Science fiction has not been a genre of literature that I've paid too much attention to in my life. Not for any hard and fast reasons, I've just found myself in other aisles of the library or bookstore more often. That being said, I get well chuffed seeing a good science fiction film.
During this Covid lockdown I've had more time than usual to sit around and ponder life and where we might be heading. Not in my lifetime mind you, but rather what the future might bring. What will life look like in two-hundred years? A thousand?
We live at a time when everything can be documented, recorded, and made note of. I don't know if there will be a time in the distant future when archaeologists will be attempting to reboot ancient laptops and attempting to figure out what Facebook or TikTok was all about; perhaps there will be no need to dig stuff up and take wild guesses. Perhaps we are documenting life as we know it and in time the missing link of our time and place will be clearly evident. I don't know.
Right now I am watching a rather fascinating TV series titled, Humans ,which I will discuss in detail further along. I'm in the middle of season two and since I've already been collecting news articles for quite some time now regarding 'the body as computer' I thought I'd begin writing and fleshing out some theories I have about science fiction in film, literature and reality.
When I was wee, Star Trek arrived, and we imagined everything we saw on this show to be something so far in the future that one could never imagine it might transpire during the viewer's lifetime. But some things in Star Trek have come to pass. Lt. Urhu's blue tooth device, for example, is almost passé now. We have walked on the moon and while we have not been able to send a human into the far reaches of interstellar space we have spacecraft out there collecting data. We have pictures of planets never before seen up close and a working hypotheses of what might be happening on those planets. Do we know what we might do with all of this information yet? Is there a plan? Will we really get to move to another planet if earth is no longer capable of supporting us as we understand life at present? I don't know.
Let's back track for a moment. In 1927, Fritz Lang, et al, introduced us to the film Metropolis which imagined a world where the masses functioned for the sole purpose of keeping a mechanism going which only supported a very select few. In the film we learn that those masses indeed have a clear plan for overturning the status quo --and the masses eventually do wake up to the fact that being a cog in a wheel may not be a good thing. In 1949 George Orwell imagined 1984. He imagined what life might look like when government and authoritarian entities over step their reach and use that power to control the masses forcing everyone to lead monitored lives. Within these scenarios are always those factions who envision different scenarios. We can easily see why today, at present, we might feel we are living in Orwellian times. Those of us working in large cities may feel we are in a Metropolis that feels like what Lang imagined. In 1970, the French philosopher, Louis Althusser wrote a brilliant essay titled, Ideology and Ideological and State Apparatuses, which detailed the mechanisms in place that propel the wheel going but also how we, en masse, buy into this mechanism by identifying with, participating in, and perpetuating our various roles as cogs. Althusser's premise is that the wheel is impossible to stop at this point.
Part of my premise, which blends with Althusser's, is that this mechanism can be traced back, in part, to The Old Testament. I have written about my theories, regarding The Old Testament as the blueprint for democracy and capitalism and its roots in the apparatus which Althusser writes. We humans have a deep seated need to make sense of the world we live in; since the beginning, however we might pinpoint and define that beginning. Whatever beginning one might imagine it still follows the principle of a perpetual building upon the ideas that came before.
I have to wonder why it is that much of science fiction scenarios include some sort of catastrophic event that often begins post destruction, and which tend to include revolutionaries attempting to either prevent something further, or who function to restore something to what was. In these storyline's we seem to be the ones that have gotten ourselves into these Armageddon-like futuristic predicaments. Life as we know it in these fictional settings appear to be precious. But is life as we know it really precious? If so, then why are we so prone towards violence and destruction of others and self?
Progress and keen invention has not made us kinder people. We have not figured out-- nor do I think we will, (in my lifetime),-- how to squelch racism, war, poverty, hunger, inequality, human trafficking, or violence. My small observations, bracketed in 61 years, is that these things are on the rise and getting worse rather than better. What does that mean? What does that imply?
