Student:
Changes
Changes
After watching all the videos, especially the PBS documentary, my perspective of certain things has changed. I am surprised to learn about things that have simply passed by the radar of some of us.
In “The age of genetic wonder”, I was disappointed by how largely a field of genetic modification has taken root. It doesn’t really matter where it has started and where it has taken place but the fact that we are unsatisfied with letting nature run its own course is one of the saddest aspects. I believe that at least in the health sector it may be valuable to mass produce vaccines. If we can do that then why are we not helping third world countries? We could do it. Are we (The US) that selfish?
Then again why are we doing genetic modification in the first place? The truth with genetic mutation and genetic modification is what happen to the original species of plants, animals etc. I have watched another film on the effect of GMO seeds and the fact that they mix items like human DNA with seed DNA then plant, grow it and then sell it… It is REVOLTING! You could be unknowingly committing cannibalism. Finding non-GMO seeds is becoming more difficult as well. Yet the whole modification of the code of organisms, no matter where they fall on the classification system and food chain, is more common now than ever and it is still gaining power.
The TEDx talk “Ethics in the age of technology” was a very interesting clip. I was not overly surprised by how much technology has changed the way our standards have changed as the world has industrialized. However, is it sad that some of the old-fashioned morals have disappeared as the world advances with technology? One fact is we no longer seem to hold ourselves to the standards that we would have even a generation ago.
Have we with technology really changed the world that much? I believe that we have. Looking at the way the world was even just at the time my grandparents were born it is amazing how much has happened. The way that the world has changed for technology. My parents have said that when they went to college, they still had rotary phones in the dorms and wireless (land line) phones were not as popular as they are today. Many homes today do not even have “land lines” but are completely overrun with cell phones.
Computers are another example. They have and always seem to be shrinking in size. I know that many can find it difficult to believe that computers used to be a whole room in size.
A third example is as Juan Enriquez mentioned, is to look at biology, or even how some are redefining sex. The world has changed and is still changing. This is an unavoidable fact.
The last film “In the Age of AI”, was probably my favorite out of the three we had to watch. I myself am not a huge fan of AI replacing many of the jobs that we do. I do understand that AI can make jobs be completed more efficiently but then you lose the human touch. Of course, there are businesses such as Amazon that never had the human touch to begin with. Yet, if all the bigger companies that don’t have the human touch buy out the smaller ones, we’ve lost the human touch.
After if/when the larger company switches to AI you’ve laid off more people then when you just bought out the smaller company. Furthermore, with large companies switching to AI you have just raised the unemployment rate. Computers and AI are always improving and with that more jobs become viable to be taken over by AI and “outsourcing” humans all together. Do we all become couch potatoes except for a few unlucky ones that hold a job? If we are mostly laid off people how can we continue to afford the bare necessities?
I know that there are a few companies who do not believe that this is a concern. Mainly this is the companies creating the AI and the robots and the like that are programed with AI. Anyways, AI is artificial after all, why should we be concerned? It reminds me of what I learned in CIS class called the “Axe Maker’s Gift”. This concept is very similar to Newton’s 3rd Law “For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction”, meaning that a tool meant for good can also be used for bad or evil. My opinion in all this is that this is also true with AI and could end badly for the human race as a whole.
(--nc)
... ... ...
Response:
RE: Changes
1. " the fact that we are unsatisfied with letting nature run its own course is one of the saddest aspects."
2. "Yet, if all the bigger companies that don’t have the human touch buy out the smaller ones, we’ve lost the human touch."
3. "AI is artificial after all, why should we be concerned?" (nc)
...
I like your post.
1. Some make the point that nature running its course does not exclude human beings with their tools -- first sticks to reach things further away that their arm-length, the wheel to move things without having to carry them, the telephone for when shouting can go only so far. Their argument is that our tools, or technology, are extensions of our creativity and imagination, and hence part of us. Even Rene Descartes (1596-1650)") divided things into res cogitans and res extensa.* He was dualistic. He did not think that physicality had any connection with mind or thought.
2. Yes, the human touch could seem to be vanishing. Surveillance and categorization of people as types and potential antagonists of either profit capital or state control does seem to abstract the mere human being living day today with concerns and dreams. The more we quantify people and classify them the less we are inclined to care for individuals as they are in themselves. The qualities of compassion and caring are (annoyingly) necessary for the cultivation of any kind of loving community.
3. "Artificial" is a word we should keep tabs on. Dictionary has it as "made or produced by human beings rather than occurring naturally, especially as a copy of something natural." We consider intelligence natural -- it develops and emerges from lived experience with its bumps and bruises, curiosity and hard work of feeling/thinking. The word "artifice" is defined "clever or cunning devices or expedients, especially as used to trick or deceive others." This might be the task we have before us -- to try to ensure that the copying of something natural does not fall prey to trickery or deception.
Our technology -- if closely aligned with a proper human spirit of assistance and well-being for the planet, the various species, and our human participation in the emergence of what is coming next -- should be a companioning extension of our good heart and clear mind going forward. If hearts and minds become jaded and clouded, our technology will be used in unwholesome and nefarious ways (as indeed already experienced -- bombs, guns, tyrannical control) -- and we will be in deep trouble.
It seems to me we are thrown back to the individual human being** cultivating qualities that are, if you will, spiritually and morally wholesome, embracing wide inclusion, and seeking only the best for all (not some) sharing this existence at this time in this place -- going forward.
(thanks for the prompt)
--bh
* Descartes introduced res cogitans and res extensa which is generally translated as 'thinking substance' and 'extended substance'; but it's in the notion of 'substance' by which dependence is not an possibility - thus from here, directly we have mind/body dualism; in the sense of being entirely distinct and without effect on each other." (Stack Exchange)
** "Better worlds (I suggest) are born, not made; and their birthdays are the birthdays of individuals. Let us pray always for individuals; never for worlds." (e.e.cummings, NONLECTURE TWO, in six non-lectures via LiveJournal)
