The Singularity: Ethics and Anthropological Implications

Among other things I am a self-proclaimed science- and science fiction nerd. I love Ray Bradbury, Aldous Huxley, and H.P. Lovecraft. Carl Sagan and Stephen Hawking are my heroes. While I’m not geeking out to Sci-Fi and dystopian literature or looking at the new Hubble Space Telescope pictures, from time to time think about technology in terms of the singularity. I felt it would be fun to write a blog post about it from an Anthropological perspective. I’ll try to stay grounded for this one and not get too far out into the ether….

First things first, what is a singularity?

In physics, a singularity is defined as a point at which a function takes an infinite value. For example, a singularity exists in space-time when matter is infinitely dense as in the center of a black hole.

In technology, the singularity describes a point in time at which the scientific and technological rules of civilization are incomprehensible to previous generations, a concept coined by mathematician John Van Neumann in the 1950’s.  The concept was popularized by science fiction writer Verner Vinge, who associated it with the development of artificial intelligence beyond that of the human brain. This doesn’t mean that it’s impossible; I just don’t see any Hal-computers or Matrix machines in our near future. Sure, computers can calculate complex problems faster than we can do them in our head, but computers don't have the spectrum of human emotion nor human creativity.  The A.I. element of the singularity is a little far fetched right now, but the singularity without A.I. is still a valid model for how humans interact with technology. The take-away is that technology, especially computing technology- is evolving at an exponential rate such that we can't possibly predict future innovation. It is more vital than ever that we anticipate the effect of technology on human culture and well-being. And that is why we need Anthropologists, to anticipate the needs of people and the human element. 

http://theadvancedapes.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/cadelllast_24600221320536_small.jpg

Let’s take stock of the singularity as describing what we can observe in history. I like to think of it like a series of waves at sea that are large and rolling, and become tighter and higher once they reach shore. Hypothetically, then, multiple singularities have occurred during human history since homo sapien began using technology to manipulate the world around them.

Continuing with the waves at sea model, the large waves are important foundation technologies such as the harnessing of fire, and the invention of the wheel. Waves increase in frequency and height as foundation inventions pave the way for a myriad of innovations and progress. What happens when the wave reaches the shore? A “crash” or what I like to think of as a plateau occurs as a new technology becomes dominant or widespread, creating a paradigm shift. For how long will the plateau last until a new paradigm is introduced? It’s difficult to say.

 

http://www.mindfully.org/Technology/2003/Singularity-Bell1may03.GIF

     -This graphic is based on Tom McKendree's 1994 singularity diagram for Hughes Aircraft, explaining anticipated affects of technology on warfare.

I like this diagram because it demonstrates the law of accelerating returns- each technological advancement increases the limits of capability for the next capability, and so on. The effect is exponential growth, but they are exponential waves. The larger pattern is exponential but each wave is unique- the length and height of each varies depending on a variety of factors- culture, for one.

http://artsnap.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/Screen-Shot-2012-05-23-at-10.44.25-PM.png

Michaelangelo's David, sculpted 1504

 Take the example of the Italian Renaissance in the 14^th Century. Nostalgia for Classical Antiquity prompted a subtle, more anatomically accurate representation of the human form in art and sculpture. Michelangelo's David is perhaps the most well known of these new masterpieces. Most importantly, resurgence of Classical history and philosophy prompted Renaissance humanism, which put emphasis on the Aristotelian and Ptolemaic views of the Universe as opposed to a Christian view. Ultimately, humanists rejected Aristotle's Geocentric Universe in favor of the heliocentric model of Copernicus. This paradigm shift in philosophy ultimately paved the way for great advancements in natural science and medicine, culminating in the Age of Enlightenment. The lull in advancement of science in Medieval Europe represents a dip in the pattern of technological innovation although essentially isolated to Europe. We are only human. But are we more than human animals?

The singularity implies that humans have transcended their biology. I think it’s safe to say that most people would agree that we as humans have done this already, in a sense. American Archaeologist Lewis Binford said that “culture is man’s extrasomatic means of adaptation.” Today, culture is so integrated with technology that often they are interchangeable. We have complex shelters with essentially self-sustaining systems, we have cars, boats, and planes for transportation, phones and computers for communication. Infrastructures are maintained with technologies that we have created and streamlined for efficiency and comfort. We don’t have to build a fire to eat or stay warm, we don’t have to hunt or gather our food, and for the most part we don’t have to fight our neighbors for resources. If we want, we can essentially ignore nature and live out our culture, which is removed from nature. That is profound- that our culture is not in nature. Yes, we seek nature out, but we do it deliberately. We call it camping, hiking, and backpacking, and it’s something that has become unique enough to be out of our everyday routine. It’s an event, an adventure, we seek out pristine ‘wilderness’ in places like Alaska that still hold something for us that seems wild. We save a rectangle of green in the middle of NYC.

http://peterlarson.org/wp-content/uploads/Central-Park1.jpg

Central Park in the middle of Manhattan

How far will we go? A discussion about the singularity is in itself a paradox, because one cannot comprehend something in the future that would be incomprehensible at present day. Still, it’s interesting to think about. I can’t wait to see where science takes us in the next 10, 20, 50 years. 

