Lifeboat Foundation: Safeguarding Humanity
Toggle light / dark theme

Blog

Category: bionic

At the threshold of a century poised for unprecedented transformations, we find ourselves at a crossroads unlike any before. The convergence of humanity and technology is no longer a distant possibility; it has become a tangible reality that challenges our most fundamental conceptions of what it means to be human.

This article seeks to explore the implications of this new era, in which Artificial Intelligence (AI) emerges as a central player. Are we truly on the verge of a symbiotic fusion, or is the conflict between the natural and the artificial inevitable?

The prevailing discourse on AI oscillates between two extremes: on one hand, some view this technology as a powerful extension of human capabilities, capable of amplifying our creativity and efficiency. On the other, a more alarmist narrative predicts the decline of human significance in the face of relentless machine advancement. Yet, both perspectives seem overly simplistic when confronted with the intrinsic complexity of this phenomenon. Beyond the dichotomy of utopian optimism and apocalyptic pessimism, it is imperative to critically reflect on AI’s cultural, ethical, and philosophical impact on the social fabric, as well as the redefinition of human identity that this technological revolution demands.

Since the dawn of civilization, humans have sought to transcend their natural limitations through the creation of tools and technologies. From the wheel to the modern computer, every innovation has been seen as a means to overcome the physical and cognitive constraints imposed by biology. However, AI represents something profoundly different: for the first time, we are developing systems that not only execute predefined tasks but also learn, adapt, and, to some extent, think.

This transition should not be underestimated. While previous technologies were primarily instrumental—serving as controlled extensions of human will—AI introduces an element of autonomy that challenges the traditional relationship between subject and object. Machines are no longer merely passive tools; they are becoming active partners in the processes of creation and decision-making. This qualitative leap radically alters the balance of power between humans and machines, raising crucial questions about our position as the dominant species.

But what does it truly mean to “be human” in a world where the boundaries between mind and machine are blurring? Traditionally, humanity has been defined by attributes such as consciousness, emotion, creativity, and moral decision-making. Yet, as AI advances, these uniquely human traits are beginning to be replicated—albeit imperfectly—within algorithms. If a machine can imitate creativity or exhibit convincing emotional behavior, where does our uniqueness lie?

This challenge is not merely technical; it strikes at the core of our collective identity. Throughout history, humanity has constructed cultural and religious narratives that placed us at the center of the cosmos, distinguishing us from animals and the forces of nature. Today, that narrative is being contested by a new technological order that threatens to displace us from our self-imposed pedestal. It is not so much the fear of physical obsolescence that haunts our reflections but rather the anxiety of losing the sense of purpose and meaning derived from our uniqueness.

Despite these concerns, many AI advocates argue that the real opportunity lies in forging a symbiotic partnership between humans and machines. In this vision, technology is not a threat to humanity but an ally that enhances our capabilities. The underlying idea is that AI can take on repetitive or highly complex tasks, freeing humans to engage in activities that truly require creativity, intuition, and—most importantly—emotion.

Concrete examples of this approach can already be seen across various sectors. In medicine, AI-powered diagnostic systems can process vast amounts of clinical data in record time, allowing doctors to focus on more nuanced aspects of patient care. In the creative industry, AI-driven text and image generation software are being used as sources of inspiration, helping artists and writers explore new ideas and perspectives. In both cases, AI acts as a catalyst, amplifying human abilities rather than replacing them.

Furthermore, this collaboration could pave the way for innovative solutions in critical areas such as environmental sustainability, education, and social inclusion. For example, powerful neural networks can analyze global climate patterns, assisting scientists in predicting and mitigating natural disasters. Personalized algorithms can tailor educational content to the specific needs of each student, fostering more effective and inclusive learning. These applications suggest that AI, far from being a destructive force, can serve as a powerful instrument to address some of the greatest challenges of our time.

However, for this vision to become reality, a strategic approach is required—one that goes beyond mere technological implementation. It is crucial to ensure that AI is developed and deployed ethically, respecting fundamental human rights and promoting collective well-being. This involves regulating harmful practices, such as the misuse of personal data or the indiscriminate automation of jobs, as well as investing in training programs that prepare people for the new demands of the labor market.

