You might find this a strange article, but I believe pastoral leaders will soon have to deal with the possibilities explored here not as science fiction, but as a medical reality our people are considering.
Cybernetics—the melding of electronic
and computer systems with the human nervous system—seems to hold the genuine
possibility of healing diseases with a neurological basis. However, many futurists dream of far more
than the restoration of normal functioning; they see a human race on the cusp
of forcing its own “evolution,” with the melding of the human mind and
artificially intelligent computer systems. The desired result is a cybernetic
transhuman, with intelligence far beyond normal human cognition and perhaps
even the ability to attain immortality. Such an eventuality smacks of
humanity’s desire to be gods unto themselves, not unlike the builders of the Tower
of Babel. This paper proposes an ethic of artificial human intelligence
enhancement from a Christian perspective—opposing the development of
“superhuman” cognitive abilities while allowing for healing disease. The author
aims to help pastoral leaders to guide congregants through these thorny issues
from a biblical standpoint.
Transhumanism: Science Fiction Fast Becoming
Science Fact
The idea of cybernetically enhanced
human beings—whose nervous systems communicate with and control electronic
devices—has long been the stuff of science fiction. The genre often refers to
such people as “cyborgs” or “bionic.” Since the 1940s, however, scientists have
imagined a future cybernetic reality (Nayar, 2013). Today, the medical field is
beginning to make available prosthetic limbs that respond to the wearer’s
thoughts. Electronic cochlear implants
have restored hearing in some deaf people, while there is the near-term
possibility of restoring sight to those with neurologically-based blindness
using cybernetic implants.
Further advances in cybernetics may
allow for greatly enhanced health monitoring and, combined with nanotechnology,
might lead to the development of “smart bandages” and “microsurgeries” to help
repair injuries and illnesses without the invasiveness of traditional surgical
interventions. Indeed, such technology may even repair genetic disorders at the
cellular level. Early experiments on rats show that electronic implants to the
injured spinal cord and impaired areas of the brain may allow for the cure of
paralysis and the restoration of lost motor function (Mehrali et al., 2018). If
proven safe and efficacious, such medical technologies appear to hold out hope
for thousands of people who suffer from maladies that are, today, uncurable.
Companies such as Neuralink, founded by innovator Elon Musk of PayPal, SpaceX,
and Tesla fame, seek to create brain-implanted devices that not only cure
neurological diseases but are also secure, safe, and reliable (Neuralink,
2020).
Nevertheless, many futurists and
technologists, including the U.S. military’s Defense Advanced Research Projects
Agency (DARPA), see much more than healing. They envision a mind-machine
interface that allows humans to do things far beyond any natural capability.
Soldiers enhanced with such interfaces might be able to communicate
“telepathically” with thought only. Learning might become as easy as
downloading the information from a computer into the human brain. People
equipped with such technology might control compatible machinery and equipment
“telekinetically” with their thoughts. Communication with computers and networks
will no longer require such interfaces as monitors, keyboards, or mice (Kaku,
2014). Kapur (2018) ably demonstrates that rudimentary two-way interfaces
between the human mind and computer networks are already possible, albeit in
wearable form, not implanted within the brain or any other part of the body.
To people at least minimally informed
about computer networks, the ethical problems with such a future begin to
appear quickly. It seems probable that such technologies will prove problematic
for concerns such as the privacy and security of a human being’s innermost
thoughts. Nevertheless, the transhuman philosophy sees far more than such
powers as computer-enabled telekinesis and telepathy at play. Transhumanism is
“the idea that human beings should take control of their own biologic
evolution, freely designing it through technology, in order to reach a
post-human stage” (Manzocco, 2019, p. 4).
Transhumanism believes in an ultimate post-human future, where human
beings will have transcended the limits of their physical bodies and may choose
to have their consciousness reside in some computer “cloud” or a
computer-networked body. Human bodies will be replaceable and may consist of a
mix of organic, but perhaps mostly, synthetic parts. According to transhumanist
thinking, the post-human will be disease-resistant and possess cognitive
abilities far beyond mere humanity. Immortality is a stated goal of the
post-human future. In the meantime,
bridging the gap between the human and the post-human is the “transhuman.”
