Humans and Technology:  The Universal Downgrade

Alexis Geeza

            “To err is human—and to blame it on a computer is even more so.”  With this quote, Robert Orben manages to convey the extent to which technology plays a role in day to day living.  From holding a slow internet connection accountable for late fees accrued by online banking, to reproaching the use of cell phones because of a manifestation of chronic headaches, technological outlets are oftentimes thought to be the object of humans’ troubles and misfortunes.  Has technology managed to seep so far into this realm of the human experience that it has become synonymous with the inability to live a life that is free from stress and anguish?  Frans de Waal’s “Selections from The Ape and the Sushi Master” analyzes the role that emotions play in one’s use of technological innovations, particularly from a moral perspective.  Gregory Stock, in “The Enhanced and the Unenhanced,” discusses the impact that a specific technology, that of germinal choice, could feasibly have on the diversity of the world population overall.  Finally, Edward Tenner looks closely at the potential risks associated with the unintended, negative consequences of technological expansion in “Another Look Back, and a Look Ahead.”  While the authors acknowledge the active role that technology plays across the globe, each falls short of considering just how seriously it has transformed the human species to date.  Hidden underneath the positive guise of new opportunities and conveniences, technology has managed to downgrade the definition of “human” to such an extent that the features characteristic of the species have become suppressed.

            What are these features that serve to determine whether or not a being is fully human?  The dictionary offers two seemingly conflicting definitions from opposite ends of the spectrum.  The first defines a human as “Having or showing those positive aspects of nature and character regarded as distinguishing humans from other animals,” while the second states that a human is “Subject to or indicative of the weaknesses, imperfections, and fragilities associated with humans.”  The issue of from which perspective one chooses to define “human” is a very personal matter.  One would have to agree, however, that the essence of each definition stems from unalienable human traits:  mental and emotional strengths and frailties.  Consider an act of kindness to be an example from the first dictionary definition, respectively.  Before making a decision, an individual will often rationally deliberate how best to go about producing the desired effect.  During this process, he will likely and knowingly tap into his emotions and assure himself that he is a respectable person as a result of the good deed.  The importance of these two dimensions is discussed in great detail by de Waal: 

Modern cognitive psychologists and neuroscientists confirm that emotions, rather than being the antithesis of rationality, greatly aid thinking.  They speak of emotional intelligence.  People can reason and deliberate as much as they want, but if there are not emotions attached to the various options in front of them, they will never reach a decision or conviction.  This is critical for moral choice… morality involves strong convictions.  (de Waal, 698)

In a similar way, Stock examines how these two critical and distinct features of the human mind are utilized when all-important decisions are to be made:  “As GCT becomes increasingly potent, we will face tough personal decisions about what is best for our children and what risks and tradeoffs we will accept for them.  There will be no simple answers.  Our personalities and values will shape our attitudes” (Stock, 558).  Tenner further drives home the point by identifying a potential threat to the human thought process:  “At this point in the history of technology we can draw a fundamental lesson from an unexpected source, the law of negligence… When machines abound, negligence claims increase” (Tenner, 639).  It is evident through each of these cases that decision-making, as a functional process vital to the human experience, is a double-edged sword.  On the one hand individuals think rationally with their heads, weighing costs, benefits, and potential outcomes.  On the other hand, there is something to be said for thinking “with one’s heart,” in terms of ethics, morals, and the overall ability to empathize.  The main trouble with technology is that it does not allow humans the freedom to venture into these two arenas of thought separately and as needed.  If one were to consider the issue of gene therapy for a child who possesses below-average intelligence, his choice would be contingent upon which angle he views the situation from.  From a rational perspective, the logical choice would be to go ahead with the technology, if only for the purpose of providing the child with better opportunity to succeed.  If the same individual’s ethical affiliation, however, were to deem any form of tampering with the human genome as an inauspicious act, his perspective could very well be different.  The primary goal of technology is to eliminate any and all human weaknesses for the sole sake of effectiveness and proficiency.  Would the ethical affiliation of the aforementioned individual, then, be a roadblock along the path to its desired outcome?  Should technology continue to take hold at its present rate, the emotional standpoint will be forcibly shut down, only to be replaced with cold, hard logic.  To say that the said individual would be torn over this issue is an understatement. 

            Of course, there are a significant number of individuals who are not torn over the idea of technological transformation and expansion at all.  In extreme cases, there are even people who endorse it, and who believe that technology as a whole will make the population even more human as a result of encouraging a higher level of thinking:  “It is too soon to say, but there is excellent evidence that great disasters do have long-term… effects… The sociologist Robert K. Merton has suggested how many advances in mathematics, astronomy, mechanics, and magnetism could be traced to the vast losses that Spain and other maritime powers had suffered” (Tenner, 637).  In reality, however, technology will negatively transform the human manner of thinking in such a way that it will be unrecognizable when compared to the one that is in place today.  As stated previously, by allowing technology to aid in making efficient functioning the ultimate human goal, there will be no need for emotions, ethics, or morals whatsoever.  Since the advent of such internet programs as instant messaging and chat rooms alone, human language has become altered, abbreviated, and redundant.  It would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to find a college student who does not type LOL (Laugh Out Loud) at least once every minute when talking to her friends online.  In changing how the population talks to and relates to each other, has not a segment of the emotional humanness attached to communication skills been removed?  In the future, these factors which help to form the very basis of humanity will continue to be viewed simply as obstacles in the way of quick and easy productivity; rather than as important stepping stones in the decision-making process:  “Can we help feeling pain when the fire burns us?  Can we help sympathizing with our friends?  Are these phenomena less necessary or less powerful in their consequences, because they fall within the subject sphere of experience?”  (de Waal, 692).           

            It is apparent that when technology forces people to circumnavigate this particular school of thought, even when potentially life-altering decisions are at stake, humans are going to be forced to fuse their rationality and any remaining emotive predispositions into one, collective thought process.  This will be no small task, in that it contradicts the very hard drive of the species’ functional capabilities, to utilize rationality and emotions as separate entities.  As with introducing a new piece of computer software to one’s PC, what is to say that it will not be rejected, or that it will cause the system as a whole to crash? 

Software adds another dimension to complexity… [T]he risk of fatal bugs in life-critical systems can be [very high].  Malfunction in software control of processes is also less likely to produce the warning signals familiar in the mechanical world… A system crash may be much more sudden.  It is harder to achieve what engineers call ‘graceful degradation.’ (Tenner, 648)

The human system has not suffered a complete crash to date because there has always been a balance to strive for.  Preserving this balance, the elusive byproduct created by the marriage of intelligent thought tempered by emotion, should be the species’ ultimate goal of self-respect.  By thinking rationally about one’s decisions and reaping the subsequent rewards, one achieves a high level of self-efficacy and emotional satisfaction. 

One cannot deny that human emotions hold sway over many life decisions.  The desire for success, love, and happiness is what drives the human spirit.  This inherent characteristic could easily become a casualty in the population’s technological love affair.  Tampering with the familiar process of human decision-making, and the consequential ability to act either rationally or emotionally, could very well result in a universal failure to carry out this all-important procedure in the first place:  “We would be foolish to believe that this future is without peril and filled only with benefits, that these powerful technologies will not require wisdom to handle well, or that great loss will not accompany the changes ahead” (Stock, 570).  Should this occur, the human species will be defined not as a mosaic of functions and capabilities, inclusive of rational thinking and emotions, but as a sagacious conglomerate devoid of emotional influence, hardwired to carry out only the functions necessary for survival.