While the prospect of symbiotic fusion is hopeful, we cannot ignore the inherent risks of AI’s rapid evolution. As these technologies become more sophisticated, so too does the potential for misuse and unforeseen consequences. One of the greatest dangers lies in the concentration of power in the hands of a few entities, whether they be governments, multinational corporations, or criminal organizations.

Recent history has already provided concerning examples of this phenomenon. The manipulation of public opinion through algorithm-driven social media, mass surveillance enabled by facial recognition systems, and the use of AI-controlled military drones illustrate how this technology can be wielded in ways that undermine societal interests.

Another critical risk in AI development is the so-called “alignment problem.” Even if a machine is programmed with good intentions, there is always the possibility that it misinterprets its instructions or prioritizes objectives that conflict with human values. This issue becomes particularly relevant in the context of autonomous systems that make decisions without direct human intervention. Imagine, for instance, a self-driving car forced to choose between saving its passenger or a pedestrian in an unavoidable collision. How should such decisions be made, and who bears responsibility for the outcome?

These uncertainties raise legitimate concerns about humanity’s ability to maintain control over increasingly advanced technologies. The very notion of scientific progress is called into question when we realize that accumulated knowledge can be used both for humanity’s benefit and its detriment. The nuclear arms race during the Cold War serves as a sobering reminder of what can happen when science escapes moral oversight.

Whether the future holds symbiotic fusion or inevitable conflict, one thing is clear: our understanding of human identity must adapt to the new realities imposed by AI. This adjustment will not be easy, as it requires confronting profound questions about free will, the nature of consciousness, and the essence of individuality.

One of the most pressing challenges is reconciling our increasing technological dependence with the preservation of human dignity. While AI can significantly enhance quality of life, there is a risk of reducing humans to mere consumers of automated services. Without a conscious effort to safeguard the emotional and spiritual dimensions of human experience, we may end up creating a society where efficiency outweighs empathy, and interpersonal interactions are replaced by cold, impersonal digital interfaces.

On the other hand, this very transformation offers a unique opportunity to rediscover and redefine what it means to be human. By delegating mechanical and routine tasks to machines, we can focus on activities that truly enrich our existence—art, philosophy, emotional relationships, and civic engagement. AI can serve as a mirror, compelling us to reflect on our values and aspirations, encouraging us to cultivate what is genuinely unique about the human condition.

Ultimately, the fate of our relationship with AI will depend on the choices we make today. We can choose to view it as an existential threat, resisting the inevitable changes it brings, or we can embrace the challenge of reinventing our collective identity in a post-humanist era. The latter, though more daring, offers the possibility of building a future where technology and humanity coexist in harmony, complementing each other.

To achieve this, we must adopt a holistic approach that integrates scientific, ethical, philosophical, and sociological perspectives. It also requires an open, inclusive dialogue involving all sectors of society—from researchers and entrepreneurs to policymakers and ordinary citizens. After all, AI is not merely a technical tool; it is an expression of our collective imagination, a reflection of our ambitions and fears.

As we gaze toward the horizon, we see a world full of uncertainties but also immense possibilities. The future is not predetermined; it will be shaped by the decisions we make today. What kind of social contract do we wish to establish with AI? Will it be one of domination or cooperation? The answer to this question will determine not only the trajectory of technology but the very essence of our existence as a species.

Now is the time to embrace our historical responsibility and embark on this journey with courage, wisdom, and an unwavering commitment to the values that make human life worth living.

__
Copyright © 2025, Henrique Jorge

[ This article was originally published in Portuguese in SAPO’s technology section at: https://tek.sapo.pt/opiniao/artigos/a-sinfonia-do-amanha-tit…exao-seria ]

It’s not uncommon for the press to get hyped up before the long process of refinement and FDA approval. Let’s hope that this one moves along quickly — while demonstrating safety and efficacy.

https://www.troab.com/worlds-first-bionic-kidney-set-replace…-two-years

How will our relationship to technology evolve in the future? Will we regard it as something apart from ourselves, part of ourselves, or as a new area of evolution? In this new video from the Galactic Public Archives, Futurist Gray Scott explains that we are a part of a technological cosmos. Do you agree with Scott that technology is built into the universe, waiting to be discovered?

