Digitalization surrounds us all the time. We depend on it and we are enhancing it. With
\nmodern technology, humankind will adopt godlike skills, which even might allow us to
\npostpone death. In his worldwide bestseller \u00abHomo Deus\u00bb, the historian Yuval Noah Harari
\nphilosophizes about how our lives will change in the course of digitalization.<\/p>\n
Wherein do you see the link from deity \u2013 which you describe in<\/span> Homo Deus means \u00abman-god\u00bb. It refers to humans who Do you think that there are limits to technological development?<\/span><\/p>\n I don\u2019t know. Given enough time, almost anything might be\u00a0achieved.<\/p>\n In your opinion, from which technological invention has<\/span> From many inventions. Thanks to new technologies, today Looking ahead, humankind will have huge power and responsibility<\/span> Technology could certainly help us to deal with the major What social consequences does progressive digitalization<\/span> There is a danger that digitalization will result in much bigger Will it soon be possible to postpone death using modern technology?<\/span> For most of history, death was seen as a metaphysical phenomenon. In which social areas have humans already become unnecessary?<\/span> Many professions are already in the process of disappearing \u2013 If I\u00a0arrive at the clinic complaining of fever and diarrhea, I might Will Artificial Intelligence ever be able to replace human emotions<\/span> As explained in the example above, AI will be able to acquire In the course of your life, which technological achievements<\/span> I value antibiotics and vaccinations highly because without Could you imagine living with a yet undetected native tribe in<\/span> At 41, there is no way I can acquire the necessary skills to Do you sometimes take a deliberate timeout from our technological<\/span> I dedicate two hours every day to meditation, and every year <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Digitalization surrounds us all the time. We depend on it and we are enhancing it. With modern technology, humankind will adopt godlike skills, which even might allow us to postpone death. In his worldwide bestseller \u00abHomo Deus\u00bb, the historian Yuval Noah Harari philosophizes about how our lives will change in the course of digitalization. Wherein […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":7,"featured_media":3335,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[5],"tags":[],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n
\nyour book \u2013 to a new stage of human evolution in the age of<\/span>
\ndigitalization and the Internet of Things?<\/span><\/p>\n
\npossess divine abilities. We are not there yet, but we are on the
\nway to become gods. I mean this literally. We will acquire
\nabilities that traditionally were thought to be divine abilities \u2013
\nin particular, the ability to engineer and create life. Just as in
\nthe Bible God created animals, plants, and humans according
\nto his wishes, in the 21st century we will probably learn how to
\ndesign and manufacture animals, plants, and even humans
\naccording to our wishes. This will not just be the greatest revolution
\nin history, but the greatest revolution in biology since
\nthe appearance of life on earth. For four billion years, the laws
\nof natural selection governed life. No matter what strange and
\nbizarre shapes life undertook, it remained confined to the
\norganic realm. Now science might replace natural selection
\nwith intelligent design and might even start creating nonorganic
\nlife forms with the help of genetic engineering. We will
\nuse direct brain-computer interfaces in order to create cyborgs
\n(beings that combine organic parts with inorganic parts) and
\nwe may even succeed in creating completely inorganic beings.
\nThe main products of the 21st century economy will not be
\ntextiles, vehicles, and weapons but bodies, brains, and minds
\ninstead. After four billion years of organic life shaped by natural
\nselection, science is ushering in the era of inorganic life
\nshaped by intelligent design.<\/p>\n
\nhumankind already benefited in this age of digitalization?<\/span><\/p>\n
\nmore people are dying from eating too much than from eating
\ntoo little and more people are dying of old age than from infectious
\ndiseases for the first time in history. There are still billions
\nof poor people in the world suffering from malnutrition, but
\nmass famines are becoming rare. In the past, every few years
\nthere was a drought or flooding or some other natural catastrophe,
\nfood production sharply declined, and millions of
\npeople starved to death. Today, humankind produces so much
\nfood and can transport it so quickly and cheaply, that natural
\ndisasters by themselves will not result in mass starvation anymore.
