Effect of the Singularity on Social

Institutions in the Future

Stanley Gary RossPark University

Student Research & Creative Arts Symposium 2013

Faculty Mentor: Beverly Bohn

Introduction

The effect of the Singularity on social institutions in the future will be transformative beyond comprehension. In order to grasp the significance of those transformations, one must first comprehend the meaning of the Singularity; and in order to appreciate the import of the Singularity, one is obliged to apprehend the arc of technological progress from the inception of humanity to its potential zenith. Technology is an inherent and innate attribute of our species; it is the essence of what lifted us out of the cave and is sending us to the stars. Our social institutions have evolved and transformed throughout history in conjunction with our technological progress. Let us project those transformations into an almost unimaginable future.

The most fundamental tenet of technological progress—of human progress—is its “historical exponential” character which needs to be understood relative to “the intuitive linear” perspective (Kurzweil, 2005, p. 10). For thousands of years, mankind failed to perceive the imperceptible yet constant progress of technology and, with it, the evolution of society; “people didn’t think in terms of progress a thousand years ago. There actually was progress, but it was so slow as to be unnoticeable” (Merging With the Machines, 2010, p. 57).

The future is widely misunderstood. Our forebears expected it to be pretty much like their present, which had been pretty much like their past. Exponential trends did exist one thousand years ago, but they were at that very early stage in which they were so flat and so slow that they looked like no trend at all. (Kurzweil, 2005, p. 10)

Consider how much time elapsed between the emergence of modern humans and the development of agriculture, between agriculture and the discovery of the wheel, and the innovation of writing, and the concepts of mathematics and democracy, and still more time until the introduction of the printing press, and the steam engine, and the industrial revolution. To our modern perspective, technological growth actually was very slow in its development; however, it was progressing—exponentially. Since the industrial revolution, a more noticeable pattern of growth has become manifest; time-spans between advances are conspicuously shorter, and advancements more spectacular. Contemplate the relatively brief period between the beginnings of modern physics and the discoveries of DNA, nuclear energy, and the transistor—and how short the interval between the Wright Brothers and the landing on the moon.

This gradual yet ever-increasing rate of change can now be recognized as visible and evident exponential growth. The stark realities of high-tech advancements from the origins of the computer to the PC to the Internet are incontrovertible. Developments are arriving at an ever faster pace; the exponential rate, itself, appears to be accelerating exponentially. What kind of future is this dynamic revolution taking us to? Now, that we apprehend the arc of technological progress, we can begin to appreciate the meaning of the Singularity and its significance for the future of social institutions. “What, then, is the Singularity? It’s a future period during which the pace of technological change will be so rapid, its impact so deep, that human life will be irreversibly transformed” (Kurzweil, 2005, p. 7). Now, to imagine those transformations…

DiscoveriesThe greatest difficulties in researching the technological

ramifications of the future are that the future has not yet happened and, consequently, it cannot provide any empirical expertise to consult. The only alternatives are to reference present-day authorities, to research advancements in the various fields of technology, and make projections and predictions based on the best available evidence. The Singularity, as defined by Kurzweil (2005), is a theoretical future period predicated on the bases of the most recent technological advancements and the assumption that technology will continue to progress in exponential fashion indefinitely into the future. The effect of the Singularity on social institutions needs to be estimated in light of those advancements and in the context of assumed exponential progress. One professional, in the fields of telecommunications, networking, and IT security, stated emphatically, “Social institutions, as we know them, may become extinct” (B.A. Ross, EnCE, personal communication, July 2, 2012). Extinction of social institutions is not that radical an idea, when viewed from the perspective of future technologies.

Most basic to the suspension of disbelief and to the acceptance of probabilities is the ascendance of artificial intelligence (AI) as the dominant organizing and operational construct underlying all technological advancements. Developments in nanotechnology will provide the computational faculties required for AI to become the prevailing intelligence, superseding humans as rulers of technology. “The advent of molecular computer chips only hastens the time when machines will achieve the ability to think, plan, intuit, and respond in ways that are beyond human capacity” (Gorewitz, 1999, p. 351). Our machines will become more intelligent than those who made them.