What I've begun to pay attention to in the news is how we are slowly moving towards 'body as computer'. We are already participating in AI implants into the body; we have already begun tinkering with human as android. Already we are living in a future as seen by Orwell and Lang. Where do we go from here? Where are these science fiction visionaries taking us? Artificial Intelligence (AI) seems to be the future for much of science fiction writers. While Star Trek may seem antiquated at this point in time one has to look at what is being envisioned now; what is actually taking place in real time in our lives that is bringing us to a different way of life. The passing of time, --evolution, is rarely noticed. We see ourselves aging when we look in the mirror but we don't feel each new wrinkle. We don't feel the one gray hair making way for all the others to come.
The idea of a robot mixing us a cocktail at 5PM, or doing menial housework may still seem ridiculous to most households but already segments of the population are becoming obsolete. We have machines taking over jobs that were once done by humans. We see this most often in mass production factory settings. The need for the mechanism to outdo and maintain a status quo has become more important that the needs of the human. We have a well established market for life-like dolls, of both genders, for those of us that desire intimacy without the hassle or who find themselves just lonely and in need any sort of company that might be available. Covid has seen a huge uptick in the purchasing of sex dolls as companions.The Covid pandemic may be the impetus behind life changing as we have known it. Covid may be the visible 'missing link' that takes us from 'here' to 'there'. So intimacy, during a time of extreme isolation, has created a 'normalcy' for the need of companionship, even of that companionship comes from inanimate objects. I have a sneaking suspicion that if the pandemic ended tomorrow we will not see piles of dolls curbside in celebration of human contact once again. I suspect some of us will rather like the time we spent with our dolls in isolation, and will carry on as though the pandemic is still in force. Some of us are not interested in returning to 'normal' and have found new ways of being 'normal. Big changes do not come overnight.
Sweden, as well as other countries, have already implemented 'chips' that are inserted into people voluntarily, in order to speed up commutes, or entry into various venues. People are going along with this and at the moment it may seem like fun and games, new age, or simply, people like feeling 'ahead of the times'. Then there are those that just like the concept of 'body as device', and enjoy the idea of their body perhaps also functioning as a microwave oven for cold coffee. Myself, at sixty-one, might think it is all something only the insane wold participate in, but it's not. These are young people. People in their childbearing and most productive years. Why do I mention childbearing years? Why is that important to this essay? Because the human race can not continue as we know it if people cease having children and no one knows what the longterm effects are on implants and fertility. The Covid pandemic has already predicted that birthrates are and will continue to drop dramatically. One might easily say to oneself: We can do with fewer people, why is this bad? Fewer people may really be a better thing in terms of sustainability but since we haven't been able to thwart racism and war, hunger and poverty, human trafficking and violence, and since an Orwellian push is coming from various world leaders, I don't think it is too far fetched to imagine that a future (again, not in my lifetime), might include a decision about who is allowed to procreate and for what reason. Margaret Atwood explored this futuristic nightmare thirty years ago in, The Handmaid's Tale.
It is already the norm, mainstream in fact, that undergoing gender reassignment is not a thing that is 'odd-ball' anymore. We accept that body dysmorphia is a bona-fide dilemma that is recognized by two of those most powerful institutions around: The psychiatric community as well as the medical community. It is no longer in the hands of Mary Shelley's Frankenstein. From what I can see, shown to me in the news and television, transgendered people look better and seem to feel better than the 'real McCoy' which is a phrase that is already being given the 'politically incorrect' boot when it pertains to transgendered people. Already there is a push that gender reassignment need not be revealed to others. Already there is a push for our lexicon to be changed and perhaps forgotten. I'm not against transgendered people at all, I'm simply trying to lay a road map of how we go from here to there. If remodeling the body is a normal occurrence, and reassigning gender is perceived as normal then AI begins to be understood as quite a realistic possibility in the future. Life is like the literary canon; we introduce one thing making it normal and a part of our conscious landscape, while simultaneously and continually building upon those slight changes until we have a new entity that is again perceived as normal. It is the process of going from A-Z that we do not notice. Technology is changing language, our bodies, our social skills, out attention spans and our mental health. Would it be farfetched for someone who suffers from depression to choose an AI body free of depression in order to continue to live? Continuing the life we know with an implant that removes a particular hardship or organic fault? Or to insert all those with Down Syndrome with chips that allow people with those unique features to be the go to people when one finds oneself lost and in need of navigational direction?
