“Preparing for the robot takeover 101” was a headline in the Toronto Star’s Insight section, February 7, 2009. Robotics genius and industry leader, Ray Kurtzweil, hailed by Bill Gates as “the best person I know at predicting the future of artificial intelligence”, is launching the Singularity University, which intends to bring together the technologies of the 21st century – robotics, genetics and nanotechnology – to create a “disruptive innovation” or in other words, a huge, unexpected technological breakthrough or leap into the future, designed to solve all our problems including sickness. 

Kurtzweil and other robotics leaders, like Hans Moravec, see technological and human evolution as one and the same.  Kurtzweil looks forward to the integration of artificial intelligence into human being.  In his, The Age of Spiritual Machines: When Computers exceed Human Intelligence, he writes: ”Technological evolution moves us inexorably closer to becoming like God.  And the freeing of our thinking from the severe limitations of our biological form may be regarded as an essential spiritual quest.  By the close of the next [21st] century, non-biological (machine) intelligence will be ubiquitous.  There will be few humans without some form of artificial intelligence”.

Moravec, founder of one of the world’s largest robotics research programs at Carnegie Mellon University, predicts that robots will evolve into an artificial species, starting around 2030-2040, and replace humans.  He writes, ”By performing better and cheaper, robots will displace humans from essential roles.  Rather quickly, they could replace us from existence.  I’m not as alarmed as many by this possibility, since I consider these future machines our progeny, our ‘mind children’.”

My 2003 book, Ageless Wisdom Spirituality: Investing in Human Evolution squarely challenged the notion that human and technological evolution were the same. I wrote then:  “The consequences of error, terror, and abuse grow apace with the power of technology, which in the 21st century will grow exponentially.  In addition, genetics, robotics, and nanotechnology have the potential to significantly alter the evolution of many of this planet’s species, including human beings, within a matter of decades.  These innovations will be difficult to control within the present Free Market climate, since they all have ostensible ‘life enhancing’ commercial applications rather than outright military ones”.  I explained that most of our problems were the result of human conflict and greed, rather than inadequate technology. Thus the solutions would result from a change in human behaviour, rather than continuing that behaviour with more powerful weapons and technology.

Not much has changed in the meanwhile, largely because we have been preoccupied with George W’s ‘war on terror’ and now his economic disaster.  Recent history shows that if we can do something, we will, especially if we can make a dollar doing it.  However, we would be foolish to implement these technologies without a serious, planet wide discussion of their implications.

The above Toronto Star front page banner (November 23rd) was about an “Enviropig”, created by researchers at the University of Guelph, designed to poop out more environmentally friendly waste.  The article’s author, Health Reporter Megan Ogilvie,  cheerily reports, “The trade-marked pigs are just one of dozens of genetically engineered animals at research institutions around the world whose genes have been altered for human benefit”.  In this particular case, a bacterial protein was spliced together with some mouse DNA and injected into a pig embryo.

Ogilvie’s article is conventionally competent and “objective”, since she quotes both advocates for and against the pig  – a 50/50 delivery.  As regular readers of my blogs will realize, a 50/50 interpretation is not necessarily accurate and may even give a distorted impression.  For example, in the case of Global Warming, because mainstream media like CNN kept parading one scientist speaking for the existence of global warming and one against, the public was under the impression that it was a fairly even debate.  In fact, the scientists denying global warming were a very small minority… and some of them were doing doubly duty, having previously been paid to deny the negative effects of smoking.

A few passages from the article which particularly caught my attention: “Despite concerns, experts say the FDA’s much anticipated document, the first of its kind issued by a federal government, will be the catalyst for moving genetically engineered livestock from the experimental farmyard to the supermarket….In Canada, regulators have yet to announce how they plan to regulate genetically engineered animals, though officials may act soon after the US guidelines are finalized…..Scientists who develop transgenic animals say the FDA’s proposed guidelines are strict, which should help boost consumer confidence in the products. They point to the government’s successful regulation of genetically engineered plants, which have been on the market for a decade, and the fact that the FDA declared meat from cloned animals safe to eat last January…..A key concern with transgenic animals is they will escape captivity, breed with their conventional cousins and pass on the engineered genetic trait…..Surveys show the majority of Canadians are wary of genetically engineered animals…Instead of joining the ethical debate, regulators have decided to leave those tough questions up to the consumers in the marketplace.  The problem with that philosophy.. is that the US and likely Canada.. will not require companies to label food made with genetically engineered animals”.

Here are my journalistic, reading-between-the-lines comments on the above:

1. America is de facto dictating many Canadian policies, since we often meekly fall in line with its regulations.  Let us not forget that under George W Bush, there was massive deregulation (economy and finance were only the tip of the iceberg) and  agencies which were supposed to be looking out for general, public interests were headed by Bush appointees, several of whom were former corporate lobbyists. Put the fox to guard the chicken coop!
2. The reporter does not seem familiar with the details of the “the government’s successful regulation of genetically engineered plants”.  I wrote about this 5 years ago in my book, “Ageless Wisdom Spirituality” and since then the situation has deteriorated. In summary, GMOs (genetically modified organisms – plants) were first marketed in North America as such (Flavr Savr tomatoes!) but were roundly rejected by the public.  The manufacturers then reversed strategies, arguing there was “substantial equivalence” between GMO and non-GMO products and no distinction should be made.  They successfully lobbied government to prevent GMO labeling, even though public polls consistently showed that a majority of people wanted to know if foods contained GMOs.  Indeed, people were so incensed, they took to the street in protest.  A few corporations started withdrawing foods for a while but now everything is back to the way the GMO companies want it.  In North America, probably more than 70% of the produce in our supermarkets are GMOs. The “success” of the regulations is that the corporations and governments triumphed over the clearly stated will of the people
3. Monsanto, one of the world’s GMO giants have been particularly aggressive in pushing GMOs, using Pinkerton’s to hound people who have Monsanto GMO seeds growing on or near their property, even wind blown. Google “Monsanto and Percy Schmeiser” – the latter an elderly Sasketchewan farmer who has stood up to Monsanto and paid a heavy price for daring to do so.
4. As in so many other matters, North America is isolated.  GMO labeling is mandatory in the European Union, Japan, China, Australia, New Zealand and many other countries.  Canadians, if you want to see what’s in your supermarket, go to www.gmoguide.greenpeace.ca
5. As for the fear that genetically engineered might escape and breed with other animals, it’s a certainty.  We are creating a huge stew of genetically organized plants and animals and ingesting it without any idea of the long term consequences.  At the moment, long term tests on humans are not required
6. In “Ageless Wisdom Spirituality”, I pointed to three great challenges the world faces: the health of the planet, the poverty gap (which sparks unrest, terrorism and wars) and the relatively uncontrolled implementation of new technologies, which in the 21st century are likely to be genetics, robotics and nanotechnology.  All are capable of being weaponized, of being incorporated into human beings (cosmetic surgery pales in comparison) and of mutating / self-replicating.  Can you imagine what terrorists in another 10 years may be able to do?  All these challenges have been ignored under George W, who has constantly waved the 9/11 red flag at Americans … with great “success” at distracting and bankrupting them.