Nanotechnology in concert with AI will drive the innovations of the future, influencing social institutions in somewhat predictable ways. The disciplines of healthcare are already experiencing rapid advances in technology that portend a future of physiological vitality and longevity. “We will see nanotechnology and biotechnology making impacts on our life that might seem like magic to us but will be quite normal to our children’s children” (Pearson & Neild, 2006, p. 31). The effects of this “magic” are becoming manifest:

In essence nanotechnology entails the…manipulation of matter at a scale ranging from single atoms to micron-sized objects. It has already enabled miniaturization of many current devices resulting in faster operation or enhanced integration of several operations. From the biological standpoint, nanomaterials match the typical size of naturally occurring functional units or components of living organisms and, for this reason, enable more effective interaction with biological systems. (Raffa, Vittorio, Riggio, & Cuschieri, 2010, pp. 127–128)

The long-range consequence of nanotechnology on the field of healthcare conceivably could effect an institutional paradigm shift. Imagine having ailments and disease repaired or prevented before any damage is done; the objective of the medical profession would be to maintain health rather than treat sickness. At the same time Ray Kurzweil was writing The Singularity Is Near, he co-authored a book with Terry Grossman entitled Fantastic Voyage: Live Long Enough to Live Forever:

In Fantastic Voyage, [the authors] provide readers with the information they need to live long enough and remain healthy enough to fully experience the wonders of life in the post-Singularity world. In writing these two books, Ray has painted a clear picture of the future and provided a blueprint for how to get there. (Grossman, 2006, p. 41)

Kurzweil’s vision of a healthy future is rapidly taking hold; “Nanotechnology has ushered a new era of nanomedicine and life nanoscience with very significant potential for more effective therapy of life-threatening or disabling disorders” (Raffa et al., 2010, p. 134).

Billions of nanobots will travel through the bloodstream in our bodies and brains. In our bodies, they will destroy pathogens, correct DNA errors, eliminate toxins, and perform many other tasks to enhance our physical well- being. As a result, we will be able to live indefinitely without aging. (Kurzweil, 2005, p. 300)

Living forever may not be feasible—or even advisable—but remaining healthy into old age poses some novel psychosocial issues for gerontologists to ponder. A study of the social implications of a healthy population is, however, beyond the scope of this paper. There are also those who disagree with Kurzweil’s fantastic future:

While we’ll certainly learn to push human capacities to their natural limits in coming decades, I see nothing on the

horizon that would allow us to exceed those limits. Biology seems far too frail, slow, complex, and [well-defended] (both at the molecular level and with regard to social custom) for that to be plausible within any reasonable time frame. Furthermore, by the time we are able to substantially improve our biology, we probably won’t want to, as there will be far more interesting and powerful technological environments available to us instead. (Smart, 2006, p. 46)

The issue of longevity also raises questions of spirituality. Will humans, with access to limitless intelligence and virtual immortality alter their perception of the divine? Or will the consequences of hubris continue to be mankind’s undoing? It would be pure conjecture to speculate on the state of spirituality in such a future; somehow, I envision the need for institutions of religion to remain inviolate. Whether AI is capable of taking on the human dimension of spirituality is yet another matter:

Will machines make moral distinctions? Will they foresee their own demise? Will they suffer doubts? How does a machine behave when it is uncertain? I am not sure if we really want these questions to have answers. After all, it is only the human that recognizes the soul in things, who is conscious of suffering. What is the machine’s process of communion, of seeing the light, of finding faith? (Gorewitz, 1999, p. 352)

These are questions that will confront future generations, for their world will be inhabited by intelligent technologies. “The prospect of living technology makes many people uneasy...most people think about Frankenstein or Crichton’s Prey” (Bedau, McCaskill, Packard, & Rasmussen, 2010, p. 95). “Biotechnology and nanotechnology are often compared. One should not forget, however, that fundamental opposition toward nanotechnology is less likely than toward biotechnology. The latter, [biotechnology], is seen as tampering with nature, whereas the former, [nanotechnology], does not evoke such associations” (Siegrist, 2010, p. 844).

