail: hkr@iff.dk

Keywords: Behaviour, Technology, DevelopmentAbstract Our field of action is determined by what we feel is natural. No one claims to, or consciously wishes to, act against the natural order of things. But it is possible to have different ideas about what is natural, and to have different views of what the natural order of things really is. What all the conflicting views have in common is that they all derive from what is considered to be the true, natural order of things. The reason for this is presumably that since human beings are a part of nature, it would work to our ruin to go against the grand scheme of nature. If we desire growth, improvement and progress, we must work in accord with nature. If you want to win a game, you must know and follow the rules of the game.

What we perceive as the natural order of things has changed radically through time. In medieval times, people had one view of how nature was organised; in the industrial age people had a different view. Right now, our perception of the natural order of things is in the process of being changed to something new. We are moving away from the view of nature held by the industrial age and are heading towards a new one. That's what's so exciting and interesting. The question is, what are we going to consider natural in the future, and that, among other things, is what The Copenhagen Institute for Futures Studies' (CIFS) project Life and Living Technologies is about: Nature is alive, but what is it that makes something alive? This is a very important debate because it will shape our view of what is natural, and hence the framework for what actions we consider acceptable or unacceptable.

One question that is already being debated is how much we can tamper with human genes without creating "unnatural" monsters. In connection with cloning, the argument has been put forth that everybody has a right to be genetically unique. In relation to IT, especially when the debate about virtual reality peaked, it was argued whether it could be healthy to spend most of one's life in an artificial, computer-generated 3D environment. In the future, we will face the question about to what degree we will permit a person to be improved by installing various types of fancy technology in his body.

The cyborg, a creature that is a combination of a human being and technology, isn't just something that we meet in science fiction. The common use of pacemakers was the first, small step on the way to create cyborgs. In the future, we will discuss how much of a human body it is acceptable to replace with various types of technology. How much can you modify and "play with" a human being? At what point do we create something unnatural?

Our perception of what the natural order of things is does not arise out of thin air. Our view of nature grows out of an interaction with the society we live in. Our view of nature is affected dramatically by the social and technological reality we live in. Actually, the society we live in affects the way we perceive nature to such a degree that it can be said that our perception of the natural order of things serves to legitimise our society. Thus, it is not society that is organised according to the natural order of things. It is our perception of what is natural that is adapted to the society we live in.

This is a form of circular argument or dialectic. The organisation of our society shapes our view of the natural order of things, which again shapes the way we organise society.

The industrial society

A good example is the industrial society. The perception of nature that is or was connected to the industrial society is Charles Darwin's theory of evolution. It can briefly be expressed as "survival of the fittest"; in other words, they will survive who are best adapted. The central part of Darwin's theory of evolution was the competition between different species and how this competition has made them adapt to the environment and circumstances they live in and under. The basis was the assumption that nature consists of individuals who are competing against each other. It is thus quite natural and acceptable that only the fittest survive.

This theory originated at about the same time as the industrial age. And the theory of evolution has been put to excellent use as a legitimisation of the industrial society and its market economy. Instead of the wild nature, we have the free market; instead of animals and species, we have corporations competing against each other. It is expected that the corporations compete according to the theory of evolution so that only the fittest and strongest survive. This will make society improve continuously, hence the only duty of the state is to make sure the market functions optimally. The state has to make sure that there is open competition, because that is how nature works, and that is how we get the best result.

It was also possible to see the same thought being expressed at a higher level. It was also at the beginning of the nineteenth century that the idea of nation states really caught on. Most nation states were established at the beginning of the nineteenth century, and it was also at this time that the concept of national character was developed. That is, the thought that we Danes are something quite special, or that the German culture is something unique, which has to be guarded. For this reason, special attention was being paid to native languages.

In accordance with Darwin's theory of evolution, the different countries were now considered to be unique units – nation states. Each nation state was unique and had its special place in the grand scheme of things. The states could as a matter of course compete, and it was quite all right – at least outside of Europe – for stronger nations to conquer weaker nations. The colonial age was a result of this.

If we want to express in broad terms what was considered the "natural order of things" according to the theory of evolution and in agreement with the reality of the industrial society, it must be something like: "The world consists of unique individuals, which are continually improved by competing against each other."

