“Some of My Best Friends Are Robots” and Other Things You’ll Say in the Future

“If you assume any rate of advancement in AI, we will be left behind a lot.” – Elon Musk

The Robots Are Coming
Robots that are virtually indistinguishable from humans will be part of human societies in less than twenty years, a modest estimate.

The strides made in Artificial Intelligence and Robotics in the last five years are remarkable, and like always, humanity is not prepared for the future it’s creating for itself. It’s why, right now, few people have anticipated the conversations that we need to start having–conversations about issues like: machine rights, robot discrimination, offensive words that are socially unacceptable to call robots, human-robot sexual relations and marriage, capital punishment for murderous robots, and on it goes. These kinds of questions seem too unreal and bizarre to give serious thought to right now. The problem is, once these questions aren’t unreal or bizarre, we won’t have the luxury of thinking freely about them. We’ll already be living in a world of humans who integrate their own biology with AI/robotics in order to enhance their abilities, gain new ones, and stay competitive with robots. As human brains become modified with artificial intelligence, the metaphysical question of human identity will confront each of us. But for the most part, it’ll be too late to start thinking about this question in a serious way.

As artificial intelligence becomes more lifelike, we will interact with machines similar to how we interact with humans. A man walking down the street will clip his shoulder against the shoulder of a robot, and he’ll be well past the point of wondering if you should apologize to robots. He’ll just say “Excuse me” or “I’m sorry” to a machine. And with these kinds of day-to-day interactions, we’ll fail to really confront questions about what makes us human.

One day, a friend of yours is going to come to you and tell you that he’s met and fallen in love with the most amazing person, and he’ll want you to meet her. When you meet her, you find out she’s a robot. Continue reading


The Future: Utopian or Dystopian?


“Our world faces a crisis as yet unperceived by those possessing power to make great decisions for good or evil. The unleashed power of the atom has changed everything save our modes of thinking and we thus drift toward unparalleled catastrophe.” – Albert Einstein, telegram to a group of prominent Americans, 1946

On the one hand, I’m optimistic about what problems human discovery and innovation will solve in the future that we haven’t solved yet. We seem to be on the verge of a remarkable number of game-changing breakthroughs.

But on the other hand, I’m pessimistic about what new problems human discovery and innovation will create in the future that we haven’t created yet. We seem to be on the verge of a remarkable number of game-changing dangers.

The scientific method that took off during The Enlightenment continues to produce a slate of options for human beings that give them power over their natural circumstances — power that can be used for the flourishing of humankind or for its destruction.

So, we have made advances in medical science that can increase the life span of human beings by hundreds of years by returning aging cells to their initial stem cell state. We are not far off from tweaking our cells to the point that a human could live up to five-hundred years. 

Nearly one billion people across the world still don’t have regular access to clean drinking water, but the number technologies developed in the last ten years to purify drinking water will soon eliminate this problem entirely. The price has always been the major problem for water purification. Non-filtering methods require high energy consumption and filtering methods require frequent replacement of costly filters since the water has to pass through a membrane that clogs quickly. A couple of years ago, however, chemical engineers at MIT developed a “membraneless separation system” that’s a simple, cheap, and effective method for separating water from contaminants. It’s called shock electrodialysis. Flowing water is hit with an electric shockwave that separates H2O from everything else. It can be used on virtually any kind of contaminated water. The masses can drink the ocean. And this is just one of many remarkable water purification technologies that have been developed in the last ten years. Continue reading


Where Have All the Traditional Families Gone?


Don’t Blame It on the TV
There’s so much hand-wringing about the state of families today. Divorce. Abortion. Generational divide. Helicopter parents. Live-in adult children. Gay marriage. Teen pregnancy. Deliberate childlessness. Fewer marriages. The so-called traditional family is all but gone.

The traditional family — one husband, one wife remaining faithful to each other to rear their bevy of children — existed at one time for good reasons, and it’s breaking down for good reasons.

The factors really breaking down traditional family life are not the usual suspects social conservatives trot out: Hollywood, porn, no-fault divorce laws, removing prayer from schools. If I left out your favorite whipping boy, just add it to the list. It won’t matter, because social conservatives don’t put on the list the real factors that have caused the demise of the traditional family.

Three Fingers Pointing Back at You
More often what they call the causes are more like the effects. If sex on television has in fact contributed to the breakdown of the traditional family model, it only did so after that traditional model had begun to break down. Gay marriage hasn’t led to the breakdown of the traditional family. It took its place. It’s part of the new family. The traditional family was breaking down before most of them noticed, and by the time they did notice, they looked around at the things that had replaced it and pointed the finger.

The truth, as is usually the case, is far more complex and interesting. And this perhaps explains why those who hold up the traditional family as the family par excellence fail to see that they are the very people who contributed to its demise. They’re not alone though. We all contributed.

Change economics, Change the Family
Simply put: the traditional family and traditional economics are interdependent. Lose traditional economics, and the traditional family goes with it. Perhaps this is because a family economy is a microcosm of larger national and global economies — though this is probably an oversimplification of the actual relationship between family structures and economic structures. This much we can say, however: people didn’t hold to the traditional family in the past because they were more altruistic than we are today. No, they were just as pragmatic. They followed a family model that worked best for them, and it was what we call the traditional family model that made the most sense for their techno-socio-economic context.

Today, we’ve largely eliminated the factors that once compelled people to choose the traditional family model. How have we done it?

Easy travel. Laws against child labor. Corporations. Segregation of tasks in production — all of which was brought on by technological change.