There are, however, welcome changes in our military institutions; warfare is already being transformed by technology, and future means of conducting operations are being conceived in light of bio and nanotechnologies. “The terms ‘military’ and ‘operations’ may become obsolete” (Kunstler, 2011, p. 5) in the context of our present and past concepts of warfare:

The cause of this change is quite glaringly obvious. New core technologies such as nanotechnology, robotics, genetic engineering, “supercomputing,” magnetics, photonics, applied quantum mechanics, imaging, and wave resonance are ushering in a suite of military capabilities that would have been inconceivable as recently as the Vietnam War era. (Kunstler, 2011, p. 5)

Technological advancements will entirely transform traditional methods and tactics; modern warfare, as presently perceived, is dependent on extensive and complicated logistics necessary to implement and maintain equally “massive and complex weaponry”:

In contrast, in the new era of weapons based on the aforementioned new core technologies, massive destructive power will require minimal logistical support and very few or no human agent(s). Geography and topography will become less important, as will the competitive advantage conferred by military training, firepower, and the size of one’s forces. (Kunstler, 2011, p. 8)

Warfare conducted without the sheer weight of military force is made possible by seemingly miraculous developments: “autonomous weapons authorized to fire at [their] own discretion; bacteria used to break down explosives in mine fields; smart-bacteria weapons to alter behavior of [the] enemy; [swarms of] robots with polymer muscles and strong AI [in place of humans]” (Pearson & Neild, 2006, pp. 32–36); cloaking of infrared profiles to disguise targets making them appear as nonthreatening objects; and “photonics [that] can facilitate real-time electronic warfare waged by a unit carried by one person” (Kunstler, 2011, p. 14). Humanity continues to excel at destroying itself as a pretext for defending itself. Now, the question is, can civilization endure and flourish given the level of intelligence possible in the very near future?

Intelligence is the operational word in the answer to that question. The knowledge that is taught, how it is disseminated, and, ultimately, how it is used will determine the fate of mankind. Educational institutions are pivotal in this regard; theirs is a crucial task, foundational to all progress and development that is built upon the accumulated knowledge and wisdom of human history. “Most education in the world today, including in the wealthier communities, is not much changed from the model offered by the monastic schools of fourteenth-century Europe” (Kurzweil, 2005, p. 336). The transition, however, to a “decentralized educational system” has, even now, begun:

We are now in the early stages of this transformation, but already the advent of the availability of vast knowledge on the Web, useful search engines, high-quality open Web

course-ware, and increasingly effective computer-assisted instruction are providing widespread and inexpensive access to education. (p. 336)

Kurzweil envisions a future wherein “students at any age, from toddlers to adults, will be able to access the best education in the world at any time and from any place” (p. 337). In a post-Singularity world, “the nature of education will change…when we merge with nonbiological intelligence. We will then have the ability to download knowledge and skills, at least into the nonbiological portion of our intelligence” (p. 337). Assuming the reality of such a scenario, educational institutions, as we know them, will no longer be necessary, and the need for teachers—human teachers, that is—may also come to an end.

Will we still be human? “Some observers refer to the post-Singularity period as ‘posthuman’ and refer to the anticipation of this period as posthumanism” (p. 374). Are technologically modified humans still human? Do neurological implants and nanobots coursing through our bodies change the human equation? “Our merger with our technology has aspects of a slippery slope, but one that slides up toward greater promise, not down into Nietzsche’s abyss” (p. 374). As long as humanity preserves civilization, society will have need of its institutions, as much to guide the populace in its values and behaviors as to express the values of its culture:

In 1486, Giovanni Pico della Mirandola eloquently centered all attention on human capabilities in his manifesto of the Italian Renaissance, Oration on the Dignity of Man. In it, God says to Adam, “We give you no fixed place to live, no form that is peculiar to you, nor any function that is yours alone. According to your desires and judgment, you will have and possess whatever place to live, whatever form, and whatever functions you yourself choose.” (Garreau, 2006, p. 34)“‘The future can’t be predicted,’ is a common refrain…But…when [this perspective] is wrong, it is profoundly wrong.—John Smart” (Kurzweil, 2005, p. 35).

ConclusionsThe Singularity is inevitable; civilization is visibly on

the cusp of technological transformations affecting all aspects of social institutions. Historically, institutions have been slow to respond to changing societal norms and values, but change they must. There will always be Luddites resisting and protesting the persistent march of progress; “we still have people today who want to live as we did in the seventh century” (Kurzweil, 2005, p. 473). The wave of the future has immersed society in a technological tsunami, inescapable and tenacious in its grasp, altering patterns of human behavior and catalyzing evolutionary progression.