Transhumanism seeks the radical, technological
reengineering of the human condition (Mitchell & Riley, 2014). A transhuman
is a person who, increasingly over time, benefits from such technologies as
biomedical devices, genetic engineering, cybernetics, and others, to live what
is, ostensibly, a longer, healthier, and happier life (Manzocco, 2019). Not only does transhumanism reject the
inevitability of aging and physical malady or disability, but it also seeks to
remove undesired psychological, moral, and emotional traits or disorders
(Specker et al., 2014).
Much to its credit, transhumanism
rejects the tenets of the “eugenics” movement that seeks to use forced
sterilization, cross-breeding, and elimination of the “unsuitable” to create a
Hitlerian “super race” (Manzocco, 2019, p. 34). Indeed, according to the
“Transhumanist Declaration” (Vita-More et al., 1998), transhumanism respects
the right of all people (and for that matter, sentient computers and
intelligent animals) to make “wide personal choice over how they enable their
lives.” Nevertheless, even if transhumanism advocates a less coercive means
than the eugenics movement, it does seek to create a superior race.
Artificial Intelligence and the Transhuman Future
Among the stated goals of transhumanism
are producing vastly more intelligent individuals than the average human being
today. Computers are already an indispensable tool in modern life, with their
ability to systematically store, recall, and process vast amounts of data in a
rapid and efficient matter. Computers use complex programs to execute a wide
variety of data processing and analysis that allow for office productivity,
archival capability, communications, games, and a whole host of other useful or
entertaining functionality. However, computers cannot exercise rational, creative,
adaptive, or analytical thought as human beings. They cannot “think” or “learn”
in any human sense, nor are they “self-aware” or even emotional. Complex as
computer systems are, and as advanced as their programming is, they ultimately
require human programmers to give them the instructions necessary to carry out
their functions. Human beings possess “general intelligence,” including the
capacity to deal with the unpredictable. Most computer systems today possess
“narrow intelligence”—a specialization limited by their specific programming.
AI seeks to change that, imparting general intelligence on computer systems
(Shatzer, 2018).
Artificial Intelligence (AI) seeks
ultimately to change this paradigm. AI’s goal is not necessarily for machines
to “think” in the same way as humans do, but for them to do what humans do as
thinking entities (Walker, 2017). AI seeks to closely mimic human cognition,
creativity, adaptivity, and emotion. AI machines will be able to “learn”
without additional programming by human beings. AI could empower driverless
automobiles and make agriculture and industry more productive. AI might free
humans from data-intensive analysis, freeing them for more “big picture” sorts
of thinking.
As Anderson and Luchsinger (2018, p. 2)
observe, networked digital connectivity is already pervasive in human life.
Advanced, networked computers now reside in the pockets of most people in the
form of a “Smart Phone,” capable of enhancing personal productivity in ways
just being dreamt of just a generation ago. The goal of AI is to improve the
human condition, but many experts hold deep concerns. Not only could AI mean
further human job loss to automation, but many see a real possibility for the
diminution of human agency and free choice. AI programmed for profit seems
unlikely to make the best choices for anyone but those who will profit. In
short, “The current political and economic climate suggests that existing
technology, especially machine learning, will be used to create better
decisions for those in power while creating an ever more tedious morass of
bureaucracy for the rest.” (Anderson & Luchsinger, p. 17).
Further, AI seems poised to make issues
of data security and surveillance even more problematic. AI-driven weapons systems provide for the nightmare
scenario of rebellious, networked, weaponized automatons that rebel against
their human masters. Many computer information systems specialists insist that
the day when machines rise and replace their human creators is not so far from
the pages of science fiction as one might imagine (Walker, 2017).
AI and Transhumanism Merged
Most theorists who envision a world
replete with AI machines and systems see a society where human beings and
machines exist alongside each other and where, hopefully, humankind remains the
master. Transhumanism sees the melding of humans with computer systems, and if
those computers are artificially intelligent, then all the better. AI systems would be a way of storing and
processing more data faster than the human brain and would enable some of the
desired outcomes of transhumanism.
