 |
Side Prediction: In the future Supreme Court Justice is going
to come with nicer robes... and a golden throne of dragons. |
When
last we met, we talked about the horrifying truth of how humans are really going to become nothing more than machines, or at the very least some sort of demon spawn that is half human and half microwave. In summation, expect to have microchips implanted basically everywhere... I mean everywhere... but there are scarier consequences to this trend than simply giving me legs that will let me jump like Super Mario on shrooms.
The real question of all of this is not how it will happen, but what will we do when it does? What kind of new legal consequences will there be? If my body is 51% robot, am I still legally considered human? or robot? Can I be owned by another person? And what if I break the speed limit while just going out for my morning jog? Will the law of the future even be able to keep up with our coming technological advances, because let's face it... we don't now.
If you are a frequent reader of this blog, (and the answer to that is, you're not,) you might remember when I made an argument a while back that,
Sometimes politicians just make sad and useless laws just to justify their jobs. Well in the future, our elected official may not have that problem, because there will be so many new problems cropping up that they won't be able to keep up with even half of them. I mean there are future problems we can't even begin to think about, and they are going to require some pretty hard and fast legislation to prevent society from descending into a scene straight out of
Terminator or
Ratatouille.
That last movie reference, by the way, was not one of my usually flippant off-kilter jokes. I am serious, in the future humans will most likely possess the ability to give a rat human-level intelligence and Gordon Ramsey-level cooking abilities, (the British accent will cost you extra.) So how in Hell's Kitchen, do we classify such an abomination against God under the law? Is that rat considered human? Does it get all the same rights that are entitled to my newborn grandchild? Would it be allowed to continue cooking or is that a violation of sanitation laws, (even if it frequently washes its little hands?) And if so, is it entitled to equal pay wages? Health insurance? Pension? Death Benefits? (Because rats live on average 2 to 4 years, and can have litters of up to 24 babies at a time.)
Okay, maybe that last example is a little ridiculous. I mean who would ever increase a rat's intelligence level to human proportions... oh wait, that is exactly what humans will probably try to do first. Rats are prime laboratory experiment animals (lab rats if you will) for a few reasons. Not only have they showed a keen ability to learn quickly, but their brain chemistry closely resembles humans. So any experiments made to learn how to increase human intelligence will most likely start on rats, (before they move up to apes and then we're all screwed.) And don't think this isn't going to happen. Humans have proven time and time again, that if it is possible for us to do something (no matter how bad of an idea it is,) we will do it. Everything from the nuclear bomb to disco has made that crystal clear, and humans have been trying to find ways to increase our intelligence since the
time of your grandparents. With new genetic techniques, projects launched to map the brain and human genome, and a sizable pharmaceutical industry... it's only a matter of time.
 |
Side Prediction: According to the Droid Regulation Law
of 2043, all androids must resemble David Bowie in the
creepiest way imaginable. |
So how do you regulate this kind of stuff? Is it fair that the rich will get to afford all these sorts of upgrades to themselves, whether it be robotic or genetic? Is this covered by my health insurance? (Which could really be a whole other blog by itself, because the crazy weird world of HMO's and health care providers will probably either collapse or see a profit boon like never before, under the weight of all the coming advancements. On a side note: I can't even get my Lasic eye surgery covered by health care... so take that into consideration when you ask your representative if they will pay for you to get a higher IQ, stronger muscles, or that third limb you've always wanted.)
However, those are all after market upgrades, what about when you start from scratch? Designer babies are not something of the future, they are something of the present. I know everyone is more preoccupied with arguing over the cuteness of their duck face photos and listening to your New Kids On the Block CD, (or whatever it is you kids listen to these days,) but while you were sleeping and looking at Internet cat pictures, companies
like this one, have begun to offer options to parents who want to determine the sex of their baby. The company had even planned to offer more designer options, like hair and eye colors, but pulled the idea at the last minute because I guess someone realized,
Holy crap, that's the plot of an Ethan Hawke movie, and I guess the company didn't want to be the first one to venture into a dystopic future plot line. Rest assured though, someone will, and we're going to need laws to govern that bleak gray-and-blue-tinted future.
