Thoughts on Humanity 2.0
Last night I attended a fascinating debate at the RSA in London to launch the new book by Steve Fuller, chair in social epistemology at Warwick University. The book, entitled Humanity 2.0: What it Means to be Human, Past, Present and Future looks at the question of what does it mean to be human in the 21st century?
It was an extremely enjoyable evening with contributions from Dr Rachel Armstrong, co-director of AVATAR (Advanced Virtual and Technological Architectural Research) in Architecture & Synthetic Biology, author China Miéville, and Dr Sarah Chan, deputy director, ISEI (Institute for Science, Ethics and Innovation).
Human beings have always been very good at re-making the human and the natural world to suit ourselves and to reflect our position as fundamentally different from other life forms. Historically, this can be seen in technological advances such as animal and plant breeding, to genetic modification, to the development of prosthetic devices such as glasses or artificial limbs.
Humanity 2.0 is not in the future, I would argue that it is already here. We use computers on a daily basis to enhance and amplify ourselves. I outsource my spatial knowledge to Google Maps on my iPhone, my memory to Evernote and my knowledge to Google Search.
But some would argue that we have already started to lose our humanity.
Many of us lead complex online lives with profiles and personas to cultivate and augment (I am including myself in this group!). We place huge importance on these online interactions and feel valued when we are retweeted, linked to or name checked online. As the number of our connections increase through social networks and email, we feel busy and important.
We can become addicted to our screens and neglect our bodies, our family and ourselves. We are no longer present but are constantly drawn towards our online world. I found it amusing last night that the first thing we were asked to do was to tweet about the event. But what's the point? Anyone who has tried to tweet and listen to a debate will know it's pretty tough to do, so why would we take away from our enjoyment and learning to send a few sound bites to our followers? When did having your head down in a screen become a social norm at events?
There are also issues of access and ethics. We can already see a digital divide between those who have access to the internet and those who don't, but this will be nothing compared to the divide when the rich can enhance their brains and the poor cannot as envisioned in Steve Fuller's future.
For me, the benefits of the technological advances of the Humanity 2.0 we already have far outweigh the costs. But we need to retain our humanity and make the most of new advances without being overwhelmed by them.
We are still in a learning stage. The Internet, social media and smartphones are still relatively new technologies - we are still figuring out how to use them and I am sure we will be experiencing teething problems for a while yet.
The web and social media allows us to find our tribe and connect with others, reducing social isolation and expanding our social circles. As businesses and individuals we can connect with a global market and audience. But let's not get caught up with valuing online connections more than the person in front of us.
Through Google, blogs and epublishing, knowledge and learning is becoming democratised. Anyone with access to a computer and the net can learn and improve their situation. What we need to do is to ensure basic access for everyone to these technologies through programmes such as Sugata Mitra's Hole in the Wall project in the developing world and digital inclusion projects such as RaceOnline here in the UK.
In the olden days, writing was uncommon so you would have to use up a lot of brain power just remembering things. I love the story in William Powers' Hamlet’s Blackberry (a fantastic book by the way about balance in the digital age) about Hamlet’s use of the ‘new technology’ of tables – a pocket-sized book that came with specially coated paper that could be wiped and reused. An amazing innovation at the time. Similarly, today by outsourcing our memory and knowledge to the web and our devices, we could leave more space for higher level thinking so let's not waste this potential.
I am optimistic and positive about Humanity 2.0. What are your thoughts?
[image with thanks to garrette via CC]
