What does it mean to be human? Transhumanism may change the way we think about the answer.
Welcome to W12 of the Moveable Feast with our podcasts on Transhumanity. Elizabeth and I were chatting one evening about how fortunate we were to have been tasked with exploring this fascinating topic that will eventually impact education, philosophy, ethical frameworks, and law. What was once in the realm of medical science has now splintered into two streams: mainstream science (private, academic, and the military) and the do-it-yourselfers. Where the first is considered legitimate in pursuing longevity and enhancement of life, the latter is considered ‘fringe’ in the pursuit of self-expression through augmentation. Both are searching for the elixir of eternal life.
Consider this your invitation
.
Please take a moment to reflect on the following prompt and join in this week’s conversation: Is transhumanism moving humanity towards dissolution, or integration?
.
True enough, Braden, few want to pioneer brain implanting. Even so, some, like Neuralink and Synchron’s operation’s first test subjects dealing with quadriplegia, accept the risk. Others will explore BCI as you entertain later, especially since nanotechnology makes it reasonably unintrusive. To give you an idea, the neural thread with 1500 electrons was much thinner than a human hair, and the neural link chip was the size of a quarter. BCI will open the door to an unexplored world. How will this change our thinking when we fuse our intellect with technology?
I think that utilizing such technology, especially as it becomes progressively safer and less intrusive, will allow for the expansion of human intellect beyond what we can currently. I imagine a world in which we can supplement our own body of knowledge simply by uploading a file to our neural implant rather than spending significant time learning in a traditional manner. I also believe that the manual shaping of neural pathways using technology would a natural progressive focus, as it would allow for the repair of areas that are damaged or allow for enhancement of abilities by strengthening pathways so that the individual is “enhanced” without an actual technological implant.
Hi Braden and Elizabeth:
Your posts also made me think that a big part of our learning is let’s cognition. The ability to reflect on the different information we obtain and utilize it in different contexts. So when we fuse our own thinking with technology, the reaction or action still comes from ourselves. Much like what we currently do, we take in information but based on our own values and beliefs, we may react. So our thinking is enhanced and can affect our values and beliefs, integrating into our lives and I would say in this sense, would not “dissolve humanity” as our activeness is still much required. This is also affected by our experiences, environment and such. A huge part of being human!
Hello, Tamaka and Elizabeth. Thanks for sharing your OER on transhumanity. I had been eagerly waiting for it, as I think it’s a fascinating concept and something we can expect to develop significantly in the future. I enjoyed the approach you used to present the information to us, and think it was original and different. I did some in-depth research on Brain-Computer Interfaces (BCI) for assignment 3, which I will post soon. I remember hearing about BCIs last year after watching a video by Neuralink and it felt like a very mysterious process. However, as I have learned more about it, I think it’s not far out at all, as it functions under popular contemporary technological disciplines, such as computing and machine learning. In BCIs, brain signals are obtained using sensors that record the electrical activity generated by the brain via electrodes placed on the scalp surface, a physiological method known as Electroencephalography (EEG), while a person thinks of a specific activity. These signals are subsequently analyzed and codified into complex algorithms which become the common language the brain and the machine share. Hence, the machine is trained to make relationships between brain signals and intentions to output a desired action. I believe we can expect to see BCI develop significantly in the future, not just in the medical field but also in arts, entertainment, education, and more. As you mention, this will give rise to very complex issues related to privacy, ownership, censorship, the uncertainty of long-term effects, selective enhancement and social stratification, and potential personality changes involved caused by deep-brain stimulation. I appreciate how you explored philosophical questions related to human identity, as I think that once these technologies develop fully to a point in which we can separate ourselves from our physical bodies, deep questions about who we are will come to the surface. This can help us connect to the deeper dimensions of self that go beyond the physical, which would have a great impact on issues that are body-related, such as racism, for example.
Eduardo, I agree brain computer interfaces are not that far out. I look forward to learning more with your deep dive into BCIs. Yes, I have read a bit about EEGs and their use in treating chronic pain and other conditions through biofeedback. DALL-E software has giving pause to the art world as AI algorithms create digital works that once needed the imagination of a human with a paint brush to create. https://techcrunch.com/2022/08/02/ai-art-generated/ When I first started in photography, I shot in black and white film and created prints in a bathroom that I had blacked out to create a darkroom. Processing film was done by hand in a black bag where I worked by feel because I could not expose the film to light. Then came digital and smartphone cameras that kept getting better and better. The interaction of humans and machine learning is creating an exciting future, along with the potential challenges that accompany any paradigm shift. I’ve been thinking about what would constitute a self when our emotions and experiences help shape who we are. Who will we be when we can no longer experience our human senses? Will we be able to feel deep connection to others when we can no longer hug one another, or cry together? What do you think a life without senses might look like?
Thanks for sharing the AI-generated art article – that was fascinating. I recently read about something similar – it was an AI-generated blog. I think that human imagination is still somehow involved, but in a different way. Certainly not with a paintbrush, but with a computer. It seems though as the human will always be behind the machine, however, some wonder what will happen if machines surpass completely our brain capacity and mental faculties. Then, perhaps they could have autonomy that is out of our control. However, I think there might be a principle that determines the created cannot fundamentally exceed the creator, so even if machines get out of control we would find ways of handling them!