It is this perception of the natural order of things that we have lived by the last 150 years. And which we in a way still live by. You have to search far and wide to find anybody who disagrees fundamentally with this view of the natural order of things – except perhaps religious fundamentalists. But this is in the process of being changed. Future developments within IT and biotechnology are going to challenge our perception of the natural order of things. The information society is organised in a different manner than the industrial society, hence in the information society, we are going to have a different view of nature than in the industrial society. And as mentioned before, it is far from unimportant what perception of nature we have in the information society, because it is our perception of what is natural that decides what actions are permitted or not.

"The natural order of things" is in crisis

The increased focus on moral issues and ethics in the last decade is a consequence of the fact that there is a growing conflict between our perception of the natural order of things and our possible choices of action. More and more of our actions and possible choices of actions are perceived as being potentially against that which is considered natural. The growing interest in ethics and the many conflicts between what we can do and what we desire to do, is probably an indicator of the fact that our perception of the natural order of things is in crisis. Our perception of what is natural no longer fits our society and the technological reality that we live in. At the present, we try to control the evolution of our society and constrain our activities so that they remain in accord with our view of nature. But it is likely that the evolution of society is going to win eventually, and the view of nature must adapt. History seems to show us that.

The natural order of things in the information society

Can anything be said about what the perception of nature of the information society will look like? Yes, certainly. If one has to mention something that broadly characterises the information society or the society that we are moving towards, it seems to be that all sorts of boundaries are broken down. A few examples could be:

• •

  The Schengen agreement in the EU has made the physical borders between countries almost invisible.

• •

  The boundaries between the national economies are softened so that the economy becomes global. The many national markets are becoming a single global market.

• •

  The Internet makes information flow freely across the globe.

• •

  Companies become less strongly bounded. They take part in many different forms of co-operation, like when Ericsson and Sony work together to make mobile phones.

• •

  IT dissolves the boundary between work and time off. We can work where we want, when we want.

• •

  We can manipulate our bodies so that the boundaries between sexes are dissolved, and we can play with our identities.

• •

  The family is no longer a tight unit, in actuality it is often a network of children, step-parents, half-sisters and half-brothers, etc.

• •

  Through gene technology it is possible to mix different types of species, plants and animals. We can make strawberries with fish genes, and pigs that produce human insulin.

• •

  The more technology we implant in our bodies, the more the boundary between man and machine will be erased.

Nature as information

In the industrial society, the model was the machine with its many gears. The overarching concept was "power" – it was all about fighting, working, competing. In the information society, it is the computer that is the preferred model when discussing the world. Now it is all about information, processes and interpretation. Now, the overarching concept is "information".

The developments within the computer sciences have without a doubt affected our perception of nature. Now, nature no longer consists of individuals that fight each other, but of constantly changing processes. "Survival" is a matter of collecting information about one's surroundings, and the one who is best at interpreting and understanding the surroundings will survive. Because we continually interpret and continually adapt, we are in a continuing process of being changed. No matter if you are a human being, an animal, a plant – or a company. Fixed values are becoming variables. The reason is that we now are on the way to perceive nature as a network of information flows. That nature is a network of information flows means that everything connects and that it doesn't make any sense to talk about sharply bounded units. The big words now are "networking" and "adaptability". Everything is changing and changeable.

One example is genes. If a living creature is a sort of computer, then its genes are a sort of computer program. The living creature is programmed to be and act in a certain way. But it is possible to reprogram the living organism so it gets a different program. We are in the process of learning how to do that. Actually, we are already doing it. It is now possible to "reprogram" different crops so that they are poisonous to specific insects. The integrity or unique value of a species isn't something we talk about, for "in reality" there are no fixed species – they are always in the process of changing. When we mention this "in reality", it is our perception of the natural order of things that we refer to.

As there may be programming errors in computer programs, so there may be "programming errors" in the human "program" – that is, the genetic code. An error in the genetic code is for example what we call a hereditary disease or defect. If you have such errors in your programming – then, of course, you must be reprogrammed. There's nothing strange in that. This development makes us used to the concept that life and living things aren't anything finished or complete, but something that it is always possible to correct or improve upon.

According to the American author Jeremy Rifkin, the expression "survival of the fittest" will be replaced by "survival of the best informed". It is those who know the most and are best at handling information who will survive.

If we can create artificial life on computers; if we can talk to a computer without noticing that it is a computer that we're talking to; if we can make robots that constantly learn and improve themselves – then it isn't strange that we begin to think of life and the living as pure information. If we can make computer programs capable of creating life, it may not be surprising if we begin to regard biological life as computer programs of a sort. Transhumanism is when manso-to-speak stops being human, and instead becomes a computer program that lives in networks.