Think about a world where the rich will be genetically and technologically superior to the poor. Should we just make laws restricting how much genetic modifications the rich can have, or should we pass laws that state all babies born in America must have a standard level of genetic manipulation to weed out diseases and birth defects? You think the argument over welfare is acidic, wait till you have Republicans calling Democrats, "Gene Socialists," but even if we weed out diseases and birth defects, we can still go deeper. What about designing a baby to be a star football player, rock star, scientist, or maybe the perfect soldier? You can start to see the ethical and moral difficulties that might arise.
With the human genome mapped, doctors and scientist will even eventually be able to tell us if our child will be predisposed to being a dancer, a mathematician, or a violent criminal. If a child is born with a genetic imperative to be more violent than others, should we treat it any different? Or should we just put it down Spartan style, because it could be the next Hitler, and move on? Does free will enter into the equation for our little Charles Manson? Should we weed out these tendencies if we can? But aren't they there for a reason?... Go even deeper with this... What if the doctors can tell you if your baby is gay or straight? Would it be right to change that, if you could?... Maybe you're starting to see how complicated this is going to get.
Let's revist the subject of bad dystopian movies, instead this time let's talk
Justin Timerblake, because if we discover the Fountain of Not Dying, (which we will,) is it right for the government to make a law preventing extreme age? Would our government dare put a cap on age the same way the National Football League puts a cap on salaries? After all, don't people kind of need to die? Not only would we quickly run out of food, room, jobs, etc, but humanity could very well stop moving forward. Again I turn to Congress, because... well just look at them... They're a bunch of old (mostly) white (mostly) men who are so stuck int their backward Baby Boomer ways that they can't even get off their assess long enough to keep the economy afloat, let alone see the reasonableness of something as simple as gay marriage. However, it is not entirely their fault. With age comes a certain recalcitrance to change or for anything new. Its a natural sort of survival mechanism hard wired into all humans (though in the future we may be able to change that too,) which is why human society needs old people to die so new people with new ideas (who are less afraid of change) can step up and continue driving us forward... but what if we never die? I mean John McCain has been in Congress ever since he fought against the Japanese with Commodore Perry in 1852, so his old ideas still hold power. Yet, is it right to mandate some sort of Logan's Run solution?
 |
Side Prediction: Turtlenecks are going to make a
come back... in a big way. |
Speaking of Congress, that brings up another problem in this whole thing... Congress is terrible at their job. (Y
ou had one job!) They can't even make any laws that effectively regulates the sale of firearms, and that technology was invented before the United States was invented. Most officials in Washington barely know how to program their VCR (that they still have for some unknown reason,) let alone know anything about how to make laws that actually deter file sharing, hacking, or the million other problems that dominate the wild west of the Internet. Make no mistake, the Internet is not only here to stay, it will become the end all and be all, so they had better figure out how to get a grasp on it, quickly, or they are going to be left even further behind than they already are. In fact, their inability to keep up with future demands is hindering us right now. Currently the lack of regulation over
space transport, means that less private companies are willing to risk creating their own cargo/transport vehicles, because if something happens while a ship is carrying cargo from the ground to the International Space Station, (or some near-future space station or Moon colony,) there are no laws protecting that company in case of an accident. That means if something happens insurance will not help mitigate the loss of the vehicle and cargo, because they are not compelled to, even though they do it now when companies transport hundreds-of-millions of dollars across state and international lines with trucks, trains, planes, and cargo ships.
In the future, we can easily foresee how this trend will continue and Congress' ineptitude and slowness will not only will mean that they get left behind, but that they could potentially hold the rest of us back, as well. As government stands right now they will not be able to meet the demands of the future, (that is not an opinion that is an obvious fact,) which means we may not able to rely on them. I'm not calling for anarchy or any sort of rise to imperialism, but quite the opposite. I am asking us all to remember a quaint old idea called morality... I'll give you a minute as you look it up on Google.