Science fiction today is deeply interested in Artificial Intelligence as it pertains to human beings and what we may eventually be, look like, function as, and interact with. As I've already mentioned above I am in the midst of season two of Humans. Thus far in the series, we have seen an older man, played by William Hurt, who suffers from dementia and has/uses a young synthetic person to retain his memories of his life so that he doesn't forget who he is/was. Synthetics are used as prostitutes so that inappropriate sexual desires (sex with children) can be carried out on artificial people with presumably no harm done. Synthetic people are also used in a gladiator fashion and beaten to a pulp for those that derive satisfaction from homicidal bullying. So even in this futuristic vision violence and abuse have not been eliminated.
In Humans most of the synthetics as they are referred to as, are non-white, or who are volatile in some way; outcasts (within the definition we would place upon such individuals at current times). What's fringe today may not be considered fringe tomorrow but since racism, and violence have not been quelled with all of our advancements one might be wise to assume these predicaments will be in the future as well. What does it mean to be human? Is it our genitals? The ability to choose to procreate? Emotions? Simply our features? Our opposable thumbs? The ability to think and choose? Speech? To walk upright? The ability to create art? Each one of these questions and possibilities is already, as I write, being manipulated by AI.
Undark, an online science journal recently published a article which looked at the racial biases which health providers inflict onto their patients and how AI Technology is inflicting the same racial biases. This is obviously not the computers fault but rather the fault of the information being loaded in on a network framework platform. We can easily see too that IT professionals are not medical professionals and most likely would only be writing code for the task at hand and not able to actually determine if the information is sound or free of bias. When one realizes that a medical record is a legal document that can not be altered we can see the legal problems that may arise. When a health care provider makes a chart note and makes a mistake, say, one line is drawn through the incorrect word(s) and initialed so that the mistaken word(s) can still be read. Chart notes also, normally have a diary format so that medical provider A's note follows medical provider's B note thus making any attempts at forgery more difficult. Pathology reports and the like are the only information which goes into a medical record on its own and no additional notes are written on these types of reports. In the case of electronic notes each medical personnel, whom either writes notes themselves or needs access to medical information is given an individual password so that any access made, or attempted, is recorded as that specific individual having gained access. This process of accuracy relies solely on the individual never sharing their individual password. Each entry or access is electronically stamped with time, location, date, etc.
So if AI technology is producing information into hospital chart records that is biased, racist, or in some way inaccurate, one has to wonder how a patient would be able to fight against any such information. AI has the potential for removing human blame. Hospital records are constantly being analyzed for research purposes and this research is used to change laws, and implement public policy.
How far fetched might it be in the future that information gathered through AI which deems certain races susceptible to certain diseases, or wellbeing outcomes, then get further deemed and perceived as disposable or eventually recycled and repurposed? If transgendered people become better men and women than those that are born into a gender where might that lead us? If it is documented that certain races have qualities or weakness that are too cost effective to support, where might this take us? Implants that simply pay for your train ride today, may eventually lead to an implant that allows you to check the DNA structure (potential procreation mate) or drug history, for example, of a potential mate or employee. Perhaps there will be a chip one can imbed into the body that can scan for falsehoods based upon body language. Any and all of these things would be a part of the canon, building up the idea that came before. The ideas that were accepted and became normal. We just add and multiply...
Supporters of science have the notion that science doesn't lie or hold falsehoods, but science is understood and thought about by humans and humans are fallible. Inventions are two sided. We create new pathways which are groundbreaking but those inventions can often be used in ways which are regrettable. Many of those that worked on the atomic bomb, Oppenheimer and Einstein, felt deep lifelong regret about how their work was eventually used. The regret did not stem from the science itself but how we, the fallible ones, eventually used that science.
How AI will eventually look in a thousand years is anyone's guess. I can't say, that's for sure. I'm only certain that this never ending question we have, of what it means to be human, coupled with scientific advancements, will evolve over time, and that the time which passes may not be noticed until who we think of ourselves today resembles something vastly and significantly different. The 'new' us will be the norm. We will have reached there, from here, painlessly, slowly going along, with a revolt here and there; perhaps landing us somewhere where we murmur and reminisce about the olden days when we were a different type of human.