Supposedly, AI would also enable vastly improved cognitive abilities and
suppress “bad” moral choices or psychological conditions while enhancing the
“good” emotions or character traits (Lustig, 2008).
When AI combines with other
disciplines, such as biomedical engineering, genetic engineering, cloning, and
robotics, futurists seriously speculate about a day when those who choose this
path become immortal in this present life. People will replace body parts as
they wear out or transition their consciousness to a genetically engineered
clone not susceptible to the same maladies as the original human. Perhaps the
super-intelligent human will have the ability, theorists posit, to upload their
consciousness into a more extensive system of intelligence (not unlike the
science fiction movie, “The Matrix”), or into a “synthetic” body that looks and
feels just like a human. In any case, the transhuman becomes post-human in
defeating death.
Artificial Human Intelligence Enhancement
Evaluated from a Christian Worldview
No doubt, most thoughtful evangelical
Christians will read much of what this paper lays out and will instantly recoil
in horror—and with good reason. Because
of the rapid advances in biomedical engineering, materials, genetics, AI, and
computer network systems, Christians can
no longer dismiss as fantasy what was once the realm of science fiction. This
student may not see the day where he, in his ministry as a pastor, will be
faced with counseling a parishioner who is considering—or has a loved one
considering—undergoing such technological augmentations as computer-enhanced
intelligence. However, he believes he will serve as a mentor to younger pastors
who will face just such conversations.
Christians share several common
concerns with transhumanists. Both desire that human beings enjoy a good
quality of life and seek to end human suffering. Both appreciate that
technology has benefits that can accrue to these ends. Indeed, both long for
immortality. (Mitchell & Riley, 2014). Generally, Christians have long
accepted medical technologies that improve the quality of human life, end human
suffering, and—more as a byproduct of the former—increase human lifespan. Surgical interventions, pharmaceuticals,
prosthetics, and countless other modern medical innovations are a normal part
of the human experience and fall into most Christians’ embrace. Ethically-developed cybernetic innovations
may hold out hope of treating neurological diseases such as Alzheimer’s and
other cognitive disorders, movement disorders such as Parkinson’s, spinal cord
injury, and some cases of deafness or blindness. (Del Aguila & Postigo
Solana, 2015).
Likewise, at least a plurality of
Christians shudders at the idea of medical technologies designed to end human
life. Such medical interventions include abortion, euthanasia, and (for many
Christians) such “humane” forms of execution such as lethal injection. Masses of Christians also feel uneasy about
genetic engineering, cloning, certain reproductive technologies, and other
technologies that appear as human science playing God. Both secular and
Christian ethicists seem particularly concerned about the aims expressed by the
transhumanist movement. Christian
ethicists’ concerns with artificial human intelligence enhancement have
profound roots in theological anthropology, soteriology, hamartiology, and
eschatology.
Artificial Human Intelligence Enhancement and
Theological Anthropology
Enhancement technologies that cure
disease should find a place in the Christian worldview. However, he says,
technologies designed to impart “superhuman” abilities fall outside the healing
rubric and tamper with the Imago Dei—God’s image in humankind (Lustig,
2008). A parallel that seems to hold
many similarities with transhumanism is transgenderism. Indeed, one of the most
significant theological arguments against transgenderism—especially surgical
attempts to “transition” a person from their birth sex into the opposite sex—is
that such acts are an attack on the image of God (Grudem, 2018, p. 846). Genesis 1:27 shows that maleness and
femaleness are inherent in being a bearer of God’s image. Genesis 2:24 further
implies that male and female, living in community, particularly in a monogamous
sexual union, constitutes part of what it means to bear God’s image. Bible reinforces these notions, through both
the Old and New Testaments, with explicit prohibitions against trying to appear
as a member of the opposite sex or engaging in homosexual activity. For its part, the First Council of Nicea (AD
325) rejected voluntary castration outside of medical necessity—because the
practice overtly rejected creation as a male—and demanded the dismissal of such
clergy as underwent the process (Cherry, 2017). The church has long recognized
the good of medically indicated procedures over aimed at satisfying one’s
vanity and pride.
