ray kurzweil's digital religion
Dan Lyons of the Fake Steve Jobs blog fame, recently described his encounter with Ray Kurzweil in a piece on Newsweek.com. Usually, when Lyons has a good idea of what he thinks on a particular topic, he feels free to let it rip. But here, it seems that he’s genuinely bewildered what to make of the futurist who doesn’t just think that one day we’ll all be immortal bits of information integrated with computer circuitry, he thinks it will happen in just 36 years and that he found the recipe for immortality. The money quote from this column? “Ray is going through the single most public midlife crisis that any male has ever gone through.” Ouch. That’s harsh.
Then again, how else would you categorize a 61 year old man who takes 150 supplements a day because he believes it will extend his lifespan just enough for his mind to be uploaded into a machine? How should we take his ideas of resurrecting his father from exhumed DNA and artificial intelligence chips? I understand that it’s normal to be afraid of death. That fear is part of our self-preservation mechanism. But to try and concoct an elaborate future which fuses experimental computer science with New Age esoterica about transcendence in the pursuit of ultimate knowledge? Isn’t that a tad extreme?
Since Kurzweil is an accomplished computer expert, he’s not without adherents. One of them just happens to be Peter Diamandis, founder of the X-Prize Foundation and the catalyst for Singularity University, a school for the followers of Kurzweil’s theories to hear more fanciful predictions about the future and how their immortality is right around the corner, like some sort of digital Rapture. Diamandis reportedly takes 40 supplements over the course of his day and says he expects to live for several hundred years. Why? Because according to him, there are other species who live over 100 years so there should be no reason why humans can’t do the same.
And of course, there is. Humans are very different from trees and long lived reptiles. We have different genetic packages, different metabolic rates, different energy requirements and different wear and tear on our bodies. We can live between 120 and 130 years at most, even if we eliminate all disease. Our bodies will just break down. I realize there have been claims of people who lived to be 140 and even 160 here and there, but keep in mind that record keeping even a hundred years ago wasn’t what it is today and ages can easily be adjusted by a decade or two without anyone being the wiser. We could extend that with radical new technologies, but the odds of vitamins and supplements outright doubling our maximum theoretical lifespans are slim.
Probably the most interesting criticism of Kurzweil’s ideas though, has to come from those who scold him for refusing to accept the possibility that one day, intelligent machines a million times smarter then humans will look at us with disgust and wipe us out Terminator style. Or at least use us for food like the machines of the Matrix. Yes, that’s what we should really be worried about in the near future. A dystopian world ruled by robots with an average IQ of 100 million compared to today’s insectoid machines which can barely figure out how to move outside of a box. The idea that as long as we keep upping processing power, computers will just wake up and become self-aware all on their own simply won’t work. And this idea of malevolent robotic overlords is more like a science fiction B movie than anything even remotely ground in fact. I suppose if machines were programmed to kill by a mad programmer or bugs in military robots’ code turned them against us, a similar scenario might be plausible. But sapience coming from the digital aether? I don’t think so.
[ illustration by Rudolf Herczog ]
I read Kurzweil’s book “The Singularity is Near” and loved it. That’s not to say I think his vision or predictions of the future will come true … they are indeed quite fantastical (especially for the near-term time frames he talks about) … but, it is great reading and thought-provoking. It very well may be wishful thinking on his part, but he seems like the kind of guy who wants to influence the course of the future by speculating about it now.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/04/26/darpa_repair_monkey_brain_plan/
Just a reminder that exploration can take unexpected turns.
Clearly your lack of knowing isn’t any evidence for the belief that one cannot know how some phenomena works. This isn’t meant as an ad-hominem.
It’s true that lack of evidence is evidence against a belief but that has to apply in both directions. You are actually stating you know so much about human biology that it’s actually impossible to extend life beyond the human maximum lifespan without actually understanding how that is so.
You are stating you know so much about human biology that it’s actually impossible to extend life beyond the human maximum lifespan…
Not in the slightest. I’m jut stating the maximum theoretical human lifespan what was deduced by doctors and biologists based on our bodies’ ability to hold itself together in reply to the question “if [blank] can live to a certain age, why can’t humans?” There is nothing in the post denying the plausibility of life extension sometime in the future.
I see Kurzweill’s line of thought. He’d probably be best served if he cryogenically froze himself, which is more likely to preserve his own unbroken consciousness (as in, not dying from his point of view) than cloning style ressurection.
I think everyone’s a little too eager to dismiss the singularity entirely. I mean, if you think a bit more creatively, you could use genetic engineering or cybernetics to push that lifespan up. The human brain is essentially a biological computer. Very complex, but not infinitely so. It’s not impossible that we could “build a better brain” in the future, which could cause a “Psychological/Neurological Singularity”
Still, not holding my breath on the “becoming Dr. Manhattan before I’m 45″ prospect. I wouldn’t say that a singularity is impossible, inevitable, or imminent.
I’m interested in your perspective, but your ideas are vague and reactionary.
You say “according to [Diamandis / Kurzweil], there are other species who live over 100 years so there should be no reason why humans can’t do the same. And of course, there is. Humans are very different from trees and long lived reptiles. We have different genetic packages, different metabolic rates, different energy requirements and different wear and tear on our bodies.”
Your quote implies that Kurzweil / Diamandis haven’t considered these facts. I suspect it has crossed their minds that humans are different than trees and reptiles. I suspect that Kurzweil’s work with Aubrey de Grey and working knowledge of the SENS Foundation (http://www.sens.org/) would give him a reasonably deep perspective on the facts at ground level.
You claim that “the odds of vitamins and supplements outright doubling our maximum theoretical lifespans are slim” but Kurzweil makes no such claim. In fact, Kurzweil’s supplement regiment is apparently grounded in his belief that it is as-yet undiscovered technological therapies which will dramatically extend life-spans. His use of supplements seems motivated from a belief that it would be unfortunate to be a 75 year old man and die of a preventable disease only to miss the ability to take part in these therapies by a slim margin. Are supplements effective? Who knows, but Kurzweil sees them as a stopgap to increase the probability of reaching the point in time when medical science is able to add more than one year of life-span per year of research. Most of Kurzweil’s most interesting predictions occur on a 20 – 30 year timeline, which is not an insignificant interval a 60 year old.
Your article does a good job at refuting a perspective which doesn’t seem to exist. I would like to see a fact-based critique of his real position from your perspective. Perhaps some research would deepen your argument or change your mind.
“your ideas are vague and reactionary.”
You may be surprised to note that the ideas presented in my posts aren’t really my ideas at all, but references to scientific facts from biologists. Also, I don’t know why you would consider me saying that Kurzweil’s science is lacking, reactionary. If you want to see a real reactionary, look at Bill McKibben. As a grad student in comp sci, I really don’t think I would qualify as a technophobe.
Kurzweil’s supplement regiment is apparently grounded in his belief that it is as-yet undiscovered technological therapies which will dramatically extend life-spans.
Right, and his approach is to try anything and everything, including vitamin woo that regularly drives doctors up a wall. He takes 200 supplements a day thinking that he will live longer because of this when medical science actually says that overdosing on supplements is actually harmful. I’m very much refuting what he’s doing. This is a nearly year old post and if you do a search for “singularitarians” on this blog, you will find that I’ve done a lot more work on the subject since then…