During this Covid lockdown I've had more time than usual to sit around and ponder life and where we might be heading. Not in my lifetime mind you, but rather what the future might bring. What will life look like in two-hundred years? A thousand?
We live at a time when everything can be documented, recorded, and made note of. I don't know if there will be a time in the distant future when archaeologists will be attempting to reboot ancient laptops and attempting to figure out what Facebook or TikTok was all about; perhaps there will be no need to dig stuff up and take wild guesses. Perhaps we are documenting life as we know it and in time the missing link of our time and place will be clearly evident. I don't know.
Right now I am watching a rather fascinating TV series titled, Humans ,which I will discuss in detail further along. I'm in the middle of season two and since I've already been collecting news articles for quite some time now regarding 'the body as computer' I thought I'd begin writing and fleshing out some theories I have about science fiction in film, literature and reality.
When I was wee, Star Trek arrived, and we imagined everything we saw on this show to be something so far in the future that one could never imagine it might transpire during the viewer's lifetime. But some things in Star Trek have come to pass. Lt. Urhu's blue tooth device, for example, is almost passé now. We have walked on the moon and while we have not been able to send a human into the far reaches of interstellar space we have spacecraft out there collecting data. We have pictures of planets never before seen up close and a working hypotheses of what might be happening on those planets. Do we know what we might do with all of this information yet? Is there a plan? Will we really get to move to another planet if earth is no longer capable of supporting us as we understand life at present? I don't know.
Let's back track for a moment. In 1927, Fritz Lang, et al, introduced us to the film Metropolis which imagined a world where the masses functioned for the sole purpose of keeping a mechanism going which only supported a very select few. In the film we learn that those masses indeed have a clear plan for overturning the status quo --and the masses eventually do wake up to the fact that being a cog in a wheel may not be a good thing. In 1949 George Orwell imagined 1984. He imagined what life might look like when government and authoritarian entities over step their reach and use that power to control the masses forcing everyone to lead monitored lives. Within these scenarios are always those factions who envision different scenarios. We can easily see why today, at present, we might feel we are living in Orwellian times. Those of us working in large cities may feel we are in a Metropolis that feels like what Lang imagined. In 1970, the French philosopher, Louis Althusser wrote a brilliant essay titled, Ideology and Ideological and State Apparatuses, which detailed the mechanisms in place that propel the wheel going but also how we, en masse, buy into this mechanism by identifying with, participating in, and perpetuating our various roles as cogs. Althusser's premise is that the wheel is impossible to stop at this point.
Part of my premise, which blends with Althusser's, is that this mechanism can be traced back, in part, to The Old Testament. I have written about my theories, regarding The Old Testament as the blueprint for democracy and capitalism and its roots in the apparatus which Althusser writes. We humans have a deep seated need to make sense of the world we live in; since the beginning, however we might pinpoint and define that beginning. Whatever beginning one might imagine it still follows the principle of a perpetual building upon the ideas that came before.
I have to wonder why it is that much of science fiction scenarios include some sort of catastrophic event that often begins post destruction, and which tend to include revolutionaries attempting to either prevent something further, or who function to restore something to what was. In these storyline's we seem to be the ones that have gotten ourselves into these Armageddon-like futuristic predicaments. Life as we know it in these fictional settings appear to be precious. But is life as we know it really precious? If so, then why are we so prone towards violence and destruction of others and self?
Progress and keen invention has not made us kinder people. We have not figured out-- nor do I think we will, (in my lifetime),-- how to squelch racism, war, poverty, hunger, inequality, human trafficking, or violence. My small observations, bracketed in 61 years, is that these things are on the rise and getting worse rather than better. What does that mean? What does that imply?
What I've begun to pay attention to in the news is how we are slowly moving towards 'body as computer'. We are already participating in AI implants into the body; we have already begun tinkering with human as android. Already we are living in a future as seen by Orwell and Lang. Where do we go from here? Where are these science fiction visionaries taking us? Artificial Intelligence (AI) seems to be the future for much of science fiction writers. While Star Trek may seem antiquated at this point in time one has to look at what is being envisioned now; what is actually taking place in real time in our lives that is bringing us to a different way of life. The passing of time, --evolution, is rarely noticed. We see ourselves aging when we look in the mirror but we don't feel each new wrinkle. We don't feel the one gray hair making way for all the others to come.