You are not alone in being worried about the singularity. Futurist, thinker and Director of Engineering at Google, Kurzweil had predicted that it would happen around 2045; recently, he stated that it is nearer than once thought. With the exponential nature of technological change, like computational density, neural networks and natural language, AI is predicted to reach or surpass human capacity by 2029. Yet, in the past, humans used technology to benefit society most of the time. Today, many of us already use the increasing strength of non-biological thinking daily to extend our thinking. And there is a good chance that these devices will go inside our heads in a few years. So, definitely, the boundaries are being pushed. But do you think AI takes humanity from darkness to light or dims our light?
What if the machine suddenly develops human like qualities such as emotion or empathy? There’s been a lot of debate about whether AI is sentient (https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/ai-consciousness-how-to-recognize-1.6498068) and if this is proven to be the case, would that be a natural evolution or something that exceeds transhumanity? Instead of improving the human condition with machines, we’re bringing human traits to machines which is kind of a reverse scenario I guess?
John, your point is well noted. It does seems that, at the moment, a lot of the technology tries to replicate the agility of humans like neural processing, natural language processing, and artificial general intelligence, to name a few. Yet there is a lot of emerging powerful technology in the pipeline. Carbon nanotubes, quantum computing, and 6G are just a few. So then, would you agree with Kurzweil that computers will surpass humans?
Is transhumanism moving humanity towards dissolution, or integration?
What a big question as we are all in the beginning stages of understanding transhumanism. I think of movies like “I, Robot”, “Short Circuit” and futuristic ones like the “Matrix”. What really created thought for me was the ability for everyone to already enhance themselves like the bionic womand and bionic man with pace makers, health watches, diabetes sensors, and other items. The classroom wasn’t where my thoughts went but rather equity in sports. We have so much of an issue with gender in sports and difficulty regulating it that to be transhuman means you would not be able to be a competitive athlete. I don’t think transhumanism will move society towards dissolution, but rather towards integration.
Jennifer, yes, there has been so many advances in medicine. I know someone with a diabetes sensor in his body that sounds an alarm if his blood sugar goes too high or too low while he is sleeping. His device is programmed to send cell phone alerts to significant people in his life, which is a safeguard for when he is alone. When devices like an artificial heart valve, or pacemakers are invented most people rejoice for the human lives these devices can extend. But when the device has anything to do with the brain, the centre of our thoughts and emotions, the reaction can also be fear and trepidation. I wasn’t sure if your reference to difficulty regulating gender in sports was regarding transgender athletes or the inequalities women face. Here is a resource for you regarding transgender athletes in the 2021 Olympics: https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-news/first-openly-transgender-olympians-are-competing-tokyo-rcna1507 Transgender athletes have been allowed to participate in the Olympics since 2004 and 2012 was the first year that women participated in every sport in during the event; both historic moments in the quest for equity. Can you expand on how you see transhumanism moving humanity towards integration?
HI Tamaka and Elizabeth, thank you for sharing this OER, a well-produced and creative way of displaying information on Transhumanity. I truly have never explored this topic and am thankful for your introduction. I enjoyed the video you included in this post, an interesting way to explore this topic. It was eye opening to see the confusion of the parents and the information provided by the daughter. Her passion towards the topic makes you think how possible this idea is. I believe, similar to Aaron’s comment, that we are in the beginners stage of integration. I think there are possibilities, but the ideas that the daughter talks about in the video seem far from reality. However, wearable technology and even her “filter headband” is something that I believe is not far off. The integration of fully transforming into a digital presence both intrigues and scares me. Technology such as an electric car seemed so far off not so long ago, technology has evolved immensely since the late 90’s and early 2000’s. I can see the possibility of transforming their bodies for health related concerns a priority and the benefits could be critical. Thank you for sharing this OER, an introduction to what could be our future.
Like you, Megan, I, too, cannot envision a world where hybrid, robotic and sapient beings intermingle. We commonly see older technologies continually become obsolete with technology jumping and users’ hunger for improved performance. Yet, there are examples after examples of the acceleration of technological innovation through interdisciplinary collaboration.
Google’s director of engineering and futurist, Kurzweil, wrote that singularity is near when humans transcend biology in 2005. The exponential growth he spoke about in the computing ecosystem requires Dennard-scaling of chips, faster systems, and user adoption. To give you an instance of the speed of the change, Kurzweil stated in 2022 that computers would pass the Turing Test by 2029. The Turing Test is where humans cannot differentiate the computer from humans output or, to put it in other words, the computer thinks. He explained that AI extends human life since it can simulate biology creating the Moderna vaccine in a fraction of the time it would take humans.
Another recent breakthrough is Neuralink’s 10,000 electrode thread brain-computer interface, thinner than a human hair and wireless, with differentiating channels implanted in the first recipient robotically this summer.
How then will this immerging symbiosis between humans and super AI impact humanity?