However, AI-enhanced human brains would
appear to have little to do directly with human sexuality. Moreover, because
God is an all-present spirit (John 4:24), orthodox Christian theologians have
never argued that the Imago Dei has to do with humans possessing a body
that “looks like” God. Thus, Christians do not seem to have argued en masse
against such technologies as prosthetic limbs or artificial hearts, or any
innovations designed to substitute for ailing or destroyed human functionality.
Nevertheless, this writer argues, the artificial enhancement of human
intelligence does assault the Imago Dei.
Many theologians believe that the
tripartite nature of human beings—body, mind, and spirit—reflects their
creation in the image of a triune God (Koosed, 2014, pp. 175-198). While it might be possible to create a new
body, including a new brain, and transfer memories into the new brain, there is
no biblical evidence that the spirit could transition into a new body. As for
the possibility of “uploading” human consciousness into a new brain or a
computer system, many scientists believe the actual person might not survive.
Memories may survive. The new brain or computer would have the ability to
process information stored in memory and new experiences cognitively. However, personality and personal identity
themselves may not survive the transition (Jung, 2020). The very efforts by
which a person seeks to cheat death may kill the person and, thus, the image
bearer. God prohibits killing His image-bearers in Genesis 9:6.
Artificial Human Intelligence Enhancement,
Soteriology, Hamartiology, and Eschatology
As discussed, the goals of melding the
human mind with computers include the technology required to transfer human
consciousness from the brain to another brain or computer and to alter
undesirable moral traits in the person so enhanced. Humans melded with AI will
become not only super-intelligent but immortal and, presumably, sinless. Or so that is the aim.
The idea that humans who undergo “moral
enhancement” through the melding of their minds with computers can become
sinless reflects the Pelagian heresy at its very core. Pelagius believed men
could become sinless by will; cybernetically enhanced humans would seek to
become sinless through technology. Moreover, cybernetic immortality is the
soteriological goal of transhumanism. It is a secularist eschatology through
and through. (Leidenhag, 2020, p. 5). Salvation by grace alone, through faith
alone, in Christ alone is replaced by salvation through faith in technology,
outside of God.
In this cybernetic humanism, sinless
perfection is not something to be attained on the other side of eternity.
Sanctification is not a process of continuously living a life conformed to the
image of Christ. Instead, unceasing technological upgrades would serve as a
pathway from human to transhuman to post-human perfection. The eschatological
end state of cybernetic immortality is not an eternity in the presence of God in
a perfected (but human) resurrection body. Instead, the cybernetically-enhanced
human will live without end in this world, with a body that looks ever less
than anything like a human body. Somehow, this digital immortality seems to fall far short of true eternal life.
Trying to Be Like God: The New Tower of Babel
Genesis 11 records the events
surrounding the Tower of Babel and God’s confounding of human language. The
heart of the people’s sin is this, “Then they said, ‘Come, let us build
ourselves a city and a tower with its top in the heavens, and let us make a
name for ourselves, lest we be dispersed over the face of the whole earth.’”
(Genesis 11:4, ESV). God’s ire does not come about because the people might
reach Heaven; indeed, God scoffs at the very idea, as he comes down to see the
tower. Instead, God’s concern is “man’s misdirected efforts at establishing his
self-sufficiency.” (Mathews, 1996). In the Tower of Babel narrative, God aims
His judgment at humanity’s desire for autonomy from Him and from the
limitations they perceive Him to have placed upon them.
To Manzocco (2019, pp. 32-84),
transhumanism—the umbrella under which cybernetic intelligence enhancement
falls—is more than a philosophy or an idea. It is a New Tower of Babel, a radical
revolt against the God of Heaven. It is the worship of self and defiance of
God’s creative order. Informed by Paul Tillich and Reinhold Neibhur, Childs
(2015) observes the paradox of human self-transcendence, which seems inherent
in bearing God’s image. In other words, human beings can see fulfillment,
meaning, and destiny beyond the self. However, this same self-transcendence
gives human beings the capacity for idolatry; they divinize such finite things
as human logic and reasoning (Childs, 2015, p. 12). Human intelligence,
including the quest to expand the human intellectual capacity, has long been an
idol. Particularly in its aim to enhance
human intelligence far beyond current, natural limitations, transhumanism is a
religion unto itself. The movement seeks
to give humankind “control of its evolutionary destiny” (Shatzer, 2019).