The ultimate consequence of this pattern of thought is the so-called transhumanism. Transhumanism is when man so-to-speak stops being human, and instead becomes a computer program that lives in networks. Transhumanism is when people upload their consciousness, their lives, into a computer in order to live there in perpetuity. This is of course a utopia, but it is based on the assumption that life can be reduced to pure information.

As I have already mentioned, the result of all this is the perception of the living as something that can be corrected and manipulated with. Nature stops being something finite, something given, and becomes something that we humans can shape and recreate. Eventually, nature will become a human work of art, as Rifkin (1998) points out in his book The Biotech Century. We (re)create nature as we want it.

A guess at the future perception of the natural order of things

If I have to make a guess at the future perception of the "natural order of things" – and it is nothing but a more-or-less qualified guess – then it will be something like: "There are no bounded organisms in nature, for nature consists of interacting processes. Those processes that adapt to the greatest number of other processes, will be thosethat survive."

The essential thing is thus that there are no fixed, unchanging units. Things interconnect in a network and are constantly evolving.

This perception of nature isn't unproblematic. Among other things, it legitimises our use of gene technology to radically change human beings and other living organisms. With this perception of nature it will become legitimate to create entirely new, living organisms. Since everything is information, it will also be quite unproblematic if people want to live closely integrated with information technology, even to experience life through information technology. It will be difficult to speak of things like what is authentic and true.

Resistance to the new, natural order of things

It is very uncertain that the new perception of nature will be accepted everywhere without problems; most likely it will be met with massive resistance. But it is certain that we in the future increasingly will be faced with the new perception of nature that I just presented. We are going to see it in conflicts between what different people will find acceptable. Those who support the new perception of the natural order of things are for instance going to think that it is okay for parents to improve the genes of their unborn children. Those who are against will argue that such interference with the genes of an unborn child is an attack on the integrity of the child and its dignity as a unique individual.

Offhand, I can think of three different contrasts of opinion that we likely will see more of in the future:

1. 1.

   Contrast of opinion 1. First off, there is the contrast between seeing living organisms as bounded creatures and seeing living organisms as streams of information. I have already mentioned these views. They hinge on whether or not there are natural boundaries between organisms that must be respected, e.g. by not mixing genes between different species.

2. 2.

   Contrast of opinion 2. The second difference of opinion is the contrast between thinking that there is a difference between nature and culture (i.e. that which is created by mankind), or thinking that there is no difference between nature and culture, since mankind itself is a part of nature. The argument for the first opinion is that what mankind creates, is not nature. Cities, computers and genetically modified organisms are not nature. To the contrary, culture threatens to exterminate nature. Culture is a threat against nature, hence it must be controlled and limited. The argument for the contrasting opinion is that since mankind itself is an animal and lives in the same global ecosystem as other animals, it must be a part of nature. Cars, houses and manmade organisms are thus just as natural as coral reefs and anthills. Thus nothing that mankind does can be against the natural order of things.This contrast in opinions will be expressed in the debate about how permissible it is for mankind to interfere in the course of nature. Will it be acceptable for us to introduce new species of animals to the wild nature? And does it matter if genetically modified plants will spread into the wild nature? This contrast of opinion will also be expressed when debating how much of the globe mankind may take up. Is it all right that our cities and roadways spread all over the place?

3. 3.

   Contrast of opinion 3. A third contrast of opinion will be the contrast between the opinion that life is something unique and at its core "existential", hence not something that can be recreated in computers, and the opinion that life is processes and information streams that easily can be transferred to or recreated in computers.

These contrasting opinions are associated with the question about what it means to be alive. The first opinion makes a point of life being more than just a series of physical processes. Being alive is also something spiritual. Being alive is about consciousness of some kind. In a way, it can be said that the truly alive possesses some sort of a soul. The contrasting opinion stresses that life is merely physical processes. Life can essentially be reduced to "dead", soulless technology. These contrasting opinions will decide, among other things, how we can treat animals. Can we do with animals what we like? And can it be said that original plant species have some sort of right to exist? Why is it wrong for us to change animals as we desire? The opinions are also tied to the question of whether computer-generated artificial life and artificial intelligence is as good as natural life and intelligence. If you can't tell a human being from a computer, is there really a difference? Or is there something in "true" life that the artificially created life is incapable of catching and recreating?

Life on the agenda

The future perception of life that I guess at – viewed as streams of information – will initially give birth to a perception of life, that is the living, as something quite technical. The living is merely complex technology. This is a rather cold opinion that many probably will disagree with to some degree. Hence, we are going to see reactions against this opinion of the living, and it is actually these reactions that are interesting, for it is those that will shape and guide the debate. It is the protests against the new, technological view of nature that will take a part in controlling what view of nature we end up with. It will be the alternatives to the technological view of nature that will take a part in deciding what we in the end will consider natural – and hence, right.