You see, before the invention of laws, (which are a man made invention,) humans had to find other reasons to not kill each other or just generally be total assholes to one another, which is what the Greeks called ethos, or character. A lot of people, especially in America, don't understand that morality and laws are actually different things. When the United States was formed in the 18th century it was unique in the fact that it was founded upon a principal of laws, which at the time was great. It is part of the reason why our revolution was one of the only ones in history that did not swiftly de-evolve into a power struggle between would-be dictators. Unlike Britain, France, Spain, or all the rest, who added rules of law much later after their formation, America had laws and universial rights from the get-go. That meant there was never a time in American history where, we as a people, could not turn to a list of prescribed rules that told us what was right and wrong. Unfortunately, over the past 200+ years that has turned into a mentality of, "If it's not illegal, it's not wrong." You can see how this would be a problem.
Adultery is not illegal, but it sure as hell is immoral. There was a time when owning people as property was not illegal, but you better believe it was immoral. In many states a man who wants to marry another man is illegal, but it is not immoral. You see what I am saying? Now going forward, this attitude of "legal = moral," is going to get us into a lot of trouble, because the gears of Congress (especially this Congress) can be clocked with a calendar, while the gears of progress are clocked with a stop watch. If we continue to equate legality with morality, then nothing will ever be immoral. You want to have a sex-robot that looks like a 12-year old Selma Hayek? You want to clone yourself and keep that spare person alive for body parts? You want to weaponize your dog, (I mean as long as you get the proper gun permits and dog licenses)?
Look at it in terms of today. It is not illegal to Facebook stalk anyone, nor is it even that hard. However, is it right? Personally, I don't think so. In the future where privacy will be an even bigger issue than it is today, I think we are going to have establish our own set of moral standards about what is proper or improper when it comes to Internet stalking (a term which hopefully everyone gets started as negative and as a felony.) as well as many other things... However, that brings us to the next problem, morality is subjective. What I believe, may not be the same as what you believe, which is why we always have so many debates over Pro-Life versus Pro-Choice. That is also why Rick in the Walking Dead winds up having such a hard time, because in his lawless world he must face his own and subjective morality. Without law or religion there is no black and white... I mean, other than the episodes they are airing in black and white on AMC.
 |
| Side Prediction: In the future all lawyers will taste like chicken. |
Maybe this is what worries me the most. In the future we aren't going to be able to use the whole religion-thing, (where God and Gordon Ramsey says you will burn in Hell if you don't do what's right,) to keep people in line. It will be entirely up to us. Things like laws are comforting because we don't have to think or judge for ourselves about the consequences of our actions. They are like the instruction books that come with Lego sets. You just have to follow what they say, but in a world where the instruction book tells you to how make a dinosaur and you want to make a rocketship, what do you do? I would like to think that we, as humans, will come to understand the destructiveness of our selfish decisions and try to actively take a stance against it, not just publicly, but in our own lives... but I have to be a realist... I am worried. We've lost our sense of right and wrong and put more and more faith in the easiness of paper laws made by less than stellar elected officials. I mean go onto any Internet forum and read the comments, they're not written with any sort of moral imperative (or even basic human decency) in mind. Humanity has lost a lot of its decorum, especially in the face of anonymous technology. From where I am currently sitting, this trend will probably only get worse.
Technology has already outpaced laws and will exponentially continue to do so. Cloning, genetics, nanotechnology, the Internet, and all sorts of new frontiers are waiting for us in the future, but these angels of our advancement do not come without their demons. The examples I gave above are only the most generalized and obvious of them. What happens when we have the ability to start breeding any animal we can think of, extinct or otherwise, do poaching and conservation laws go out the window? Can I hunt a saber-tooth tiger if I am willing to pay for breeding it?.. Even scarier, what if I want to develop a weaponized version of the common cold in my basement, and use it topple governments? How do you stop me?
I know I have asked a lot of questions in this entry (more than in any of the others,) but that is because I don't have any of the answers. In truth, only time will tell the outcome of all this. I want to believe in the positive, but I fear the negative more than anything. I don't want to say laws will become obsolete, but I do believe that in the future the burden of determining what is right and what is wrong will ultimately be placed on our individual shoulders. I would like to say that such a thing shouldn't be considered new or novel, since it is a concept older than the written Bible, but every time I see any of the programming on MTV or TLC, my doubt increases... So maybe, (just this once,) we shouldn't try and look ahead, but instead look back to a time when we let our principles govern us, because if we can use our science to resurrect a woolly mammoth, maybe we need to also use our conscience to resurrect a culture of ethos, before we all go extinct.
