On the Singularity

Science fiction has become preoccupied with the approaching technological singularity. The idea, roundly supported by scientists and crackpots alike, is a simple but unsettling one. Moore's Law states that the computing power of the latest computer chips will double every two years. This has been true, plus or minus a few percent, since practically the dawn of the microprocessor. The singularity will occur sometime in the next couple of decades. Moore's Law will pay out like a rigged slot machine and our computers will become smarter than us. They'll begin improving their own designs in ways that we never dreamt of, the loop will feed back and the already exponential growth of technology will be compounded to a literally fantastic level.</p> <p>This much of the story is cannon. There's little argument about it beyond its schedule. But precisely what will happen when the singularity arrives is the subject of many novels, movies, lunatic dreams, and even a cult or two. Some say the change will solve the problems that humanity has until now been unable to solve. They say that disease and hunger are about to be eradicated. Others opine that the superhuman intelligence that the singularity brings about may not have our best interests in mind and that it's us, the human race, that is on the cusp of eradication.</p> <p>But I cannot help noticing that there is one base assumption made by the crackpots, novelists, and scientists; that the moment this new intelligence is capable of to improving itself, it will. It seems entirely obvious, but the actions of the only other intelligence suitable for comparison are an opportunity to bring that assumption under some hard light.</p> <p>Just a few days ago the President signed into law The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act. It is meant to protect those with faulty genes from being discriminated against on that basis in a world where knowledge about our genetic makeups in becoming increasingly common. It is a good law, a necessary one, and a natural extension of the protections against discrimination already on the books. But

it was first introduced in 1995 by New York Democrat Louis Slaughter. Despite obvious and growing need for the act, It took more than thirteen years to get it through congress.</p> <p>People are largely skeptical of genetic research. They don't understand it, and some are afraid of it. Congress is no exception (especially Ron Paul, the sonofabitch). While there is broad support for such aims of genetic research as preventing genetically-transmitted diseases, funding is erratic and often sparse. Many see the path of genetic research leading inevitably to the invention of the Ubermensch. They say meddling with our genetic code is playing god.</p> <p>But as long as there has been science people have fretted about the role of man and that of god. The line between the natural and the supernatural is drawn at the boundaries of invention, as far as invention is allowed to advance. Chemistry, Biology, Astronomy, all were once considered the workplaces of the almighty. Some such thought has even worked it way into the common vernacular, e.g. 'If god wanted men to fly he'd have given them wings.' Further, people say that if god intended for people to be vegetarian, why did he give them incisors? George Carlin said, 'If god never intended for us to masturbate he would have made our arms shorter.' Never mind the assumption of god's intent, or even the question of his existence. The matter at hand is implicit in our unwillingness (or at least discomfort with) mucking around in our own code. Even those who do experiment seem quick to stress the gravity of their actions (although it is possible that such statements are only an attempt to appease those who might otherwise gather a group of torch-weilding villagers and raid the experimenter's laboratory). But, meanwhile, it is assumed that whatever new intelligence the singularity brings about will take its first opportunity to improve itself. I have begun to doubt the outcome out collective hemming and hawing.</p> <p>We fear a new race that might replace us as the dominant species. Perhaps it's a lingering genetic memory carried with us for millennia from whichever proto-human was our direct ancestor.

That early human never predicted what overtook it, and so too, our replacement might come from someplace the singulatarians have forgotten about: ourselves.</p> <p>You've seen Gattaca. You read The Time Machine. We know, on some level, what is going to happen, and it's every bit as inevitable as the technological singularity. It's the biological singularity. You read it here first, folks.</p> <p>Even the way the biological singularity will come about is easy to foresee. It will not happen in any of the old ways. Natural Selection is obsolete. It won't be unnatural selection, either, as eugenic sterilization has left whole countries (cough, cough, this one) red in the face. The first steps have already been made. Even now people are working to prevent babies born to parents with cystic fibrosis from inheriting that condition. Down's Syndrome, too. These aren't easy endeavors to disagree with, but those whose only means of argument is the logical fallacy are quick the bring the slippery slope to bear against genetic intervention:<br /> 'What,' they cry, cigarette in yellowed finger, 'is to prevent the proliferation of them there de-singer babies among them what can afford them? (Not that I couldn't, cause I can, mind ya) And what, pray tell, mister public policy man, all high 'n mighty with you button up shirt and your MacBook, is my little twice-inbred window-lickin' butthole sniffin' son gonna do when he's competing for a job with one of them dang ol' Ambercrombie&Hitler Youths?'<br /> Well, while such reasoning is bogus and that characterization offensive, the conclusion strikes awfully close to the mark. And while it is true that there is nothing to prevent rise of new breed of man, the world is still raw from the actions of the Nazis and we are unlikely to undertake any venture that could lead us back the way of the National Socialist Worker's Party or, indeed, even have that appearance. So the biological singularity will not be brought about by politics