These alternative opinions will in various ways try to maintain the boundary or demarcation between true, natural life and man-made, artificial life. The latter includes computer-generated life as well as genetically modified organisms. In order still to be able to distinguish between artificial and true life, people will attempt to provide alternative definitions of what it means to be alive.

Life as emotion

The first alternative opinion is the perception of life as feelings, i.e. emotion. The truly alive has emotions. Hence, plants and animals also have emotions that we must consider. Animal rights activists release mink from mink farms, and it doesn't matter that they die out in the nature, because at least they die feeling free. That which is alive, experiences life. Hence pigs must have access to walking freely in the fields so their lives become good experiences and they experience positive feelings. After all, it has been shown that both plants and animals can suffer from stress. What in this connection forms the boundaries for our actions is that we must not inflict unpleasantness or bad emotions on living organisms. Not that we may today, but the difference between this scenario and the situation today is that in this future scenario, life is considered much more emotional than it is today. Hence, in this scenario, it does not take much to inflict unpleasantness on living organisms, and it will also be possible to think of plants as emotional beings.

Life as existence

Another scenario, or another way of maintaining a boundary between true life and artificial life, is to make the living something existential. To be truly alive implies being conscious and being able to reflect over oneself – being self-aware. Existing means being aware of the fact that one is a part of a greater whole. That is what characterises us as human beings. It is perceivable that we in the future will encounter the opinion that plants and animals also have some sort of self-awareness and that plants and animals are conscious of being part of a greater whole. It may sound a bit far-fetched, but I believe that we will see such reactions against the reduction to technology that biotechnology and IT makes of the living. These reactions will be as extreme as biotechnology is when it works with living creatures as if they were soulless machines, just in the opposite direction. The reactions will insist that all living things have some sort of soul that must be respected.

Anthropomorphisation of the living

We can broadly state that reactions against treating life as technology will be characterised by an anthropomorphisation of the living. We human beings will become a sort of model for what it means to be alive. Those traits and values we associate with human beings, the opponents of treating life as technology will transplant to living organisms. This means that people increasingly will attribute human traits to animals and plants to ensure that they won't be perceived solely as technology. In order to maintain the boundary between true and artificial life, people will anthropomorphise that which is perceived as being truly alive, and this anthropomorphisation will and must draw the boundaries for our field of actions.

The corporate consequences

One question is how this development is going to influence our daily lives. For instance, how will it influence our companies? The influence will be indirect and twofold: In part as a new perception of the natural order of things; in part as a new perception of what it is to be alive. These are elementary and basic values that we are dealing with here. For example, what will happen to the labour market if we no longer find it natural to compete against each other for the best place in society? How do you run a company in an environment where the point isn't to outdo your competitors, but about having the best types of interactions with the surroundings? If life is something that can be shaped as we desire, will it then be okay for a company to demand that the genetic codes of its employees are reprogrammed or optimised with regard to their jobs? If it is an individual's relations to the surroundings that are imperative for its survival, are workers of the future going to have a legal right to work for several different companies at the same time? These are hypotheses, but a new perception of the natural order of things may have such consequences.

Or the opposite: what if reactions against the new order of nature, where everything connects and always is undergoing changes, will cause people to value stability and constancy even more?

In closing

We are on our way towards a new perception of how nature fits together and how it works. This means that we are on our way towards a new perception of what we find natural, and hence, right.

History shows us that the current technology quite often becomes a sort of model for how nature is put together. In the industrial society, nature was regarded as a machine; in the information society, nature works as a computer. The dominant or trend-setting technologies in the next decades will be biotechnology and information technology. Hence, it will largely be those that will decide what we in the future will consider natural. Generally, it can be said that these technologies will push our perception of the natural order of things in a direction that ensures that the technologies themselves can be developed freely and unhindered. The question is if we want that to happen, and how to control the development. The developments within biotech and IT will cause us to have to debate if there is a difference between computer-generated, artificial life and natural, true life. If there is a difference, then what is it that makes this difference? It is questions like these that ensure that we in the future increasingly will be occupied with the question of what it means to be alive, and hence, what constitutes a good life.

ReferenceRifkin, J. (1998), The Biotech Century: Harnessing the Gene and Remaking the World, Tarcher/Putnam, London.