Hi Tamaka and Elizabeth, thanks for putting together the OER and introducing the concept of Transhumanity to the class, it’s a very thought provoking topic to end the class presentations on. I was initially introduced to the concept in various forms of media such as movies (Blade Runner), anime (Ghost in the Shell), books (Neuromancer by William Gibson) and videogames (Deus Ex). While it might seem like transhumanism belongs to the fictional realm, I’m actually very surprised to see actual “cyborgs” in real life as shown in your OER. I was only aware of individuals implanting microchips into their bodies but to see full on augmentations which can detect earthquakes is simply mind boggling. In terms of enhancing our society and daily lives, I think transhumanism has the potential to provide opportunities to individuals who might be physically disabled such as the use of bionic limbs. On paper it does sound pretty attractive but my concern regarding transhumanism involves (i) equity issues in academic environments. For example, how can fairness be ensured if some students have augmentations which provides an advantage in terms of cognitive abilities. If improvements are transformed into a consumerist product, would it be fair for those who can afford more in comparison to “normal” students who don’t have enhancements installed? My second concern is (ii) legal repercussions as particular augmentations (maybe an eye which can scan through people’s wallets or instantly record videos) could raise privacy concerns and allows greater opportunity to commit offences. Third is ethical concerns, while some argue that it’s part of human evolution to improve our condition, I question to what extent are we still considered to be human if say, 99% of our body are machine components. I often view transhumanism in parallel to the myth of Icarus and Daedalus, where an individual might end up “flying” too close to the sun in their quest to escape beyond the confines of the human body. While this short film is a fictional and dramatic vision of what “could” happen in a transhumanist future, it’s still worth thinking about whether society could be segregated based on this concept (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7XCAgj0TtI)
John, the issues you raise of equity and plurality in the classroom are sound. Would non-augmented students be provided with digital devices to close the gap, or would the WiFi be disabled to prevent connecting by augmented students? These are considerations that will need to be addressed. I have yet to watch the movie Deus Ex but have seen Blade Runner and Ghost in the Machine. In Blade Runner, the robots are sentient and want to live past their predetermined due date, just as transhumanists ultimately search for the extension of life past our human due dates. In the U.S., life expectancy from birth in 1860 was 39.4, and in 2020 was 78.9 years. In the space of 160 years, it has doubled. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1040079/life-expectancy-united-states-all-time/ The new technology was knowledge: hygiene, lifestyle, and medicine. Segregation is already happening in the transhumanist community itself. Biohackers (like Ribas and Harbisson) are viewed differently from mainstream interests (military, private, and institutional researchers). As a seasoned educator, what strategies might you use in teaching to create a more equitable learning space in your courses?
That is a difficult question as in most cases, the provost or institution admin outlines suggested best practices for us to follow in the event where it might be difficult to ensure a standardized environment. That being said, from experience it’s always helpful to understand the needs, interests and concerns of students which can directly lead to more equitable spaces while highlighting clear communication channels to encourage them to let the instructor know ASAP if there are any issues, regardless of the situation. Depending on how advanced augmentations become, there’s a chance we’ll be in the era of 7G onwards, as for Wi-Fi I’m not certain how they will be compatible with transplants/augmentations etc. That being said, even without fancy augmentations, the digital divide already exists as many note. From the model of our smartphones, laptops or devices we use, this already implicitly suggests the concept of paying more = better specs, more advanced features and options.
Hi Tamaka & Elizabeth and thank you for sharing more about transhumanity. Before this OER, I didn’t know much about what it means to be trans-human. I think transhumanism is slowly moving more towards integration and your resources on its medical and enhancing properties show how much it can help people. The OER and concept reminds me a lot of those science fiction stories where people can pay for enhancements; of course, this leaves me wondering if technology would then become a catalyst to further widen the gap of opportunities between those in differing socioeconomic levels. I imagine similar to a medical board, implanted technology and innovations of the like would require a board of ethics and testing to check the devices. Some people have already likened this technology to plastic surgery but on a more significant scale where it actually impacts people’s lives. I think further questions and concerns will pop up as transhumanism becomes more popular; it’s important that we’re discussing it early!
Jackson, there is no agreement on how mature human augmentation technologies are or how quickly they will progress. It also belongs in the realm of cloak and danger since Some counties have civil-military collaboration in human augmented capabilities to ensure their militaries stay at the forefront. Thus, governance is tricky. Not all countries have the same technical, ethical, legal, and societal values. This lack of standardized authority opens medical tourism possibilities.
I meant to ask Jackson, how could human augmentation be governed and opened for all to benefit from these technological advancements?
Hey there, as I was contemplating this topic from my earlier post, I kind of akin governance to be an agreement across countries. I envision there to be something like NATO or kind of like WHO, but with representatives from each country around the world on the board, that regulate technological advancements. That way experts from around the world are giving their insight, and everyone has a pulse on where technology is headed.
That’s an interesting proposal, though as an alternative argument, technology at the end of the day is state/commercial in nature and I’m not sure if countries are willing to openly share their research/advancements in such an open nature due to security concerns, conflicts of interest or other confidential reasons. There might be some aspects which allows for cooperation such as determining international laws or policies for emerging tech or how to handle a tech related crisis which could be discussed at most.
Very interesting topic and OER Tamaka and Elizabeth! I always get excited about learning more on the topic of transhumanism, it is a complicated area that I don’t think our generation would make sense of and decipher, we are probably the last generation of homo sapiens. In the future, humans will be more different than us than we are different from Neanderthal. We will be able to engineer minds and bodies and that would change our economy and put individuals who own the data in charge. I believe that advancements in AI would bring us closer to transhumanism by bringing the necessary computing power as well as biology and neuroscience. To respond to your prompt, transhumanism is definitely moving humans toward integration, perhaps merging aspects of life that do not yet exist. We already witnessed the advantages of technology and how it facilitates every aspect of our lives, so I cannot wait to see what other limitations we will overcome as humans in the future.
Maria, yes, the technology is advancing. I’ve been thinking since I returned home from work, how I might bring added value to our conversation. Your thought about merging aspects of life that do not exist brought to mind the Henn-na Hotel that opened in 2015 in Japan; the world’s first robot hotel. Seventy percent of all the functions of the hotel are completely automated, and robots serve all the guests. One of the front desk staff is a robot dinosaur and the others are designed to look human. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jI3uUlztDbM Japan has been an early adopter of robot workers and currently employs about half a million to lower wage costs and increase efficiency. Robots are used for roles from greeting customers to providing companionship. These robot workers are not sentient but when programmed to bow, which is a common social gesture in Japan, and humans bow in return it mimics a social relationship. What came to your mind when you mentioned the merging of aspects of life that do not currently exist?