...And now for something completely different: #1

I've been wanting to post this little spoof for a while-
It is to the tune of Modern Major General from The Pirates of Penzance.
If you need a refresher, the link to the song is here.

I am the very model of a modern anthropologist,

I’ve information cultural, linguistic, biological,

I know of ancient cultures and I quote the sites historical,

From Clovis to Solutrean in order categorical;

I’m very well acquainted too, with matters theoretical,

I understand Claude Levi-Strauss, Foucault, Maus, and Ruth Benedict,

Darwin’s Origin of Species and methods in Archaeology,

With many cheerful facts about the writing of ethnography.

I’m very good at positing large inquiries rhetorical,

I know the scientific names of beings prehistorical:

In short in matters hominal, biped, natural, and ecologist,

I am the very model of a modern Anthropologist.

Medical Anthropology with an emphasis on Anthropology

I recently went to a talk by M.D./PhD. Seth Holmes, who has worked with migrant farm workers to understand the social context which affects their health and health care. 

As an M.D. with a PhD. in Anthropology, Seth Holmes has a unique multi-disciplinary perspective on the health issues surrounding migrant workers. For his study, he observed the treatment of indigenous Triqui Mexicans both on farms and in clinics in the Skagit Valley. 

What he essentially observed was a social hierarchy with subtle racist reinforcements in Triqui farm life and clinic visits. This hierarchy determined health disparities, with Triqui Mexican workers having the worst health. 

 His ideas on how the interpretive lenses of local physicians normalize an ethnic stigma around migrant workers were particularly insightful. This is not a fault of theirs, as Holmes pointed out, but it brings the value of anthropological thinking to the forefront. Physicians were not aware of the social stratification on the farms because structural and symbolic violence diminished that awareness and perpetuated charged ethnic stereotypes. Holmes observed that one physician commented, "They like to work bent over." So, Triqui Mexicans are being blamed for their own health issues, which is not in the least productive in their recovery and general well-being.  

 A medical degree which included cultural anthropology and community health curricula would let M.D.'s treat the unique person with the social context of that person in mind. This is probably the most effective when treating cultural or ethnic minorities, but I think it is important for any patient-physician relationship. In the case of the Triqui workers, what good does it do if a doctor prescribes rest to someone who will be made to work just as hard to make a quota? How is the clinical gaze limiting the care of Triqui patients? Ideally, adequate care for Triqui workers would address the interaction of social, environmental, and biological factors which influence their health and well-being on the Skagit farms and in the community at large. 

The rift between hard medical science and social science is not the only factor in the treatment of migrant workers in the Skagit and across the United States. Semantics has a large part to do with it, too. One can't turn on CNN without seeing news perpetuating terms like "illegal alien." "Undocumented worker" is a bit better of a label, but a label nonetheless. Associating these words with migrant workers brings attention only to the illegality and the "criminality" of their state of being. Those labels become attributed to a seemingly intrinsic nature that they may or may not possess. 

Debriefing The Superbowl: Are we a gladiator culture?

          Every Superbowl Sunday it seems, a new news article is published which likens the sport of football to the Gladiatorial games of Rome. As someone who is studying both anthropology and history, it is interesting to make connections from antiquity to the modern era, but these comparisons have to be analyzed along with the social and political framework of the times they are a product of.

          Let's take a closer look at American football with Roman gladiator culture in mind. These are the comparisons I have seen most commonly drawn. The setting: a football stadium, not unlike in appearance and function to a Roman coliseum. The players: athletes who have formed a communitas around a game which encourages displays of strength and speed, violence and danger. The crowd: everyday people, i.e. the 'mob,' are the spectators. A few distinctions must be made.

          Are American footballers modern-day Gladiators? Although Americans often seem to project the notion upon them and compare their violent game-play and celebrity status to Roman gladiators, we are not Rome. Roman gladiators were generally slaves, owned by the business class, and exploited for the entertainment of their blood splattering the arena. Rome was a culture that was martial throughout her history, and violence was integrated into military, political, and social spheres. They did not have any qualms about the head and hands of Cicero decorating the Rostra of the Roman Forum, and violence, especially at the close of the Republic, was the most expedient and efficient way for ambitious men to manipulate politics. It is certain that the Roman people were desentized to violence to a degree that is grossly disproportionate to modern Americans. The ancient world was an unforgiving and erratic place.

            This is not to say that we are not a martial culture, because we are. It is partly the violence of the game that entertains us. We do not, however, enjoy the spectacle of violence as a triumph of free citizens over slaves, and status over non-status as in Rome. American footballers are free citizens, not slaves as most gladiators were. Successful gladiators were sometimes given their freedom, along with wealth, social celebrity and prestige. However, it would have been difficult even for retired gladiators to have a political career, the most desired path for ambitious Roman men. Furthermore, they would likely not have lived long enough to enjoy fame or freedom. Free citizens were levied into the Roman legion if there was need of them or if the current political climate allowed, but this practice would have been intermittent. So, ex-gladiators as free citizens would probably not have had the opportunity for a political or military career.

         
            Overall, the game of American football does embody a collective set of values, some of which I think are competitiveness and a martial attitude but also hope, spirit, and team support.  I don't think the Roman people put as much emphasis on the last three as we do, and much more on the first two.