Conclusions and Reflections for Pastoral Ministry
With Karl Barth’s Romans and
Niebuhr's Moral Man and Immoral Society as his basis, Childs (2015, p.
11) argues that secular and theological liberalism are comfortable with the
false premise that society as a collective is capable of the same moral
possibilities as individuals. Because of humanity’s impassible sin nature,
societies’ collective behavior can never be brought to heel by reason or conscience
alone. In a world where no sin nature
existed, all of society would benefit from intelligence-enhancing technologies.
Then again, a world untainted by sin would also be untainted by death and
illness, nor would idolatry drive humans’ desire to be gods unto
themselves.
If people were all benevolent, both
individually and collectively, then many of society’s problems would be
non-existent. The idea that, suddenly, the application of artificial
intelligence enhancement, or even the eventual immortality it hopes to achieve,
would cause people to behave in a benevolent fashion is absurd. Both the
historical and biblical witnesses show that people who gain power or advantage
will extend their lead over others to the best of their abilities. It is improbable
that, if achieved, artificially-enhanced
human intelligence will prove to be anything near the panacea that
transhumanist philosophy promises. Super-intelligent humans will not transcend
the limits of their sin natures. Instead, they seem likely to ensure that
others with competing interests do not gain access to the technology that has
given them the upper hand over unaltered humans. That is the reflection of
human history.
Outside of such theological concerns,
cybernetically-enhanced brains seem to bring with them the possibility for real
security issues, including a loss of privacy for those enhanced, or even
susceptibility to being controlled by others. Such cyber hacking is a
nightmarish prospect. Further, this author believes in the strong possibility
that if it becomes possible to transfer memories to a new body and brain, the
spirit will not remain with body and mind. The real “person” will die—and face
eternal judgment—and what remains will be an imitation of the person who once
lived.
Christians should recognize that
immortality as found through God’s grace in Christ, with a resurrected,
glorified, and perfected body that will live forever with the Lord is the
reality promised to them in the Bible. Moreover, eternal life in Christ seems
to present with it the real possibility for greatly expanded knowledge and
intellect. As the Apostle Paul writes, “For now we see in a mirror dimly, but
then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have
been fully known.” (1 Cor. 13:12, ESV).
In the eschaton, the true believer in Christ can look forward to a new
heaven and a new earth where God dwells among His people and takes away their
sorrow, death, and pain (Rev. 21). It seems quite probable that God would even
teach those who live in eschatological immortality anything they might desire
to know.
On the other hand, even if possible (and this author is extremely
skeptical that it is), the so-called immortality offered by cybernetic
intelligence seems nothing but a shadow of the real thing. Should it come to
fruition, cybernetically-enhanced intelligence will prove itself an abomination
and an assault on God’s image.
Cybernetically-enhanced people will have perverted the gift of intellect
God has given them with something unreal, an altered reality, self, experience,
relationships with others, and relationship with God (Shatzer, 2019, p. 93).
While this student would counsel congregants to embrace any
ethically-developed technology that can restore normal human function, he would
strongly argue against Christians taking part in cybernetic intelligence
enhancement, should it become a reality. To do so is the height of idolatrous
folly and a rejection of the sovereignty of God. Given the ultimate
transhumanist goal of an “immortal” post-human, this student would view counsel
parishioners that such a thing is an attempt to circumvent God’s saving plan in
Jesus Christ. Of course, it is also an attempt doomed to failure. Thus,
Christians should reject any attempt to enhance their intelligence by
artificial, technological means.
Anderson, J., Rainie, L., &
Luchsinger, A. (2018, December 10). Artificial intelligence and the future
of humans. Pew Research Center.
https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/wp-content/uploads/sites/9/2018/12/PI_2018.12.10_future-of-ai_FINAL1.pdf
Cherry, M. J. (2017, December).
Created in the image of God: Bioethical implications of the imago Dei. Christian
Bioethics, 23(3), 219-233. https://ezproxy.liberty.edu/login?
url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=lsdar&AN=ATLAn4237060&site=ehost-live&scope=site
Childs, J. M. (2015, March).