\nThere are no longer any natural famines in the world \u2013
\nthere are only human-made ones. The difference between earlier
\ndays and today is, that humankind would be capable of\u00a0preventing
\nsuch famines, e.g. through politics and sustainable\u00a0behavior.<\/p>\n
\ndue to digitalization. How do you think people will use<\/span>
\nthat power in the future, when visualizing the best case?<\/span><\/p>\n
\nproblems of the 21st century. Take climate change, for
\nexample. The only way to stop climate change is to stop
\neconomic growth. However, no government can do that and
\nremain in power. Therefore the only realistic hope of stopping
\nclimate change is to develop new eco-friendly technologies
\nthat can sustain economic growth without destroying the
\necosystem.
\nDiseases are another obvious example. By constantly monitoring
\nyour body with biometric sensors and by sharing and comparing
\nyour data with those of millions of others, corporations
\nand governments could offer you much better healthcare than
\never before. They could e.g. detect cancer when it is only
\nbeginning to spread in your body and when it is very easy to
\ncure. They could similarly warn you against impending heart
\nattacks, tell you exactly what to eat and when, and advise you
\nabout what kind of climate and work suits you best. However,
\nto enjoy such wonderful healthcare, you will have to give up
\nyour privacy, and allow the government or the corporation to
\nconstantly monitor you and to know you better than you know
\nyourself. It is a hard and frightening choice.<\/p>\n
\nhave in your opinion? Will there be bigger class distinctions in<\/span>
\nthe future? How will those differences become noticeable as<\/span>
\nseen in concrete examples?<\/span><\/p>\n
\nclass differences. Economic and political power might be
\nconcentrated in the hands of a tiny elite. Most people might
\nbecome economically useless and politically powerless. As
\nbiotechnology improves moreover, it will be possible to extend
\nhuman lifespans and to upgrade human abilities, but the new
\nwonder treatments might be expensive, and might not be
\nfreely available for everybody. Therefore human society in the
\n21st century may be the most unequal in history since the
\nupper classes will not only be richer than the rest of humankind,
\nbut will also live much longer and be far more talented.
\nFor the first time in history, economic inequality will be translated
\ninto biological inequality. Hence humankind will split\u00a0into biological
\ncastes \u2013 an upper caste of upgraded superhumans,
\nand a massive lower class of useless people. We may
\neventually enter a post-work world.<\/p>\n
\nWhat will the life expectancy of humankind then be?<\/span><\/p>\n
\nWe die because God decreed it. People believed
\nthat death could only be defeated by some grand metaphysical
\ngesture such as Christ\u2019s Second Coming. Lately science has
\nredefined death as a technical problem and believes that
\nevery technical problem has some technical solution. We do
\nnot need to wait for God in order to overcome death, a couple
\nof geeks in a lab could do this. A number of very serious scientists
\nbelieve that we should at least be able to dramatically
\nincrease human lifespans in the 21st century, even if we don\u2019t
\novercome death altogether. They point out that, in the 20th
\ncentury we have doubled the average life expectancy from
\nabout 35\/40 to 75. Thus, we should at least be able to do so
\nagain. Personally, I am more skeptical. It is true that over the
\nlast 100 years the average life expectancy has doubled, but it is
\ndangerous to extrapolate and conclude that it will be easy to
\ndouble it again. In pre-modern societies, the average life
\nexpectancy wasn\u2019t high, because people died young from malnutrition,
\ninfectious diseases, and violence. Yet those who
\nescaped famine, plague, and war could live well into their seventies
\nand eighties, even in ancient times. The average natural
\nlifespan of \u00abHomo sapiens\u00bb seems to be somewhere between
\n70 and 90. So far, modern medicine has not extended this by
\none single year. For that, medicine will need to reengineer the
\nmost fundamental structures and processes of the human
\nbody. I doubt we can do that by 2050 or 2100. However, within
\nanother century or two, it might well be possible to grant
\nunlimited lifespans, at least to the rich, who could afford the
\nnecessary treatments. Therefore, my position is that humankind
\nhas the potential to overcome old age and death, but it
\nwill probably take a few centuries rather than a few decades.<\/p>\n
\nIn which areas will humans always be essential?<\/span><\/p>\n
\nfrom farm workers to travel agents. I do not think there is any
\narea in which humans will always have an edge. Automation
\nthreatens to replace not just taxi drivers and textile workers,
\nbut also teachers, lawyers, and doctors. For example, the first
\nand foremost task of most physicians is to diagnose diseases
\ncorrectly and then suggest the best available treatment.<\/p>\n
\nbe suffering from food poisoning. My physician has only a few
\nminutes to make a correct diagnosis and to cross-reference
\nthis information with my medical history and with the vast
\nworld of human maladies. The same symptoms might result
\nfrom a stomach virus, cholera, cancer, or some unknown new
\ndisease. Alas, not even the most diligent doctor can remember
\nall my previous ailments and checkups. Similarly, no doctor
\ncan be familiar with every illness or drug, or read every new
\narticle published in every medical journal. To top it all, doctors
\nare sometimes tired or hungry or perhaps even sick, which
\naffects their judgments.