Yes, I am aware of these types of hotels in Japan, and I would love to experience one! One idea that came to me while thinking of the future and how transhumanism would be the coming residents of this planet is that we will face many obstacles that would force us to rely on technology and AI for survival. In the near future, we will be in desperate need of fighting climate change, and I believe that technology and machine learning are going to be a huge component in overcoming that. However, in the far future, humans could face climates that are not suitable for a “typical” human and that would force humanity to engineer their bodies to adapt to the new atmospheric conditions. Transhumanism could also aid in extraterrestrial life that would be unfeasible for humans and it could also integrate us better with AI and robots when we start developing deeper friendships.
Humanity’s darker side has led to environmental, social, and ethical challenges. Mass migration, greater levels of urbanization, and exponential human growth have caused many to forget that humanity’s well-being depends on the earth’s well-being. I am in total agreement, Maria, that technological innovation is vital in the solutions.
Hopefully, the possibility of the extinction of human sapiens will ignite a conversation around the meaning of our existence. Crossing paths with Rag ‘n Bone Man’s lyrics, “I’m only human,” made me think about his lyrics and that I’m not totally biological. I had a small implant in my teens like so many others. Yet, I have never questioned my humanness.
What is it that makes us human?
That is a complicated question, Elizabeth. I think mortality will be the big difference between humans and transhumans as well as the limitations of the human brain.
Maria, I’m glad you referenced the limitations of the human brain. Educators are aware of the limits of working memory and the pitfalls of cognitive overload in learning. I also am sensitive to neurodiverse students’ struggles with information processing, and discuss accommodations with them that will ameliorate their educational experience. It will be interesting to see if brain chips lessen the cognitive load of learning.
Hello Tamaka & Elizabeth:
What an interesting topic. To be honest, I have never hear of trans-human. Particularly, “Technology allows the learner to link with diverse networks of humans and non-humans, for connective knowledge. But, there’s the other possibility that learners will be monitored and steered into directions deemed suitable” resonated with me. It made me think that trans-human is made to make learning easier so then, would people actively participate in the instruction when technology could easily connect the content and contexts for you? Would the learner actually understand the connections made by technology? Then my mind went to think about, “this would be a great way to combat racism and system barriers if learning was made that much easier. But it could also continue to widen the academic gap if access becomes an issue. This is where the podcasts took my thoughts.
As for your reflection question: Is transhumanism moving humanity towards dissolution, or integration?
Even still, based on the questions I had after reviewing your OER, I feel that trans-humanism is moving toward integration. This is because transhumanism sounds like some of the things we actively do, through Google searches, augmented reality, wearable technology etc. The difference, as mentioned in your OER is that this is all made easier or more efficient. Saving the learner TIME. In my years of teaching diverse students, i have heard that Canada is lacking in its curriculum in comparison to Chinese and British curriculum. In ways, I can see Canada adopting the technology to fill in gaps where they fall behind in. It also seems much like an upgrade from the technology we currently experience and have integrated into our lives. Thus, I can see this too being integrated into our lives.
Learners will be able to access information, but this does not equate to being able to construct meaning to create new schemas. Training, practice, and experience still requires active participation. An example would be that I would not want someone who only connected with information on brain surgery digitally to be operating on me physically. We see the instructor becoming a facilitator of experiences. Depending on the ages of the learners, teachers will still need to guide students through their social, emotional, and physical development. In different countries and cultures, education varies as do attitudes towards new technologies. I hope that your theory that increased connectivity will decrease racism and systemic barriers is true. Marginalized populations have historically not been part of the planning for mainstream and new technologies. Black, Indigenous and People of Color, LGTBQ2SIA, women, lower socio-economic status, and diversely abled people have a hard time seeing themselves represented in gaming and mobile culture, LMS platforms design, and research. Diverse positionalities are not so readily apparent and celebrated online. If time and money were no object, what would you change about mobile education to decrease racism?
Hi Tamaka:
At least from what I can see now, there are changes being made to enhance practices with Anti-Black Racism, Anti-Oppressive pedagogy and culturally responsive pedagogy in mind in Ontario schools. One of the major barriers or challenges for students was the feeling that teachers did not understand their stories or sufferings particularly because students could not identify with teachers. So hiring practices lately were made to recruit teachers from marginalized communities.
With that said, even in mobile education, I think representation matters. We were teaching young children from diverse backgrounds, how can we create content with that representation in mind. What becomes hard about that is policies to protect young child and rightfully so. It would be great for next generations to learn from older generations through mobile content whether it be mobile collaboration or AR experiences that have young students explaining content rather than an adult. Even Vygotsky has noted the importance of an expert peer in a child’s growth and development.
Mobile education also needs to come from an authentic perspective. I remember talking to fellow UBC peers and a struggle for them in taking the racism course was the fact that it was taught by a White professor. Unsure if they could really speak from a perspective that understood the oppression and challenges. Access is also huge because realistically, it would be those from marginalized communities that require access to mobile education due to the already existence of systemic racism and academic gaps. But these gaps have caused some of these groups’ families challenges and obtaining or affording technology to partake in mobile education which continues to academic gaps which in ways is system racism continuing its path.