The idea of a robot mixing us a cocktail at 5PM, or doing menial housework may still seem ridiculous to most households but already segments of the population are becoming obsolete. We have machines taking over jobs that were once done by humans. We see this most often in mass production factory settings. The need for the mechanism to outdo and maintain a status quo has become more important that the needs of the human. We have a well established market for life-like dolls, of both genders, for those of us that desire intimacy without the hassle or who find themselves just lonely and in need any sort of company that might be available. Covid has seen a huge uptick in the purchasing of sex dolls as companions.The Covid pandemic may be the impetus behind life changing as we have known it. Covid may be the visible 'missing link' that takes us from 'here' to 'there'. So intimacy, during a time of extreme isolation, has created a 'normalcy' for the need of companionship, even of that companionship comes from inanimate objects. I have a sneaking suspicion that if the pandemic ended tomorrow we will not see piles of dolls curbside in celebration of human contact once again. I suspect some of us will rather like the time we spent with our dolls in isolation, and will carry on as though the pandemic is still in force. Some of us are not interested in returning to 'normal' and have found new ways of being 'normal. Big changes do not come overnight.
Sweden, as well as other countries, have already implemented 'chips' that are inserted into people voluntarily, in order to speed up commutes, or entry into various venues. People are going along with this and at the moment it may seem like fun and games, new age, or simply, people like feeling 'ahead of the times'. Then there are those that just like the concept of 'body as device', and enjoy the idea of their body perhaps also functioning as a microwave oven for cold coffee. Myself, at sixty-one, might think it is all something only the insane wold participate in, but it's not. These are young people. People in their childbearing and most productive years. Why do I mention childbearing years? Why is that important to this essay? Because the human race can not continue as we know it if people cease having children and no one knows what the longterm effects are on implants and fertility. The Covid pandemic has already predicted that birthrates are and will continue to drop dramatically. One might easily say to oneself: We can do with fewer people, why is this bad? Fewer people may really be a better thing in terms of sustainability but since we haven't been able to thwart racism and war, hunger and poverty, human trafficking and violence, and since an Orwellian push is coming from various world leaders, I don't think it is too far fetched to imagine that a future (again, not in my lifetime), might include a decision about who is allowed to procreate and for what reason. Margaret Atwood explored this futuristic nightmare thirty years ago in, The Handmaid's Tale.
It is already the norm, mainstream in fact, that undergoing gender reassignment is not a thing that is 'odd-ball' anymore. We accept that body dysmorphia is a bona-fide dilemma that is recognized by two of those most powerful institutions around: The psychiatric community as well as the medical community. It is no longer in the hands of Mary Shelley's Frankenstein. From what I can see, shown to me in the news and television, transgendered people look better and seem to feel better than the 'real McCoy' which is a phrase that is already being given the 'politically incorrect' boot when it pertains to transgendered people. Already there is a push that gender reassignment need not be revealed to others. Already there is a push for our lexicon to be changed and perhaps forgotten. I'm not against transgendered people at all, I'm simply trying to lay a road map of how we go from here to there. If remodeling the body is a normal occurrence, and reassigning gender is perceived as normal then AI begins to be understood as quite a realistic possibility in the future. Life is like the literary canon; we introduce one thing making it normal and a part of our conscious landscape, while simultaneously and continually building upon those slight changes until we have a new entity that is again perceived as normal. It is the process of going from A-Z that we do not notice. Technology is changing language, our bodies, our social skills, out attention spans and our mental health. Would it be farfetched for someone who suffers from depression to choose an AI body free of depression in order to continue to live? Continuing the life we know with an implant that removes a particular hardship or organic fault? Or to insert all those with Down Syndrome with chips that allow people with those unique features to be the go to people when one finds oneself lost and in need of navigational direction?