\nNow consider IBM\u2019s famous Watson \u2013 an artificial intelligence
\nsystem that is now groomed to do more serious work, particularly
\nin diagnosing diseases. An Artificial Intelligence (AI) such
\nas Watson has enormous potential advantages over human
\ndoctors. In its databanks, it can hold information about every
\nknown illness and medicine in history. It can update these
\ndatabanks daily, not only with the findings of new researches,
\nbut also with medical statistics gathered from every linked-in
\nclinic and hospital in the world. Watson will also be intimately
\nfamiliar with not only my entire genome and my day-to-day
\nmedical history, but also with the genomes and medical histories
\nof my parents, siblings, cousins, neighbors, and friends. It
\nwill know instantly whether I visited a tropical country recently,
\nwhether I have recurring stomach infections, whether there
\nhave been cases of cancer in my family, or whether people all
\nover town are complaining about diarrhea this morning.
\nBesides, Watson will never be tired, hungry, or sick, and will
\nhave all the time in the world for me. I could sit comfortably on
\nmy sofa at home and answer hundreds of questions, telling it
\nexactly how I feel. Indeed, an AI system will not need to wait
\nuntil I feel pain and start complaining. It could monitor my
\nblood pressure, heart rate, sugar level, and brain activity 24
\nhours a day via biometric sensors. Therefore, it could diagnose
\ndiseases when they are just beginning, and when it is still
\ncheap and very easy to deal with them. A plethora of tough
\ntechnical problems still prevent AI systems like Watson and its
\nilk from displacing most doctors tomorrow morning. Yet these
\ntechnical problems \u2013 however difficult \u2013 only need to be solved
\nonce. The training of a human physician is a complicated and
\nexpensive process that lasts years, and in the end, all you get
\nis one doctor. If you want two doctors, you have to repeat the
\nentire process from scratch. In contrast, if and when you solve
\nthe technical problems which are still hampering AI from displacing
\nmost doctors, you will get an infinite number of doctors,
\navailable 24\/7 in every corner of the world.<\/p>\n
\nand empathy?<\/span><\/p>\n
\nemotional intelligence and to understand human emotions
\neven better than we can. Sticking to the Watson example, some
\npeople argue that an algorithm could never replace human
\nempathy. If your CT indicates that you have cancer, would you
\nprefer to receive the news from a cold machine, or from a human
\ndoctor attentive to your emotional state? How about receiving
\nthe news from an attentive machine that tailors its words to
\nyour feelings and personality? Emotions are biochemical phenomena
\nand an AI system could detect your emotions with the
\nsame accuracy as it detects your tumors. A human doctor recognizes
\nyour emotional state by analyzing external signals such as
\nyour facial expression and your tone of voice. An AI system could
\nnot only analyze such external signals more accurately than a
\nhuman but simultaneously analyze numerous internal indicators
\nby monitoring your blood pressure, brain activities,
\nand countless other biometric data. Hence, an intelligent IT
\nsystem could know exactly how you feel and could then tell you
\nprecisely what you need to hear in just the right tone of voice.