Follow us on social media:
Twitter / Facebook / Instagram

Follow Gray Scott:

Twitter / Facebook / Instagram

Technology can be wonderful. But how do you keep track of yourself when technology allows you to be everywhere at once?

In this film Prof. Yair Amichai-Hamburger (director of the Research Center for Internet Psychology at the Sammy Ofer School of Communications) argues that even though technology allows us to reach out and connect more easily than ever before, if we don’t ever take a step back, we can lose track of our humanity in the process.

Follow us on social media:
Twitter / Facebook / Instagram

For those interested in life extension and bionic / cyborg type enhancements, this CMU Robotics Institute Seminar gives an overview of the background and current developments in artificial vision. José Alain Sahel MD is a world leading ophthalmologist with a lengthy bio and numerous honors and appointments.

In the future, if you’re going blind, these sight restoration technologies may be used to remediate your vision loss.

Three major ideas are covered. 1) Implanting arrays of tiny 3-color LEDs under a failed retina to stimulate still-okay cells, and 2) using gene therapy to express a novel photoreceptor, borrowed from algae, to restore a form of sight to failed cells. These can be done together. Lots of studies in mice, primates, and humans. Some coverage is also given to 3) directly implanting electronics in the brain to send complete images to vision centers, but this is still at an early stage.

None of this is anywhere near total restoration. The patients can make out a few words for the first time. And unlike normal vision, the range of light intensity levels remains very narrow. But obviously it’s much better than nothing and will get better over time.

As a point of humor, he tells the story of one of his blind patients who totally redesigned one of his experiments for him.

My sociology of knowledge students read Yuval Harari’s bestselling first book, Sapiens, to think about the right frame of reference for understanding the overall trajectory of the human condition. Homo Deus follows the example of Sapiens, using contemporary events to launch into what nowadays is called ‘big history’ but has been also called ‘deep history’ and ‘long history’. Whatever you call it, the orientation sees the human condition as subject to multiple overlapping rhythms of change which generate the sorts of ‘events’ that are the stuff of history lessons. But Harari’s history is nothing like the version you half remember from school.

In school historical events were explained in terms more or less recognizable to the agents involved. In contrast, Harari reaches for accounts that scientifically update the idea of ‘perennial philosophy’. Aldous Huxley popularized this phrase in his quest to seek common patterns of thought in the great world religions which could be leveraged as a global ethic in the aftermath of the Second World War. Harari similarly leverages bits of genetics, ecology, neuroscience and cognitive science to advance a broadly evolutionary narrative. But unlike Darwin’s version, Harari’s points towards the incipient apotheosis of our species; hence, the book’s title.

This invariably means that events are treated as symptoms if not omens of the shape of things to come. Harari’s central thesis is that whereas in the past we cowered in the face of impersonal natural forces beyond our control, nowadays our biggest enemy is the one that faces us in the mirror, which may or may not be able within our control. Thus, the sort of deity into which we are evolving is one whose superhuman powers may well result in self-destruction. Harari’s attitude towards this prospect is one of slightly awestruck bemusement.

Here Harari equivocates where his predecessors dared to distinguish. Writing with the bracing clarity afforded by the Existentialist horizons of the Cold War, cybernetics founder Norbert Wiener declared that humanity’s survival depends on knowing whether what we don’t know is actually trying to hurt us. If so, then any apparent advance in knowledge will always be illusory. As for Harari, he does not seem to see humanity in some never-ending diabolical chess match against an implacable foe, as in The Seventh Seal. Instead he takes refuge in the so-called law of unintended consequences. So while the shape of our ignorance does indeed shift as our knowledge advances, it does so in ways that keep Harari at a comfortable distance from passing judgement on our long term prognosis.