“The overwhelming fact of contemporary life is the geometric acceleration of technological development” (Mead, 2006, p. 160). The curve of progress, that appeared so flat for eons, perceptibly began to rise as the span between innovations became shorter.

“Exponential growth is seductive, starting out slowly and virtually unnoticeably, but beyond the knee of the curve it turns explosive and profoundly transformative” (Kurzweil, 2005, p. 10). Technological advancements are now beyond the knee of the curve, no longer gently rising but on a vertical climb. Transformations arrive ever more rapidly, and society is obliged to adjust its institutional paradigms in order to keep pace. To comprehend exponential growth during this vertical ascent requires a revised perspective:

When measured by today’s rate of progress, we won’t experience one hundred years of technological advance in the twenty-first century; we will witness on the order of twenty thousand years of progress, or about one thousand times greater than what was achieved in the twentieth century. (p. 11)

This explosive escalation and intensification of progress demands not only an entirely innovative analytical and critical perspective but also an acceptance of radical adjustments and adaptations to revolutionary modes of living. A conception of the future is founded on present knowledge and projections of known technologies. Nanotechnology and artificial intelligence are still in their infancy, yet give the appearance of science fiction. What emerges next is perhaps unimaginable:

The pace of technological change will be so fast and far- reaching that human existence on this planet will be

irreversibly altered. We will combine our brain power—the knowledge, skills, and personality quirks that make us human—with our computer power in order to think, reason, communicate, and create in ways we can scarcely even contemplate today. (Kurzweil, 2006, p. 39)

Ethical and philosophical questions will abound concerning distinctions between human and machine intelligence, but these distinctions will no longer matter; “biological and non-biological intelligence working together [will create] a human/machine civilization” (Merging with the machines, 2010, p. 59). Intelligence will not be measured by the IQ of an individual but “by the intellectual capability of civilization” (p. 59).

The perception—and fear—of non-biological intelligence dominating civilization may well come to pass; “but it’s still going to be one civilization with people having different philosophies and arguing about values” (p. 59). “Will robots inherit the earth? Yes, but they will be our children. [Marvin Minsky, 1995]” (Kurzweil, 2005, p. 260).

ReferencesBedau, M.A., McCaskill, J.S., Packard, N.H., & Rasmussen, S. (2010). Living technology: Exploiting life’s principles in technology. Artificial Life, 16(1), 89–97.

Garreau, J. (2006). Will we still be fully human?. The Wilson Quarterly, 30(1), 32–34.Gorewitz, S. (1999). The age of spiritual machines: When computers exceed human intelligence by Ray Kurzweil [Review]. Journal of Religion and Health, 38(4), 351–352.Grossman, T. (2006, March-April). Ray Kurzweil’s plan for cheating death. The Futurist, 41–41.Kunstler, B. (2011). Extreme asymmetric warfare of the future. World Future Review, 3(3), 5–16.

References (continued)Kurzweil, R. (2005). The Singularity is near: When humans transcend biology. New York, NY: Penguin Books.Kurzweil, R. (2006, March–April). Reinventing humanity. The Futurist, 39–46.Mead, W.R. (2006). The Singularity is near: When humans transcend biology by Ray Kurzweil [Review]. Foreign Affairs, 85(3), 160– 160.Merging with the machines: Information technology, artificial intelligence, and the law of exponential growth: An interview with Ray Kurzweil. (2010). World Future Review, 57– 61.Pearson, I., & Neild, I. (2006, March–April). A timeline for technology: To the year 2030 and beyond. The Futurist, 31– 36.

References (continued)Raffa, V., Vittorio, O., Riggio, C., & Cuschieri, A. (2010). Progress in nanotechnology for healthcare. Minimally Invasive Therapy & Allied Technologies, 19(3), 127–135.Siegrist, M. (2010). Predicting the future: Review of public perception studies of nanotechnology. Human & Ecological Risk Assessment, 16(4), 837–846.Smart, J. (2006, March–April). Technology and human enhancement. The Futurist, 46–46.