Beyond the boundaries of current human nature: Some theological and ethical
reflections on transhumanism. Dialog: A Journal of Theology, 54(1),
8-19. https://ezproxy.liberty.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=lsdar&AN=ATLAn3779982&site=ehost-live&scope=site
Del Aguila, J. W. V., &
Postigo Solana, E. (2015, December). Transhumanismo, neuroética y persona
humana. Revista Bioét, 23(3), 505-512.
Grudem, W. (2018). Christian
ethics: An introduction to biblical moral reasoning. Wheaton, IL: Crossway.
Jones, D. G. (2015, April).
Bridging the science-theology divide: Challenges posed by biomedical technology
for Christian attitudes. Stimulus: The New Zealand Journal of Christian
Thought & Practice, 22(1), 4-13.
https://ezproxy.liberty.edu/login?url=https://
search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=asn&AN=108266264&site=ehost-live&scope=site
Jung, K. (2020, February). Brain
transplant and personal identity. Christian Bioethics, 26(1), 95–112.
doi:10.1093/cb/cbz018
Kaku, M. (2014). The future of
the mind: The scientific quest to understand, enhance, and empower the mind.
New York, NY: Doubleday.
Kapur, A. (2018). Human-machine
cognitive coalescence through an internal duplex interface, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology. http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/120883
Koosed, J. L. (Ed.). (2014). Semeia
Studies. Vol. 74: The Bible and posthumanism. Atlanta, GA: Society of
Biblical Literature.
Leidenhag, M. (2020, November 2).
Saved through technology: Exploring the soteriology and eschatology of
transhumanism. Religion Compass, 14(11), 1-9.
https://doi.org/10.1111/rec3.12377
Lustig, A. (2008, Spring).
Enhancement technologies and the person: Christian perspectives. The Journal
of Law, Medicine & Ethics: A Journal of the American Society of Law,
Medicine & Ethics, 36(1), 41-50.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-720X.2008.00235.x
Manzocco, R. (2019). Transhumanism
- engineering the human condition: History, philosophy and current status.
Chichester, UK: Springer-Praxis.
Mathews, K. A. (1996). Genesis 1-11:26 (Vol. 1A, p. 482).
Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.
Mehrali, M., Bagherifad, S.,
Akbari, M., Thakur, A., Mirani, B., Mehrali, M., Hasany, M., Orive, G.,
Parmita, D., Emneus, J., Andresen, T. L., Dolatshai-Pirouz, A., &. (2018,
October). Blending electronics with the human body: A pathway toward a
cybernetic future. Advanced Science, 5(10), 1-39.
https://doi-org.ezproxy.liberty.edu/10.1002/advs. 201700931
Mitchell, C. B., & Riley, D.
J. (2014). Christian bioethics: A guide for pastors, health care
professionals, and families (D. R. Heimbach, Ed.). B&H Publishing
Group.
Nayar, P. K. (2014). Posthumanism
(R. Mengham, Ed.). Themes in 20th and 21st Century Literature. Malden, MA:
Polity Press.
Neuralink. (2020). Applications.
Retrieved November 10, 2020, from Neuralink:
https://neuralink.com/applications/.
Shatzer, J. (2019). Transhumanism
and the image of God: Today’s technology and the future of Christian
discipleship. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.
Specker, J., Focquaert, F., Raus,
K., Sterckx, S., & Schermer, M. (2014, September 16). The ethical
desirability of moral bioenhancement: A review of reasons. BMC Medical
Ethics, 15(67), 1-17. http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6939/15/67
Vita-More, N., et al. (1998). The
transhumanist declaration. Retrieved November 5, 2020, from Humanity Plus:
https://humanityplus.org/philosophy/transhumanist-declaration/
Walker, R. F. (2017). Artificial
intelligence in business: Balancing risk and reward. Cambridge, MA:
Pegasystems.
Comments
Post a Comment
All comments are moderated. I welcome respectful disagreement with my posts. Such discussions can cause me to consider perspectives I hadn't examined before. However, I also reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason. Why? Simple enough, this is MY blog, with MY thoughts, and I want to have a civil conversation that is, at all times, God-honoring in nature.