This semi-detachment makes Homo Deus a suave but perhaps not deep read of the human condition. Consider his choice of religious precedents to illustrate that we may be approaching divinity, a thesis with which I am broadly sympathetic. Instead of the Abrahamic God, Harari tends towards the ancient Greek and Hindu deities, who enjoy both superhuman powers and all too human foibles. The implication is that to enhance the one is by no means to diminish the other. If anything, it may simply make the overall result worse than had both our intellects and our passions been weaker. Such an observation, a familiar pretext for comedy, wears well with those who are inclined to read a book like this only once.

One figure who is conspicuous by his absence from Harari’s theology is Faust, the legendary rogue Christian scholar who epitomized the version of Homo Deus at play a hundred years ago in Oswald Spengler’s The Decline of the West. What distinguishes Faustian failings from those of the Greek and Hindu deities is that Faust’s result from his being neither as clever nor as loving as he thought. The theology at work is transcendental, perhaps even Platonic.

In such a world, Harari’s ironic thesis that future humans might possess virtually perfect intellects yet also retain quite undisciplined appetites is a non-starter. If anything, Faust’s undisciplined appetites point to a fundamental intellectual deficiency that prevents him from exercising a ‘rational will’, which is the mark of a truly supreme being. Faust’s sense of his own superiority simply leads him down a path of ever more frustrated and destructive desire. Only the one true God can put him out of his misery in the end.

In contrast, if there is ‘one true God’ in Harari’s theology, it goes by the name of ‘Efficiency’ and its religion is called ‘Dataism’. Efficiency is familiar as the dimension along which technological progress is made. It amounts to discovering how to do more with less. To recall Marshall McLuhan, the ‘less’ is the ‘medium’ and the ‘more’ is the ‘message’. However, the metaphysics of efficiency matters. Are we talking about spending less money, less time and/or less energy?

It is telling that the sort of efficiency which most animates Harari’s account is the conversion of brain power to computer power. To be sure, computers can outperform humans on an increasing range of specialised tasks. Moreover, computers are getting better at integrating the operations of other technologies, each of which also typically replaces one or more human functions. The result is the so-called Internet of Things. But does this mean that the brain is on the verge of becoming redundant?

Those who say yes, most notably the ‘Singularitarians’ whose spiritual home is Silicon Valley, want to translate the brain’s software into a silicon base that will enable it to survive and expand indefinitely in a cosmic Internet of Things. Let’s suppose that such a translation becomes feasible. The energy requirements of such scaled up silicon platforms might still be prohibitive. For all its liabilities and mysteries, the brain remains the most energy efficient medium for encoding and executing intelligence. Indeed, forward facing ecologists might consider investing in a high-tech agronomy dedicated to cultivating neurons to function as organic computers – ‘Stem Cell 2.0’, if you will.

However, Harari does not see this possible future because he remains captive to Silicon Valley’s version of determinism, which prescribes a migration from carbon to silicon for anything worth preserving indefinitely. It is against this backdrop that he flirts with the idea that a computer-based ‘superintelligence’ might eventually find humans surplus to requirements in a rationally organized world. Like other Singularitarians, Harari approaches the matter in the style of a 1950s B-movie fan who sees the normative universe divided between ‘us’ (the humans) and ‘them’ (the non-humans).

The bravest face to put on this intuition is that computers will transition to superintelligence so soon – ‘exponentially’ as the faithful say — that ‘us vs. them’ becomes an operative organizing principle. More likely and messier for Harari is that this process will be dragged out. And during that time Homo sapiens will divide between those who identify with their emerging machine overlords, who are entitled to human-like rights, and those who cling to the new acceptable face of racism, a ‘carbonist’ ideology which would privilege organic life above any silicon-based translations or hybridizations. Maybe Harari will live long enough to write a sequel to Homo Deus to explain how this battle might pan out.

NOTE ON PUBLICATION: Homo Deus is published in September 2016 by Harvil Secker, an imprint of Penguin Random House. Fuller would like to thank The Literary Review for originally commissioning this review. It will appear in a subsequent edition of the magazine and is published here with permission.