Hey Elizabeth, I was contemplating if I would experiment with technological advancement, and I determined that only if it would save my life or my family member’s life. Otherwise, I would be too nervous to attempt to make that choice alone, without having extensive research or being advised by a trusted medical professional.
Agnes, we are of one mind when it comes to implanting technology.
Great work to you both, Tamaka and Elizabeth! Your mode of delivery of your A2 was impressive- well done. I personally have not researched too far into this subject, but last year I was listening to a podcast and heard Elon Musk speak about Neuralink (for more information on Neuralink- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLLLIqsZC60). On top of curing medical issues with the brain, telepathy and controlling technology with our thoughts, are some of the features of Neuralink. Apparently, human trials are coming in 2022 at some point. After hearing about Neuralink, I took some time to dive deeper into what it was. After listening to your podcast episodes, and with my feelings about Neuralink, and technology similar to it, there is one main thought that comes to mind. Where are the regulatory bodies when it comes to technology and humans? There needs to be a governing organization, that is filled with highly educated individuals who understand these technologies. If not, then governance does not know what to govern, what laws to change, and predict what they need to prevent from happening in the future. I think knowing that there is a highly educated governing organization in place that will protect humankind from dissolution is integral. In terms of integration, I think this is precisely where transhumanism is moving towards. Currently, people have addictions to improving their physical bodies and defeating death. If they are able to defeat death, and improve or design their own body, and have the resources to do it- I see many people pursuing this. I thought it was interesting in your Human 1.0 episode when your interviewees were first asked if they believed in transhumanism and disagreed quickly, but when asked deeper personal questions they quickly changed their minds. People are scared and hesitant about what they do not understand, but if they are asked if they can improve their lives or a family member’s lives, they are open to suggestions.
The first iterations of the Neuralink chip will be for medical use, like Synchron’s device, but Neuralink is looking to the future with everything you describe. We may argue that brain chips that restore the ability to communicate after a stroke are therapeutic. The slippery slope is when humans that have not experienced a disabling event decide they would like a brain chip to enhance their abilities. We cannot possibly know all the legal and ethical questions that will arise if brain chips become ubiquitous. Before the internet and social media, we did not need cyberstalking laws. Wearables that measure exercise, heart rate, and other personal information wirelessly send information companies can track. We can easily remove wearables but removing a brain chip is not as simple. What are some of the considerations you believe may need legal or ethical oversight?
The considerations I think need to have oversight, are overall companies or entrepreneurs that are dabbling with this technology. Mainly when it comes to human experiments- what is acceptable, are we ensuring our most vulnerable are protected? Telepathy, is another example, where, if this technology is acceptable, how do people consent or not consent to have their minds read? Boundaries over intrusiveness and protecting privacy are important. For instance, if people had more knowledge on how our data is collected and sold when using free apps etc., then there would be hesitancies in using certain technologies. I think the governing bodies would need to explain to those that are less educated on developing technologies, all the real risks and potential dangers. Typically medical professionals inform us when we need information on a new disease, treatment etc., and I would think that there need to be trusted professionals that we look towards as a moral compass, for safety, and for inquiries when it comes to the emerging transhuman technologies.
Agnes, I agree that more oversight is needed. In the U.S. the governing body that needs to approve before human trials is the Food and Drug Administration. In Canada, it’s Health Canada. With Health Canada, once they have deemed a device can be added to their list of therapeutic devices, then it is a licensing situation where they can control the marketing and other factors. In a free market, it has been up to the consumer to decide if they want the surgery if it is considered optional, like laser eye surgery or breast implants. Capitalism is the driving factor, with slick marketing of the benefits. Listed dangers usually consist of very tiny and quickly spoken texts moving quickly across the bottom of the TV screen. I agree that knowledge will allow people to make informed decisions, but in this world of so many competing priorities and noise, who always reads the fine print? Companies, like Facebook, have leaked the identifiable information of about 87 million people in a scandal related to Cambridge Analytica, and provided the information on 620,000 Canadians to a consulting firm in 2018. All companies are created to make a profit, and some companies take actions that are not in the interest of the consumer.
I hope in the future that this is not always the case anymore. I do think if there were organizations that were mandated and had high education in this field of technology, they could get ahead of companies who sell users’ data, or private information, instead of us all just accepting that is the case.
As you pointed out, Agnes, data security is a significant concern as real and virtual worlds become more blurred. I was curious when you talked about being mandated, so I checked the United Nations site. 71% of the countries with legislation have enacted regulations on collecting and sharing personal information with 3rd parties without notifying or obtaining the consumer’s consent. For example, Canada put in the Privacy Act and the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents in 2018. But unfortunately, each Canadian provincial jurisdiction has its own laws that apply. Luckily in my case, the cloud storage of my LMS, since I’m funded by the federal government, follows their regulations since Saskatchewan has no specific privacy legislation for the private sector.
Hi Tamaka and Elizabeth. What an intriguing OER experience! I really enjoyed your audio/script presentation. Honestly, I didn’t know much about transhumanity at all, so this has been super interesting for me. Beforehand it seemed like this idea that we would encounter in fictional futuristic worlds. Your prompt was pretty thought-provoking, especially since, I’m still not sure how to answer it. I learned more about transhumanity, but somehow it still feels so distant to my own reality. Which is funny considering the incredible innovations technology has brought. I think I’m veering towards the in-between. The curious part of me is super excited and intrigued, but the fearful side of me is confused and concerned about what this will mean for our society. However, when I think about most advancements in technology, we both have more contact with more people from around the world, while also, in some instances, feel more disconnected from those around us. I guess I feel like transhumanity would bring about the same kind of thing. We’ll be even more connected to each other and to technology, people will see more of us than ever before. However, will we be less connected with the people physically around us? Will we be able to connect with people in the same way at all? Although technology is incredible, I personally would rather foster real-time relationships, no matter how connected I feel to new and improving technologies.
