via dogonews.com
Renny Gleeson in a Ted Talks address posed a challenge to the illustrious audience of forward thinkers to focus their efforts on making “technologies that make people more human and not less”. In light of this challenge, where do technologies such as Augmented Reality or more importantly Human Augmentation fall? Does “more” human = super human or was Renny referring to reaching the full measure of a healthy humans unaided potential? Technology has shown us prosthetic legs propelling humans to near record speeds, 20/40 eyesight and spy like hearing, but I would argue that only technologies that help people reach their full natural potential (like Oscar Pistorius) will result in increased levels of happiness whereas technologies that augment humans full natural potential will not.
For example:
Would anyone want more than a “full” head of hair?
If a C cup is good is 38KKK better?
If twins are fun, why not octuplets?
So, if I’m right and extreme human augmentation isn’t going to result in increased levels of happiness what about augmented experiences?
Recently there have been a lot of discussions about Augmented Reality at Sitewire and I think it’s important to discuss the ethics of some of these emerging technologies and start to paint the vision of where we are going. Our goal at Sitewire has always been to take the high road and invest in technologies that enhance the experience for both users and advertisers. For example both UI and Search Marketing help advertiser sell products and services while helping shoppers quickly find what they are looking for- win win. Ratings and Reviews help mitigate challenges associated w/ the paradox of choice thus increasing the likelihood that shoppers will make a decision resulting in a purchase – win win. In similar vein, I believe that well-thought-out AR will result in improved live search, entertainment and enhanced experiences (especially for those that are homebound). As with all new technologies we are going to see a lot of hype and gimmicks, but the experimentation, technology advancements and innovation that happens while coming up with these gimmicks are going to pave the way for a new reality, not a reality that replaces that experience of seeing the Grand Canyon for the first time or summiting the Grand Tetons, but it’s not hard to invision a reality that beats shopping at WalMart on black Friday.
What do you think, is Augmented Reality the most pointless gee whiz you’ve ever seen or are we going to look back 5 years from now and wonder how we ever lived without it?
{ 1 trackback }
{ 6 comments… read them below or add one }
I believe that the human augmentation movement will be similar to our experience with money. Being out of debt increases happiness dramatically, but as your fortunes grow past the point of your needs, joy doesn’t grow in direct proportion.
Not surprisingly, I have a different take on the future of human augmentation. First I’ll answer your three example questions with questions of mine own.
– What’s the point of humans having body hair anywhere? Runner, swimmers, & cyclists would be the first to jump on board with that type of augmentation.
– It wasn’t all that long ago that the opposite was more desirable. Will the overall importance of breasts decline to a point where they simply aren’t necessary, sort of like an appendix?
– Humans do a pretty good job of reproduction right now. But what about extreme cases in the distant future when we need a more efficient way to grow offspring than the human womb can provide?
My point is this: our definitions of “extreme” augmentation and “full natural potential” will mean little in a just a few generations. Heck, maybe even our own. Our ability to predict how technologies will be used — for better or for worse — is hampered by our own imagination and our adherence to cultural norms. Norms that will be quickly outdated, and imaginations that can only be expanded.
Wait, was this supposed to be about advertising?
E.
i believe human augmentation could be a remarkable step forward into our evolution but as with most things the government will most likely militarize its application to create “super-soldiers” i know your thinking BS that’s just science fiction but whats to stop them experimenting with reaction speed or agility or strength. of course there will be many morality issues that will take many many years to overcome (if ever) but it could have many benefits.
Whoever says Augmentation is bad loses much respect from me. What is the difference between experimenting with the human body to, say make you run faster, or buying the latest shoes from Nike and scoffing an energy bar? Aside from the Augment working for longer (and thus being a kajillion times more expensive) there is no difference. What is the difference between getting mechanical eyes that could see in the dark and installing lights that turn on or off when you clap? The eyes have more range because you can leave the house and still see what is going on. You could perhaps find your way to the bathroom without waking other sleepers with the light. What is the difference between adapting yourself to suit an environment or adapting an environment to suit yourself? The difference is that you do not cause as much damage to the environment or discomfort to others who don’t want the adaption. You change yourself so that others who do not wish to change do not have to. Compare it to it to wearing headphones so that you do not disturb others with your music selection. How long until you can get a chip implanted in your head that plays your music? Is this Augmentation bad? No, it really isn’t getting a sub-woofer implanted on your person would be bad, and stupid as the vibrations would mess with your tissue. Augmentation offers many opportunities for mankind and as long as we do not have idiots trying to get 38KKK boobs or clone too many children to feed we should be fine. It is a science like any other and if used by people who don’t aim to be douchebags (yeah potential sub-woofer guys with bad taste in music I’m talking to you!) it has the potential to become standard within 3 generations. That is if we can keep the conservative Right wing idiots who still don’t believe in evolution at bay…
I can say I’m against human augmentation. Sure, it would be very remarkable for human evolution, but it would be detrimental to society as a whole.
One huge point is that human augmentation would be extremely expensive. You aren’t just getting something similar to a boob job or nose surgery. This is a technology that would need to surpass an already suitable organ such as our eyes. This would mean only upper-class citizens would have the advantage to run better, see better, think clearer, or live longer. This would make it so upper-class people with augmentations preferable for jobs and make the gap between lower/middle class and upper class extremely wide.
Another point is hacking. Anything can be hacked. This could not only destroy whatever augmentation you have, but it can also endanger/kill anyone that has an important augmentation.
So, honestly, I think people who desire augmentation really need to think it through a little bit more. Sure, it’s a cool sounding technology, but, if it honestly ever comes to the point where people without disabilities can get augmentations then I really don’t want to be alive to see the effects of it.
I’ve got to say I don’t know about augmentations. I’d probably augment myself if given the chance with proven safe technology, but I do agree with the position that it would create an incredible wealth gap. There would have to be a lot of government regulations regarding hiring practices
of augmented versus natural workers…
As a side note, Deus Ex: Human Revolution was actually a video game that brought up this exact debate that I see in the comments here (in a pretty tasteful and intelligent manner, no less).