\nFor all their vaunted emotional intelligence, human beings are
\noften overwhelmed by their own emotions and react in counterproductive
\nways. For example, when encountering an angry
\nperson, they start shouting, and when listening to a fearful person,
\nthey let their own anxieties run wild. Watson would never
\nsuccumb to such temptations. Having no emotions of its own,
\nit would always offer the most appropriate response to your
\nemotional state. However, it seems far less likely that AI will
\ndevelop emotions of its own. We should not confuse intelligence
\nwith consciousness. Intelligence is the ability to solve problems.
\nConsciousness is the ability to feel things, such as pain, joy,
\nlove, and anger. In mammals, the two go together. Consequently,
\nhigh intelligence has always gone hand in hand with consciousness
\nuntil now. However, intelligence is now decoupling
\nfrom consciousness. We are developing non-conscious algorithms
\nthat can play chess, drive vehicles, fight wars, and diagnose
\ndiseases better than we can. Science fiction movies generally
\nassume that in order to match and surpass human
\nintelligence, computers will have to develop consciousness. But
\nreal science tells a different story. There might be several alternative
\nways leading to super-intelligence, only some of which
\npass through the straits of consciousness. For millions of years,
\norganic evolution has been slowly sailing along the conscious
\nroute. The evolution of inorganic computers may completely
\nbypass these narrow straits, charting a different and much
\nquicker course to super-intelligence.<\/p>\n
\naffected you significantly?<\/span><\/p>\n
\nthe help of modern medicine I would probably have died long
\nago. I also value the invention of the internet since I met my
\nhusband online.<\/p>\n
\nthe Brazilian primeval forest in harmony with nature and without<\/span>
\nany form of technology?<\/span><\/p>\n
\nsurvive in a primeval forest. However, if I could live as a
\nhunter-gatherer there, I would most value the physical and
\nmental skills such a lifestyle develops. In particular the ability
\nto pay attention, to smell, to see, and to hear. When ancient
\nforagers and peasants found a mushroom, for example, they
\nate it with the utmost attention, aware of every little nuance of
\nflavor, which could distinguish an edible mushroom from its
\npoisonous cousin. Today we do not need such keen awareness.
\nWe can walk into a supermarket while texting messages
\nand buy any of a thousand different dishes. Whatever we
\nchoose \u2013 Italian pizza or Chinese noodles \u2013 we are likely to eat
\nin haste in front of the screen, checking emails, or watching
\nsome television show, while hardly paying attention to the
\nactual taste. I would also like to note that all human societies \u2013
\nincluding hunter-gatherer tribes in the primeval forest \u2013 rely
\non some sort of technology (bows and arrows, flint knives,
\nclothes, etc.). Similarly, it is a fantasy to imagine that huntergatherers
\nhave always lived \u00abin harmony with nature\u00bb. Even
\nbefore the Agricultural Revolution, human hunter-gatherers
\nhad driven to extinction about half of the large land mammals
\nof the planet. Mammoths, for example, were eliminated by
\nhunter-gatherers rather than by modern industry.<\/p>\n
\nsociety?<\/span><\/p>\n
\nI take a long meditation retreat for 30, 45 or 60 days. I practice
\nVipassana meditation, which I have learned from a teacher
\ncalled S. N. Goenka. Vipassana is a method for observing the
\nmind in a systematic and objective manner. The mind is
\nconstantly in contact with body sensations. In every moment
\nwe always experience some sensation within the body,
\nand the mind reacts to it. Even when we think that we are
\nreacting to an email or a tweet or a YouTube video, we are in
\nfact responding to some bodily sensation that is present here
\nand now. In Vipassana one trains oneself to observe the body
\nsensations and the mind\u2019s reactions to them in an orderly and
\nobjective way, thereby uncovering our deepest mental
\npatterns, and helping us to see reality as it is rather than our
\nown imaginations. Thus meditation is a timeout from technological
\nsociety, but it is not an escape from reality. It is getting
\nin touch with it. At least for two hours a day I actually observe
\nreality as it is, while for the other 22 hours I get overwhelmed
\nby emails and tweets and funny cat videos.<\/p>\n