Nobody Cares!

With over 700 million users on Facebook, people are sharing more than ever. We have all seen how sharing with social media can be a good thing; finding out that your little cousin hit a home run in his first game, getting updates about your uncle's vacation through Europe, or simply keeping in touch with that friend from high school who moved away for college. Facebook allows users to  broadcast information to their entire friends lists at the click of a button. However, with this massive power to share comes the responsibility of knowing what to share.

With Facebook's "news feed" feature, and some of the more recently implemented changes such as the real-time update ticker, everyone knows what's going on with everybody else - instantly. It's easy to see how this can lead to information overload, especially when you get status updates like this scrolling through your news feed:

Fantastic! How was the shower? Was the water too hot, too cold, or just right? Did you condition or just shampoo this time? Kelsea, PLEASE tell us more!

We've seen it all before: "Sarah is laying down", "Mark is eating a sandwich", "John is tired." When I see status updates like this, I usually think to myself, "Who @#%*ing cares!? Quit clogging my news feed so I can pay attention to things I actually care about."

Another type of post I've grown to hate is the obligatory "Overly-Generalized Sweeping Statement" status update:

 There's always one person who loves to post updates that are so ridiculously broad and generalizing that they become down right annoying. The above post is a perfect example of this. Sometimes statements like these remind us to re-examine our own behavior before we broadly criticize an entire group of people. Touche, Toby.

Finally, there's the "Bragging-About-Committing-Illegal-Activities" post: 

While there's many things people post on Facebook that are an inconvenience or are annoying to others, some can have much more serious consequences. For obvious reasons, broadcasting the fact that you just stole property to your 792 friends on Facebook is probably not a good idea. 

Let these Facebook posts be a lesson to us all. Before you share something on Facebook, or any social media website, make sure your post will not have any negative consequences for you, legal or otherwise. Secondly, ask yourself if people will even care about your status update. No one needs to know that you just used the toilet. If your post passes this test, then share away! As social media users, its everyone's duty to think before we click. 

Counterterrorism or religious profiling?

I recently read an article on Wired about a new training technique the FBI is now using that informs agents on how religion relates to a person's propensity for violent terrorist activity.

The FBI is teaching its counterterrorism agents that “main stream” [sic] American Muslims are likely to    be terrorist sympathizers; that the Prophet Mohammed was a “cult leader”; and that the Islamic practice of giving charity is no more than a “funding mechanism for combat.” - Wired

In one seminar the FBI presented a graph demonstrating how Christianity, Judaism, and Islam relate to an individual's inclination towards violence. 

As you can clearly see in the chart above, as time goes on, the followers of Judaism and Christianity have become less-violent. The opposite is shown for followers of Islam, with a line showing that they are just as violent as they were 1400 years ago.

The implications of this type of "training technique" are obvious. Stating that devout, mainstream Muslims are more violent than their Jewish and Christian counterparts is controversial enough, yet attempting to quantify that claim through the use of a graph takes it even further.

It seems that the FBI is treading on very shaky legal ground with this new campaign, whether or not it it will be challenged in court is yet to be seen.

Legality aside, is this a legitimate training technique used by the FBI or is it morally reprehensible religious stereotyping?

The Singularity

            As technology has developed and expanded over the years, humans have gained an incredible amount of power and control over their world. While each successive generation has grown increasingly more obsessive in their pursuit of technological advancement, an urgent concern at the very heart of the matter has gone largely ignored: how will such advanced technology change what it means to be human? According to Ray Kurzweil, the line between human and machine will continue to blur, until the dichotomy between the two no longer exists in any meaningful way. As we experience this exponential growth in scientific knowledge, it’s absolutely paramount that society remains cognizant of the gargantuan implications that this accelerated progress brings with it. In order to fully understand the future of humanity, society looks to Ray Kurzweil, a leader who fulfills his duty as a public intellectual through active research and his grassroots movement to inform the masses.

            A renowned engineer, author, and futurist, Kurzweil stands at the forefront of this scientific frontier. Among his inventions are the first text-to-speech synthesizer, the first commercially available large-vocabulary speech recognition software, and the CCD flatbed scanner. Kurzweil has written six books on the future of technology and is the recipient of many honors from within the scientific community, including the MIT-Lemelson Prize and the National Medal of Technology.

            Kurzweil is arguably the world’s leading authority on the future of science and technology, and it’s affects on the future of human existence. However, what really makes him stand out from others in the field is not only his level of expertise on the subject – but more importantly, what he does with that expertise. Unlike the majority of the lab-coated experts surreptitiously conducting research behind closed doors, Kurzweil is an outspoken visionary, always making his work available through books, television, the Internet, and other various forms of media.

