A
compelling theme in science fiction is the potential of humanity to create life
and the hazards arising from such an endeavor. Perhaps Frankenstein was the
first popular tale of a mad scientist creating havoc when the beings he created
went haywire. The theme has been followed by writers such as Asimov in the
Robot series, Philip K. Dick in 'Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?' (later
adapted to film as Blade Runner) and recently has been re-imagined by the
writers of Battlestar Galactica. Perhaps the most well known human impersonating
robot has been portrayed by the current Californian Governor.
In each
artificial life creation story, there is always a cautionary line - questioning
the right of humankind to create a consciousness that would otherwise not be
present in our universe. Let us inspect that theme philosophically to gauge its
true value to us today.
Firstly, a
definition for the purpose of discussion--'life' here is interpreted to be a
thinking being, able to react in ways that make it indistinguishable from a
human, much along the lines of Von Neumann's theory. Think of the androids in Blade Runner,
the Cylons in Battlestar Galactica. Data in Star Trek; Arnold in Sacramento.
The case
for creating life
The case
for humankind to create life that is usually adopted goes like this: "we need
the most advanced machines possible to conduct work too dangerous for a human".
Certainly this is a utilitarian approach to life creation. It is a line that
would be attractive to a scientist wishing to fund such research--although perhaps
it will be true that there will always be a human proletariat to which such
work will fall. But the true attractiveness of robots in this case is that they
are seen as replaceable and they won't kick up a stink when working conditions
are bad.
The case
against creating life
Usually
conflict arises when thinking robots realise the truth of their lot and also
their ability to use their unique skills to put themselves in charge of their
own destiny. This leads to devastating conflict between humans and their artificial
progeny.
I see a
close parallel here to the construction of the atomic bomb. The Bomb was
developed for a utilitarian purpose (to defeat the Axis enemies of World War II).
Now that the genie is out of the bottle, the very presence of nuclear weapons
continuously threatens man's existence, while at the same time we are unable at
this juncture to deprive ourselves of them.
Analysis
There is a
real difference, however, between the nuclear bomb and the robot. That
difference is that once robots destroy mankind, they will be able to live on
without us. On the other hand, the nuclear catastrophe will be a one-time-only
event, and once the long winter passes and the radiation subsides, it will have
no further unpredictable effect on Earth.
It is
fraught with danger to tell stories about the future to help make our decisions
now, but such imaginings are important to us in pushing forward this argument.
Therefore let us consider a timeline where humankind creates life and is
destroyed by its creation.
Is this
inherently bad? It certainly is not a reassuring future for the generation that
will deal with such conflict, presumably a generation that will live not far
from today. But once the conflict is over, as long as we have invested in our
creation the means of Darwinian evolution, it is likely that Earth, viewed as a
complete ecosystem, will continue marching towards further technological
achievement and eco-systemic enlightenment. Humankind will have played a heroic
part in this adventure. Even robots (perhaps especially robots) will have to
acknowledge that. Our lives will have meaning through our progeny, a common
enough goal for everyday man.
Contrast
this future with other futures that can be envisaged - where humanity runs out
of steam and innovation and gets stuck on Earth or in the Solar System and
eventually passes away without bursting forth upon the galaxy. Or perhaps humanity
vanquishes or subdues the robot foe and swears off technology. It is certainly
possible to see this as a more favourable scenario - especially if one is given
to believing in the duality of existence--that our lives here are not all there is.
Certainly,
the worst scenario is a future in which mankind perishes through massive
conflict or disease. This is unattractive to one enchanted with the idea of
natural progression, since it would return Earth to a state close to the start
of the Permian era 65 million years ago, when dinosaurs had just been wiped
out. But today Earth still has 5 billion years of existence yet, so there is
plenty of time for a comeback.
Often the
essential conflict for humans considering whether to produce intelligent life
is: are we perfect enough to consider playing God? It certainly is an achingly
poignant question to a modern progressive thinker--but perhaps the question is
moot. Maybe machine life is inevitable in order that Darwinian evolution should
continue on Earth. Whether it is through humanity's loins or through humanities
laboratories that Darwin's game is progressed may not matter. Indeed, if humans
gradually augment themselves with technology of their own creation in the
coming centuries, will we fully realise when machines have 'taken over'? What
will it be about a robot with a few original Homo sapien brain cells
that makes it human?
Relevance
to SETI
How is this
relevant to SETI? Of course, it has been stated by many authors (even in this
column) that when we make contact with alien beings, they may be the robotic
progeny of beings similar to ourselves. Perhaps probes have been sent here with
enough intelligence to carry on an engaging conversation. Is it possible they
are waiting for us to be smart enough to construct a robot that can talk to
them?
advertisement