Danya, I appreciate your astute observation: closer but distanced. It brought back a memory of standing in front of the whiteboard and listening to a student telling me his life story. He described how he had been shot and died on the operating table. He recounted in detail the moments leaving and returning to his embodiment. He was earnest.
His memory reminds me of the older man mentioned in our second podcast. He was on the brink of death and not yet ready for the end. But on the other hand, he has never mentioned the operating table or the implant of a mechanical value that saved his life; only once did he confess that he thought his death was imminent.
Most of us can understand the physical event of these two sentient beings still counted among the living but are distanced from the extreme emotional event unless we have encountered the same.
Does realness in a relationship require sharing a similar emotional experience? What makes up the currency of ‘realness” that society valorizes? Would mechanical body parts qualify?
Hi Elizabeth,
You bring up some really interesting questions… I guess “realness” is kind of relative? Perhaps it’s not a new concept. There are many contrasting views and disagreements because something is “real” to someone and not to another person. Even looking into political issues, some people relate less or in a completely different way to others because they see their “reality” differently I guess?
Danya, you make an exciting point about people seeing their reality differently than others. One of the items we have not discussed yet is perception, the difference between internally generated memories/dreams/hallucinations and externally stimulated perceptions and the associated memories. When brain chips improve to the point where they become the computer themselves and no longer need an external device to connect to the internet, it seems logical that we will perceive the information downloaded into our brains either as a thought or an image. We will store our perceptions of the information in a memory file. Certain mental health conditions lead to aural and visual hallucinations, and a great deal of research has shown that real and imagined sensory perceptions use similar neurocognitive architectures. What happens when there is a crossover? We may miss cues that we are in danger and should run and instead feel like we are watching a movie. In what scenario would you have a brain chip implanted? Dijkstra, N., Kok, P., & Fleming, S. M. (2022). Perceptual reality monitoring: Neural mechanisms dissociating imagination from reality. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 135, 104557-104557. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2022.104557
Dear Elizabeth and Tamaka,
Congratulations, this is a fascinating subject and I am grateful to find out what transhumanity is through your OER. The video of the young girl talking to her parents in the introduction is funny and disturbing and encourages ethical reflection from the start. The other videos in the resources are also very relevant. In your first podcast “project transhuman” you say in conclusion that “The human becomes a technological project and it is not that far away”. It is so exciting to witness this movement of defining identity based on technological body modifications. It’s close to a form of superhero, to modify the body to have new powers! It still seems very futuristic to me, but with your 3 podcasts, I realize that it is possible and that the technology is already well advanced. To answer your reflective question: Is transhumanism moving humanity towards dissolution, or integration? I am an optimist who believes in integration, with pros and cons. I wonder how to set the limit of body modifications? It’s a bit like plastic surgery. Does a gigantic breast augmentation for aesthetic reasons compare with a nose modification that is crooked and causes respiratory problems or a change of sexe because you are a Transgender person? I am happy as I am, I accept myself without the need for body modification, technological or not. On the other hand, in a global context with a possibility to embed my phone in my hand (as in the Upload series on Prime – https://www.syfy.com/sites/syfy/files/styles/blog-post-embedded –mobile/public/2022/03/screen_shot_2022-03-09_at_4.06.55_pm.png), for example, I wouldn’t mind. I don’t want to be a pioneer and experiment with a chip in my brain, but in the future, if it becomes a global movement and there is no danger, why not!
I would like to add a thought-provoking question for the rest of the group, the one you ask in your second podcast, but more related to education: what would your technological body modification be if you could become a transhuman teacher, your reengineering not related to medical issue, related to teaching, your new learning power?
The image address for the “phone integrated in the hand” was not working on my post. Sorry… Second take! https://i1.wp.com/thenerdweb.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Holographic-screen-phone-min.png?resize=507%2C282&ssl=1
Sebastian- great question to pose. I think my superpower would be to be able to scan a student’s paper, digital assignment or project with my ‘eye scanners’ and to have immediately exceptional feedback returned to the student in a video format delivered to their mobile device. Then as a bonus superpower, their grade would be automatically sent to my grade book. I think students benefit so much from frequent, consistent and timely feedback. With rising class numbers this is something that is at times difficult to accomplish. Also, this would reduce time grading and report, (which is substantial), and I can use that time to work with students 1 on 1. In the podcast episode that described the headbands that showed students off task does not interest me, and I do not agree with it. I think there are bigger issues in education than to worry about if a student is taking a brain break mid-class, and the social-emotional damage that is done when it is broadcasted to everyone that they are misbehaving or off task.
I like the idea of the eye scanner and love the bonus superpower of an automatic feedback! When I think about what I could “improve” with technology in my role as a teacher by modifying my body, I wonder what I have difficulty doing or what I hate doing. Seriously, I would like like you to have an eye scanner that scans AND corrects my students’ texts. In a more playful way, I would like to have the power to modify my image to transform me into a character from a novel or a historical character, a bit like the face filter of the young girl in the video. It would make learning even more authentic and I love dressing up hehe. 🙂
That would be such an awesome superpower as a teacher! When teaching about an era, or a character in a story, transform into that character- how lively classroom engagement would be!