            In “The Decline of the Public Intellectual”, Stephen Mack’s discourse on America’s perceived anti-intellectualism draws parallels to the breed of public intellectual that best describes Ray Kurzweil, “…what is sometimes identified as anti-intellectualism is in fact intellectual – that is, a well articulated family of ideas and arguments that privilege the practical, active side of life (e.g., work) over the passive and purely reflective operations of the mind in a vacuum.” This quote essentially embodies the way in which Kurzweil fulfills his duty as a public intellectual. Rather than bestowing high-brow intellectual snobbery on the masses below the ivory tower, Kurzweil opts for maintaining a more direct and free-flowing discussion of his work with the public. He stands as evidence that intellectualism in America is thriving, although it may stand in opposition the “passive and purely reflective” type mentioned above.

            A perfect example of this is Kurzweil’s website, Kurzweilai.net, in which he hosts a question and answer section which he frequently responds to. One post of his was in response to a question about the Turing test, a test that essentially measures how close a computer is to matching human intelligence. Kurzweil states that if a machine were to pass a “truly valid Turing test…you are unable to tell the difference between this entity and a human, without being told. I believe that people – including you, will then accept these entities as human." He goes on to say that there will most likely be a machine that will be able to pass this test around 2029. If this occurs, the implications for human existence as we know it will be huge. Kurzweil explains that at this milestone, the difference between man and machine will really begin to blur. 

            Kurzweil is well known for his contribution to the discussion of the technological singularity, or the point at which the intelligence of computers will surpass that of humans. He has predicted that this will occur sometime in the mid-2040s. There are many ways in which this could occur; artificial intelligence, genetic engineering, or boosting the brain through biological means. At this point, man and machine start to merge. This begs the question that, if humans begin to augment their intellectual capabilities through technology, then how do we classify an entity as human or machine? Or would there be a new category for enhanced individuals? The answers to these questions are important ones, because they will determine major issues, such as who gets certain types of rights and protections in society. Answers to these questions may not yet exist, but they will certainly be relevant in the future.  

With technology available to greatly enhance one’s intelligence, will the gap between the wealthy and the poor continue to grow, or will it level the playing field? The argument could be made that the wealthy elite would have greater resources – financial and otherwise, to augment their intellectual faculties to a greater degree than those who are less privileged, thus perpetuating the status quo (and possibly to an even larger extent). Kurzweil claims the opposite: “These are deeply democratizing technologies. These exponentially growing information technologies will provide access to clean water, to very inexpensive clean energy, and abundant healthy food through new nanotechnology-based capabilities. They also lead to greater wealth throughout the world. These trends are already well underway." Although there is no way of knowing if this will prove to be true, it’s important to note that Kurzweil seems to be analyzing this issue with a narrow scope. While information technology like the Internet may have a wealth-spreading effect, it’s extremely difficult to understand how effects like this would scale up to a world in which intelligence would exist at a level that is billions of times more powerful than is currently possible. 

Kurzweil believes that technology will make biological humans obsolete, but not the human consciousness. He continues to say that initially we will only use it to augment our intelligence, but eventually, it will allow us to immortalize ourselves by essentially transferring the human consciousness onto a non-biological entity. In the question and answer section of his website, Kurzweil explains to a reader how he sees the human role after the Singularity: “We are capable of transcendence, and in doing so we create new knowledge... In that regard we are continuing the process that evolution began. These machines will do the same thing…In that regard we are creating machines in our own image. You continue to talk about these machines as if they were a race apart. But they are already an integral part of our human-machine civilization."

Kurzweil makes an important observation: he realizes that in such a short amount of time, computers have woven themselves very deeply into our everyday lives. This makes it easier to understand his line of reasoning for predicting such an explosion in technological advancement. Society will only become more and more reliant on technology, so in a sense, one can at least appreciate the logic that Kurzweil uses to predict that humans and technology will merge together at some point in the future.

Whether Kurzweil’s ambitious predictions prove to be correct or not, his research and constant dialogue with the public on the issues that concern him make him stand out as a visionary public intellectual in the field of science and technology. Furthermore, the validity of his claims are somewhat irrelevant in the sense that, at the very least, he has urged the public to critically think about their reliance on technology, and the future role of technology in human society.

            While it’s intrinsically difficult for humans to comprehend such a future, it is apparent that many moral and philosophical issues will need to be balanced among a variety of competing interests if society hopes to achieve a harmonious Singularity. Besides attempting to determine the validity of Kurzweil’s statements, other important issues are at stake. If his predictions prove to be true, would that be a world in which we would even want to live? Is society willing to redefine the way they think about human existence in order to live longer? Furthermore, how much of ‘the human condition’ will we retain if biology combines with technology? Now, more than ever, people need to seriously contemplate if we are heading in the right direction, or whether humanity may be getting “too smart for it’s own good.”