Easy travel. More people moved away from extended family for work and education. With less connection to family, the importance of family was diminished and people found other networks on which to depend.

Child Labor Laws. With little to no work for children to do, their contribution to support the household was all but

eliminated. They we went from being a financial asset to their parents to being a financial liability instead. This reduced the incentive for people to have children. Those who continue to have children do so largely from a leftover biological urge, passed down from ancestors who lived at a time when children were necessary to one’s own survival.

Corporations. Corporations are entirely new in the history of human labor. Today, however, most people in industrialized societies get their wages from some large corporation that pays little or no attention to their family relationships. A business model that competes with a person’s family for their time, attention, and energy by asking them to work late, work third shift, or please the boss ends up being a strain on marriage and family.

Segregation of tasks in production. Few people today make a product from beginning to end. Even meals at a fast food restaurant are the product of segregated tasks. Most of our work today is performing a small task as one of many cogs in a much bigger process, making it harder and harder for a person to describe what they do. Ever talked to someone at a party and asked about their job, only to find out after they describe it that you have no better understanding than you did before you asked? It’s not their fault. It’s the way we’ve divided labor for the sake of efficiency. If you can’t figure out what a guy at a party does for a living, now imagine how ignorant his child is about his work. The child has no way of gaining deep respect for her father’s contribution to the world. Imagine, however, if that child worked alongside her parents from an early enough age that she was impressed by their mastery of economically valuable tasks. Imagine if she saw her blacksmith father turn raw iron into useful tools that he sold. That’s a model for a child to respect the work of a parent and hold him in higher esteem. It’s a model that culturally bonds generations across time. Today’s industrialized economic model increasingly tempts generations to culturally separate. Teenagers haven’t always said, “Mom and Dad are so lame. They don’t get it.” That kind of generational divide is what you get when the next generation loses awe at the previous generation’s wisdom and skill. And when you heavily segregate tasks in production, you end up going from children who marvel at parents who are leather workers, trappers, hunters, fishermen, farmers, woodworkers, and carpenters to children who don’t know why you dragged them out to a Red Lobster on a Tuesday night to celebrate your promotion to Senior Assistant to the District Legacy Paradigm Strategist in the Unicorn Division at MicroGoogleCorprazon.

There’s also something to be said about the family’s connection to animals in the course of human history. Today, we visit farms and petting zoos as tourist destinations because this life is novel to most of us, but in the past, animals were part of a person’s everyday life. The disappearance of economically valuable livestock from most households is perhaps a factor in the breakdown of the traditional family because children don’t learn from an early age to place a high value on offspring.

A Vision for the Family at Odds with Itself
So if you want to see the traditional family restored on a society-wide scale, you’ll have to crash the industrial economy and keep it crashed. Never to let it arise again. The vision that social conservatives have for what the family is supposed to be is a vision at odds with the vision they have for the global economy. They’ve worked against their own social interests for the sake of an easier life. They want to reinstate the traditional family by force of law while keeping in place all of the things that made the traditional family obsolete. It’s an ignorant hypocrisy, but hypocrisy nonetheless. Social conservatives have already made a choice without knowing it. They’ve chosen the modern family that they lament so much, and no amount of lawmaking in their favor is going to be as powerful as the other forces they’ve helped put in place.

One of the Family, Frederick George Cotman. Oil on canvas, 1880.

Technology’s Spillover Effect

It should be obvious that technology has profound effects on human belief and behavior, but it isn’t. We talk all the time about changing social trends, shifts in cultural beliefs, and developments in human sexuality, but we often look to other cultural influences to explain them. Why did the West come to value property rights and religious freedom? The Enlightenment, of course. Well, yes. But would there have been an Enlightenment without important technological changes like movable type or the successes of certain scientific discoveries? Doubtful. Important technological changes influenced the thought and behavior of people, which in turn, produced the cultural conditions for the Enlightenment. The technological changes that preceded the Enlightenment were already doing the job of closing down the medieval worldview and opening people’s minds to empirical science, free inquiry, and human reason. Technological change gave birth to the Enlightenment. Continue reading


On Microaggression, Safe Spaces, and Trigger Warnings: The Luxury of Running Out of Problems


You might think that when today’s college students call for “safe spaces”, “trigger warnings”, and protection from “microaggressions”, that we’ve crossed a kind of cultural threshold and entered new territory for what counts as social justice. The demands of today’s college students, however, have a longer pedigree than you might think. For example, in 1789, at Princeton University (then, College of New Jersey), student body president, William Henry Bancroft, organized a student protest calling for “the headmasters and chancellors to acknowledge summarily the special appanage enjoyed by the white man and, in recognition of his acts of oppression, to grant the creation of impregnable safe havens for any antagonized descendants of those who suffered heinous injustice under the heavy hand of European colonization.” Sound familiar? Continue reading


TECHNOLOGICAL EDEN AND ITS CULTURAL FRUIT: How We Traded a Harsh Life for Gay Marriage, Gender Fluidity, Divorce, and Childlessness

A friend of mine is decidedly against having children. I once asked him what, in terms of social function, was the difference between him and his wife as a couple and and a monogamous homosexual couple? He couldn’t come up with anything, and I can see why.

It’s hard to say much of substance when it comes to a difference in how they conduct themselves within society as a couple. Neither produce children. Both are monogamous. Both provide support to the parties of the relationship. All else equal, nearly every occupation can be performed as well by each of the four of them. It’s difficult to identify much of substance qua childless heterosexuals and qua monogamous homosexuals preventing them from making equal contributions to the world. Continue reading