Transforming yourself into a character brought a smile. My class used the new Zoom avatar feature to assume an identity avatar. It was so fun having an entire avatar class. We would also swap out if we wanted to be off-camera; it was far better than the black screen. Having laughs in the classroom is essential, so Sebastian and Agnes, you should also be granted human hologram power.
I have never tried the Zoom avatar feature and did a quick search of what it was, and it looks pretty cool!
Your post has been with me since my morning coffee. I’m not sure I would implant the phone in my body. There could be far too many embarrassing moments if I forgot to switch it off. I definitely would not want total recall because there are always best-forgotten moments. Imagine if you remembered entirely all the mundane details of your life instead of the few snapshots the brain chose to capture. So my superpower would be to put the brain on pause or change the channel to partake in what the Dalai Lama calls “the natural state of my consciousness.” Does that mean a brain chip?
What technological enhancement would you implant to become a transhumanistic teacher?
I must be dreaming the 3:45 post is directed to Sebastian.
Agnes, you would have saved me. I am one of those perpetual mental drifters who was at the brunt of many instructors’ wrath. My mind was musing over “Becoming Elizabeth” thank’s to Sebastian’s first link. I took on Elizabeth’s persona when an employer assumed I went by my first name. It allowed me to separate my work and private self.
As for your superpower, it already exists in most LMS with ePortfolio functions. Yet the feedback superpower sounds brilliant; I could use a sprinkling of that too. So do you want to exchange your first superpower?
That’s a great question Seb. I wouldn’t call it a learning power but similar to Agnes, I would love the ability to deliver mobile feedback wirelessly to students. I think many teachers (including myself) have wrist or hand problems from piles of marking. Having that as an addition would be amazing. For improving teachers, I think it would be nice to have an auto-translating device. This device can automatically translate what students say and relay one’s internal messages back to the student’s device. That can bridge many gaps I experience with ELL students, and takes out the more awkward middleman that is our phones to show to each other!
Jackson, practical, actionable, inspiring, and, let’s not forget, sincere feedback delivered promptly seems to be the bane of every teacher’s existence.
Sebastien, my apologies for the late reply- I would like to have a special sense so that I could know what motivated each student and made learning fun!
Awesome OER Tamaka and Elizabeth (Naomi and Rachel)! And thanks for introducing me to this topic of transhumanity – it’s the first time I’ve looked into this. I don’t know if I fully understand the discussion prompt (dissolution/integration in regards to what?), but I would say transhumanity is probably moving us towards integration. From what I observe, transhumanity is the next step beyond wearable technology. Considering my previous understanding of this topic (solely based on Black Mirror episodes), it will likely be in the form of brain chips and contact lenses. However, I think we’re quite far off from that reality. It seems we’re currently in the early adopters phase, which is experimental and lead by DIY pioneers (like in Braden’s article), and appears risky and dangerous to the majority.
Likewise, Aaron, for me, it was also new. Basically, knowledge from many fields like nanotechnology, biology, information technology and cognitive sciences are converging. However, radical products are already here, at least on a limited basis. A good example is the recent heritable genome editing experiment that resulted in the birth of three CRISPR-edited babies. Unfortunately, these three genetically engineered humans were created without understanding the risks or oversight. The scientists were jailed for three years and fined, but do you think there are ethical and societal issues? Or is it an individual’s right? Maybe it’s okay for diabetes, but what about baldness or enhancing cognition?
It’s an interesting question (and somewhat touchy, so I’ll try to be careful here haha). I’m no expert on the subject, but it seems the scientists and ethicists, including the one at Stanford that Dr. He consulted, are against his actions. Personally, I think that if something like this was able to make global news, it’s probably not the only case of genetically edited human babies out there. In terms of ethics, (this is going to sound quite ignorant), but I feel like worse things have happened to humans? And apparently, humans haven’t had much issue genetically editing animals and plants as long as it benefits us? But I think, at the end of the day, the real question we should be asking ourselves is: what does all of this really have to do with mobile and open learning?
Legal frameworks, ethics, and morality will be an issue in brain-machine interface technology. In the Humanity 2.0? podcast, we discuss the potential for connectivity for students with brain chips. The theory of Connectivism is based on networks and connections becoming digital information sources. Brain chips will be the ultimate in mobility. Learners will no longer need to physically handle mobile devices as they will be able to operate them by thought. It has already happened with Synchron’s first human trials. Instructors have always had a plurality in the classroom, but it will be very different when some students are able to find information by thinking about it and digitally connect with other students that also have brain chips without speaking. Imagine moving through a VR space by thought. How would you think your English teaching practice may change with the addition of students with brain-machine technology implants?
Sorry, I meant specifically the gene editing, but I can see how all these advances are interrelated.
Aaron, you posed an excellent question: what does all this have to do with mobile and open learning? I have spent a good while reflecting on it. It took me forever, but here goes.
First, the quick and easy response it’s an experiential opportunity of learning openness, known for flexibility and choice over what is learned. But more importantly, the topic is meant to cause reflection on the transhumanistic application of emerging technologies and genetics to overcome humans’ biological limitations.
Reflections should lead to modifications of future actions since educators face new challenges in the 21st century. The diversity of the learning space will expand far beyond the challenge I met when I had a few scientists with Ph.D. and others with disrupted former learning displaced by war in the same LINC class. For instance, the four known gene-edited children, Three-parent baby and CRISPR babies, are already in someone’s classroom. But they represent the beginning of the transhumanists’ dream of engineering intelligence ten or fiftyfold more than Einstein. How will your pedagogy change with a mix of cognitively enhanced and non-enhanced students?