or doctrine. It will come the way world culture demands, quite necessarily, through a desire for wealth.</p> <p>So it begins quietly, sometimes even with overt secrecy, in every corner of the world at once. In Malaysia, in Southern California, in Sweden. As quickly as the technology and knowledge to do so spread (courtesy of the very medium on which you read this) so will spread experimentation. It is happening even as you read this.</p> <p>The same methods that allow some scientists to save babies from Muscular Dystrophy or Haemophilia will allow others to prevent babies from inheriting their father's myopia or their mother's bad teeth. Onward, they'll soon learn how to increase likelihood that the child will reach a certain height, then they'll be able to guarantee it. Next will come intelligence, and at first they'll use a lot of weasel words, try to speak in generalities. The last thing they want is an unhappy customer. But later their margins for error will decrease and they'll be able to charge by the IQ percentage point.</p> <p>'I can't make promises, you know, but it's all but certain that we can give your daughter above average intelligence for $1,500.00,' the geneticist might say. Pretty enticing to a guy who maybe spent the first three years of high school in remedial classes. Maybe a guy who got fined $1,500 just last year for making a mistake (an honest mistake for chrissakes!) on his taxes. What a relief to know that his little girl would never have to go through anything like that.</p> <p>'But,' says the geneticist, 'for $3,000 we can get your daughter well into the 40-50% above average level. And for $12,000 we can practically, did I say practically, aw, shoot, we can *guarantee* numbers in the genius range. How much easier would retirement be, Mr. Remedial, if your daughter were an executive? Heck, men are still earning a little more than the ladies these days--I can even throw a X/Y swap in for free. Now, whaddya say? You wanna do the right thing for your daught--er, son, don't you? Lemme take you down to see our finance consultant.'<br />

<br /> If you doubt my assertion that there are doctors who perform unnecessary and even unethical procedures, I need direct you no further than to the successes of botox, liposuction, lip augmentation, penis enlargement, nipple reduction surgery, facelifts, asslifts, skin bleaching, chemical peels, cheek-work, nose jobs, permanent makeup, etc.. The modern surgeon is clearly not above making a buck (or many thousand) off the insecurities of his customer. It is alarming that time has brought his actions into the realm of public acceptance, and even though that acceptance comes with a raised eyebrow and a bit of murmuring, the eyebrow is well-plucked and the lips that murmur are curled at the edges in secret delight. The thing that distinguishes man from the animals apart from his intelligence is his vanity, and that is what will catalyze the singularity.</p> <p>These events will occur the way I have described or another I cannot conceive. Whatever the specifics, the result is the same, and quite inevitable: the arrival of New Man.</p> <p>The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act does not cover the new conundrums that arise, but no matter. New laws will soon be written to accommodate New Man, and in short order new laws will be written *by* New Man *for* New Man. Much like the computers of the technological singularity, New Man will invent ways to improve himself. The first New Man who becomes a cosmetic geneticist will start that wheel in motion, and whether the technological singularity has arrived, whether the machines choose to improve themselves, the biological one will be irreversible.</p> <p>Those who argue against New Eugenics would say that, much as a new machine has little use for the obsolete model it replaces, New Man will have no use for original man, and so we are doubly doomed. Maybe. Obsolete is obsolete and must go the way of the manual typewriter. D. Eckhart. 25 May 2008<br />

3 Responses

  1. bee

    Badass.

    Reply
  2. DesertSunriseNews

    Not until the last two words was it clear why the entire piece was written on a manual typewriter. Nice.

    Reply
  3. Baron von Rochester

    Very nice indeed … and on so many levels. I particularly like the way that the visible typos/corrections underline your point, as does the unevenness of the typeface.

    I think I took a typewriter exactly like that to college, and I still have it somewhere. It weighed about twenty-five pounds, and I don’t know whether I could even find a ribbon for it now. But it was good for at least a thousand pages of text, between schoolwork and fiction.

    Reply

Leave a Reply