Science fiction today is deeply interested in Artificial Intelligence as it pertains to human beings and what we may eventually be, look like, function as, and interact with. As I've already mentioned above I am in the midst of season two of Humans. Thus far in the series, we have seen an older man, played by William Hurt, who suffers from dementia and has/uses a young synthetic person to retain his memories of his life so that he doesn't forget who he is/was. Synthetics are used as prostitutes so that inappropriate sexual desires (sex with children) can be carried out on artificial people with presumably no harm done. Synthetic people are also used in a gladiator fashion and beaten to a pulp for those that derive satisfaction from homicidal bullying. So even in this futuristic vision violence and abuse have not been eliminated.
In Humans most of the synthetics as they are referred to as, are non-white, or who are volatile in some way; outcasts (within the definition we would place upon such individuals at current times). What's fringe today may not be considered fringe tomorrow but since racism, and violence have not been quelled with all of our advancements one might be wise to assume these predicaments will be in the future as well. What does it mean to be human? Is it our genitals? The ability to choose to procreate? Emotions? Simply our features? Our opposable thumbs? The ability to think and choose? Speech? To walk upright? The ability to create art? Each one of these questions and possibilities is already, as I write, being manipulated by AI.
Undark, an online science journal recently published a article which looked at the racial biases which health providers inflict onto their patients and how AI Technology is inflicting the same racial biases. This is obviously not the computers fault but rather the fault of the information being loaded in on a network framework platform. We can easily see too that IT professionals are not medical professionals and most likely would only be writing code for the task at hand and not able to actually determine if the information is sound or free of bias. When one realizes that a medical record is a legal document that can not be altered we can see the legal problems that may arise. When a health care provider makes a chart note and makes a mistake, say, one line is drawn through the incorrect word(s) and initialed so that the mistaken word(s) can still be read. Chart notes also, normally have a diary format so that medical provider A's note follows medical provider's B note thus making any attempts at forgery more difficult. Pathology reports and the like are the only information which goes into a medical record on its own and no additional notes are written on these types of reports. In the case of electronic notes each medical personnel, whom either writes notes themselves or needs access to medical information is given an individual password so that any access made, or attempted, is recorded as that specific individual having gained access. This process of accuracy relies solely on the individual never sharing their individual password. Each entry or access is electronically stamped with time, location, date, etc.
So if AI technology is producing information into hospital chart records that is biased, racist, or in some way inaccurate, one has to wonder how a patient would be able to fight against any such information. AI has the potential for removing human blame. Hospital records are constantly being analyzed for research purposes and this research is used to change laws, and implement public policy.
How far fetched might it be in the future that information gathered through AI which deems certain races susceptible to certain diseases, or wellbeing outcomes, then get further deemed and perceived as disposable or eventually recycled and repurposed? If transgendered people become better men and women than those that are born into a gender where might that lead us? If it is documented that certain races have qualities or weakness that are too cost effective to support, where might this take us? Implants that simply pay for your train ride today, may eventually lead to an implant that allows you to check the DNA structure (potential procreation mate) or drug history, for example, of a potential mate or employee. Perhaps there will be a chip one can imbed into the body that can scan for falsehoods based upon body language. Any and all of these things would be a part of the canon, building up the idea that came before. The ideas that were accepted and became normal. We just add and multiply...
Supporters of science have the notion that science doesn't lie or hold falsehoods, but science is understood and thought about by humans and humans are fallible. Inventions are two sided. We create new pathways which are groundbreaking but those inventions can often be used in ways which are regrettable. Many of those that worked on the atomic bomb, Oppenheimer and Einstein, felt deep lifelong regret about how their work was eventually used. The regret did not stem from the science itself but how we, the fallible ones, eventually used that science.
How AI will eventually look in a thousand years is anyone's guess. I can't say, that's for sure. I'm only certain that this never ending question we have, of what it means to be human, coupled with scientific advancements, will evolve over time, and that the time which passes may not be noticed until who we think of ourselves today resembles something vastly and significantly different. The 'new' us will be the norm. We will have reached there, from here, painlessly, slowly going along, with a revolt here and there; perhaps landing us somewhere where we murmur and reminisce about the olden days when we were a different type of human.
Comments