Your question has brought a slew of questions to my mind. The challenge is how to guide and promote changes in the brain for learning and acquiring new skills. How do you help the hyperactive brain, too easily modified and distracted by the internal noise of too many things that don’t matter? Or, on the other hand, stimulate the suppressed brain that takes too long? How can educators guide students without a basic understanding of the brain?
Secondly, as for mobile learning: we tend to think about devices. Initially, in the 1300s, the device expressed intent or desire. However, mobile learning is the action of acquiring knowledge by the human and not the machine—the device stores our knowledge and memories.
Hi Elizabeth – thanks for your thoughtful response. It’s a nice, honest discussion and it got me thinking as well. I’m not sure if I fully understand where the technology is currently, but it seems like it’s quite far off from making a significant impact on everyday life/education? Though I definitely do agree it is the beginning of something potentially revolutionary. But before considering these potential implications, I wanted to better grasp what the technology actually does and where it’s trying to go. The Synchron chip seems to translate someone’s thoughts and eye movements into clicks and keystrokes onto a device (at approximately 20-90 text characters per minute), and is either intrusive or looks like a weird hairnet. The other component I didn’t understand is if the chip is capable of data input or only output? Can someone read a tweet or Whatsapp message without opening their eyes? If they were to Google something, how would that be interpreted in their mind? Apparently, Neuralink’s goal is to “build something called a “brain computer interface” that allows people to transmit and receive information between their brain and a computer wirelessly.” If this truly becomes a reality, it seems humans will be still be limited by their ability to interact with a device, the available data on the internet, and the existing computer technology (and I suppose the level of chip they can afford). Maybe I’m thinking about this all wrong, but it’s basically a more efficient method than typing and looking at a screen? It doesn’t seem like humans brains would suddenly be given the processing power of a super computer? But even if they did, for instance in my teaching scenario, an ESL student with this chip might be able to translate a question posed to them, but then they’ll need to interpret the translation, then still be able to physically produce a response? Or maybe it’ll be so revolutionary that anyone with this chip can communicate completely wirelessly and silently with some universal computer language, while occasionally making some facial expressions. I guess only time will tell?
Your question about mentally consuming an encrypted message sum it up nicely. What will it mean when brain-computer-interface implants read and understand our human thoughts?
The difficulty as laypeople will be discerning hype from reality since the research projects on human augmentation are collaborative efforts of civil-military or private companies-academic. This collaboration would make you think that the available information is relatively scripted.
Is it coming soon? The financial forecasters are projecting market growth to exceed $12 billion on implantable neurostimulation by 2026, with a compound growth of over 11%. The potential global market is significant.
As for the language instructors, unfortunately, the company of Nectome might make us redundant. They aim to change how people maintain language, culture, and wisdom by capturing living memories. Luckily for us, but not their clients, their biological perseveration techniques kill the individual.
Hi Tamaka and Elizabeth, I really enjoyed the innovative nature of your OER this week. To respond to your prompt, I believe that the transhuman movement is one that integrates the human experience and nature of humanity, with a focus on augmenting what already exists. As you mention during your discussion, every person believes inherently that they are a unique individual, which could be augmented by the selective management of what technologies an individual chooses to make part of their body. Akin to any other technological innovations (EX. the industrial revolution), new realities in technology lead humanity in new directions of defining what the human experience truly is. I found this article (https://interestingengineering.com/innovation/transhuman-biohacker-implanted-magnets) that was published today and contains a quote from some who has engaged in bio-hacking in which she says, “I’m just a slightly altered human – I’ve got an extra little sense that I don’t need in life, which is used for a bit of interesting sensory data”. Thanks for the thought-provoking OER.
Thanks, Branden, for the article; I checked it out. I know the person who had the mechanical valve implant and pacemaker; they had so much deterioration that the cardiologist advised them to take only a few steps at a time. They were willing to have it implanted in a private facility if they could not source a public one. But now, like the women in your quote, they are also slightly altered humans. And are rejoiceful for having that chance. Do you think you would experiment with technological enhancement?
I don’t think that I would feel confident in the medical technological advancement at this point in time, but could see the potential for it moving forward. The fact that this particular individual had to turn to private medical services causes me some hesitation as well since I believe that society as a whole is going to become more based on the digital sphere and we may need to become something different in order to participate fully in that future society. If only private services are equipped to help augment humans into transhuman, then access becomes a dichotomy of have-have not based on those who can afford to augment technologically furthering already existing barriers. With further reflection, if the goal of transhumanism is to transcend where we are now, it may actually cause a dissolution from humanity despite my earlier impressions.
The digital divide currently informed by income, access to wireless services, educational budget priorities and culture may only widen. Elon Musk commented that he would like the brain chip surgery to eventually cost about the same as laser eye surgery. Most of humanity cannot afford eyeglasses, let alone eye surgery, so your observation of a have and have not scenario is almost guaranteed. According to McKinsey and Company (2021, November 29) the Internet of Things (IoT) economy is estimated to have a global impact of $5.5 to $12.6 trillion dollars by 2030. It is still a question when the brain chip will become a part of that economy, but it will. In what scenario would you ever see yourself getting a brain machine interface?
I think that I would be willing to explore getting a brain interface if it was already a mainstream practice rather than being a pioneer on this front. I believe that there will be other ways to interface with computers that will streamline the process beyond physical inputs, whether it is gesture, eye control holographic control, that will delay the implementation of transhumans.