しおり　JapanNEWSその２

INSIGHTS into the WORLD / Hopes and fears for the future of science
　
4:00 am, April 20, 2015

By Masakazu Yamazaki / Special to The Yomiuri Shimbun
In October, I wrote in this column about “steady state society,” a theory that is gaining momentum especially in Japan. In that article, I said to the effect that modern society has already reached its limits of growth because of dwindling natural resources, the deteriorating environment and the detachment of financial markets from the real economy. I concluded, therefore, that we should now endeavor to rebuild society without clamoring for continued growth. I still think the theory is cogent.

In the meantime, a group of intellectuals in the world of thought focuses on what appears to be the rosy side of the future, an idea that is exactly opposite to the abovementioned theory. It seems their influence on society cannot be ignored, either. What they tout can be called “techno-scientism” with all-around value put on science and technology — they contend that the advancement of science would ensure “near-limitless” prosperity for the human race. They present their theory so eloquently that some media organizations have been involved in their push. A good example is “Next World — Our Future,” a series of five weekly installments broadcast from Jan. 3 on the “NHK Special” prime-time program

The host of the program was Michio Kaku, an American futurist and theoretical physicist, who talked about “American dreams” in a way that, to me, looked optimistic and self-confident. The new sort of futurology he introduced in the program is said to have emerged mostly in the United States and is supported by billionaire businessman Bill Gates, among other prominent people. The futuristic theory cited in the program is in stark contrast to that of steady state society. I decided to write this article with a belief that Japanese newspapers should broaden their perspectives and involve themselves in the ongoing global debate on civilization.

The central figure in popularizing the techno-science futurology is American inventor and futurist Ray Kurzweil. His famous book, “The Singularity Is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology,” was translated into Japanese with the Japanese version having already run through a few editions. In the book, the author elaborately presents his logic by referring to a wide range of material, yet his far-flung assertion is plain and simple. So, let me briefly follow what he writes about.

Kurzweil predicts that the explosive and rapid development of technologies such as genetics, nanotechnology and robotics since the latter half of the 20th century will eventually revolutionize our civilization and transform human capability by around 2040.

He has an outstanding level of knowledge and self-assertion ability. As far as his analysis of the latest state of and his predictions of the future of science and technology are concerned, it is not easy to dismiss them as absurd. Especially what he foresees with regard to “nanobots” — a fruit of the combination of nanotechnology and robotics — makes a reader’s heart flutter as a matter of course. Nanobots are most likely to be active in the medical field in the future as they are expected to be capable of delivering cancer drugs directly to tumor sites in precise ways and repairing or even being used as substitutes for the disease-affected bloodstream and digestive system.

Kurzweil sees even far beyond that. According to him, nanobots may take over the conventional nutrient intake function and set the human body free from the conventional function of elimination, a situation in which human beings may effectively dispose of the existing digestive system.

Despite accepting the biological transformation of humans in the future, Kurzweil does have a strong belief in the basic concept of humans and the human-centric philosophy. In this context, part of the Japanese title of his book — “Post-Human” — may evoke misunderstanding among Japanese readers. What the author has in mind is a future world with humans transcending the biological system with cell-size nanobots replacing biological cells and machines taking over the function of bones and muscular tissue.

As long as Kurzweil observes things about the world outside the human race, he shows no signs of ambiguity. For example, he expects nanotechnology to enable an atom-by-atom redesigning and rebuilding paradigm, which in turn will lead to the construction of nanofactories producing particles, a step that is likely to create nanomachinery that may reverse the increase in carbon dioxide emissions. Furthermore, he expects nanotechnology to reduce energy consumption, while increasing the conversion rate of clean and renewable solar energy into electricity several thousand times by utilizing in outer space new materials, called “nanomaterials,” to the extent that solar energy will become the source of the bulk of our future energy needs.

To keep skeptics from rejecting his predictions as anything but pipe dreams, Kurzweil cites historical facts and data to prove that there has been exponential growth in science and technology to date. The exponential graphs he uses show explosive upturns occurring “with unexpected fury” in the exponential growth curves once they reach what is called the singularity. He borrowed this word to title his book “The Singularity Is Near.”

Certainly, it seems science and technology today, especially artificial intelligence as pointed out by Kurzweil, is progressing at a revolutionary speed. Of late, there are some artificial intelligence prototypes that are capable of academically thinking about, solving and correcting approaches to problems — all on their own. They appear to be designed to mimic the human brain almost perfectly and, as the author proposes, if they are embedded in nanobots to be inserted in the human brain, human intelligence is likely to be immensely enhanced. As such, I feel I have no choice but to acknowledge his foresight.

Though the U.S. author thus remains full of confidence almost throughout the book, interestingly, he indicates in the latter half of it that he still feels uneasy about his position. In one of the imaginary conversations appearing in the end of each chapter, he confesses, “But the mystery of why I am this particular person is what I really wonder about.”

Kurzweil has his own views about “who I am” and “what I am” and what the sameness of his self means. There seems to be no problem about his views. According to his theory, since the body is constantly changing as cells are turned over at regular intervals, “I am a completely different set of stuff than I was a month ago, and all that persists is the pattern of organization of that stuff.” He then says, “Perhaps, therefore, we should say I am a pattern of matter and energy that persists over time.” This seems to be the end of his assertion. Yet, he seems to be aware that he is still inconclusive in that he adds in another simulated conversation at the last page of the relevant chapter, “Actually, I don’t know for sure that anything exists other than my own thoughts.”

After reading “The Singularity Is Near” up to this point, readers now can understand that what he refers to as the pattern of change in human cells is what is commonly known as the “human body.” In the philosophy of today, the “human body” is an important concept. For example, my “limbs” belong to me as parts of an object that is recognized as “I.” When I say I walk, the human body of mine is anything but “I” as a subject. The point here is that the human body is a concept indispensable particularly when thinking about a particular individual or the existence of “I.”

Now it is clear that in his book Kurzweil concentrates on virtually disassembling the human body from start to finish without paying any respect to the human body as an integration of various elements, including cells.

In the beginning, Kurzweil proves to be anthropocentric by indicating that he believes in himself, though he otherwise places all human qualities, including intelligence and feelings, outside himself. He then creates a world that is supposed to be entirely controlled by him — the moment at which he ironically loses everything within his self, which actually should be the subject to control such a world.

As the human body is so ambiguous a thing that it is difficult to determine whether it controls “I” or vice versa, it is natural for Kurzweil to skip this kind of proposition. However, by doing so, he simultaneously loses sight of the ambiguity of humans — one’s self exists both as a subject and as an object.

The fundamental basis of human rights is for each individual to be “a particular self.” No doubt, Kurzweil is an honest person because he is troubled by the possibility of this particular fact contradicting the concept of nonbiological human technology.

I wish the author could have given due consideration to the fact that we have our limits — the essence of humans — and that, because of such limits, we feel happy. Indeed, because of hunger, we feel happy when we eat enough, and in our academic or business endeavors, we feel happy when we are able to overcome difficulties.

While acknowledging that it is a trend of the times to scientifically try to transform the human body to make humans more powerful, I feel that what society now needs more than ever before is the philosophy about what humans are.

Yamazaki is a playwright and critic. Previously he served as a professor at Osaka University and chaired the Central Council on Education. The government has bestowed on him the Person of Cultural Merit award