Effect of the singularity on social institutions in

Stanley Gary Ross
Park University
Student Research & Creative Arts
Symposium 2013
Faculty Mentor: Beverly Bohn

The effect of the Singularity on social institutions in the
future will be transformative beyond comprehension. In
order to grasp the significance of those transformations,
one must first comprehend the meaning of the Singularity;
and in order to appreciate the import of the Singularity, one
is obliged to apprehend the arc of technological progress
from the inception of humanity to its potential zenith.
Technology is an inherent and innate attribute of our
species; it is the essence of what lifted us out of the cave
and is sending us to the stars. Our social institutions have
evolved and transformed throughout history in conjunction
with our technological progress. Let us project those
transformations into an almost unimaginable future.

The most fundamental tenet of technological progress—of
human progress—is its ―historical exponential‖ character which
needs to be understood relative to ―the intuitive linear‖ perspective
(Kurzweil, 2005, p. 10). For thousands of years, mankind failed to
perceive the imperceptible yet constant progress of technology and,
with it, the evolution of society; ―people didn‘t think in terms of
progress a thousand years ago. There actually was progress, but it
was so slow as to be unnoticeable‖ (Merging With the Machines,
2010, p. 57).
The future is widely misunderstood. Our forebears expected it
to be pretty much like their present, which had been pretty
much like their past. Exponential trends did exist one thousand
years ago, but they were at that very early stage in which they
were so flat and so slow that they looked like no trend at all.
(Kurzweil, 2005, p. 10)

Consider how much time elapsed between the emergence
of modern humans and the development of agriculture, between
agriculture and the discovery of the wheel, and the innovation of
writing, and the concepts of mathematics and democracy, and still
more time until the introduction of the printing press, and the
steam engine, and the industrial revolution. To our modern
perspective, technological growth actually was very slow in its
development; however, it was progressing—exponentially. Since the
industrial revolution, a more noticeable pattern of growth has
become manifest; time-spans between advances are conspicuously
shorter, and advancements more spectacular. Contemplate the
relatively brief period between the beginnings of modern physics
and the discoveries of DNA, nuclear energy, and the transistor—
and how short the interval between the Wright Brothers and the
landing on the moon.

This gradual yet ever-increasing rate of change can now be
recognized as visible and evident exponential growth. The stark
realities of high-tech advancements from the origins of the
computer to the PC to the Internet are incontrovertible.
Developments are arriving at an ever faster pace; the exponential
rate, itself, appears to be accelerating exponentially. What kind of
future is this dynamic revolution taking us to? Now, that we
apprehend the arc of technological progress, we can begin to
appreciate the meaning of the Singularity and its significance for
the future of social institutions. ―What, then, is the Singularity? It‘s
a future period during which the pace of technological change will
be so rapid, its impact so deep, that human life will be irreversibly
transformed‖ (Kurzweil, 2005, p. 7). Now, to imagine those
transformations…

The greatest difficulties in researching the technological
ramifications of the future are that the future has not yet happened and,
consequently, it cannot provide any empirical expertise to consult. The
only alternatives are to reference present-day authorities, to research
advancements in the various fields of technology, and make projections
and predictions based on the best available evidence. The Singularity, as
defined by Kurzweil (2005), is a theoretical future period predicated on
the bases of the most recent technological advancements and the
assumption that technology will continue to progress in exponential
fashion indefinitely into the future. The effect of the Singularity on social
institutions needs to be estimated in light of those advancements and in
the context of assumed exponential progress. One professional, in the
fields of telecommunications, networking, and IT security, stated
emphatically, ―Social institutions, as we know them, may become extinct‖
(B.A. Ross, EnCE, personal communication, July 2, 2012). Extinction of
social institutions is not that radical an idea, when viewed from the
perspective of future technologies.

Most basic to the suspension of disbelief and to the
acceptance of probabilities is the ascendance of artificial intelligence
(AI) as the dominant organizing and operational construct underlying
all technological advancements. Developments in nanotechnology will
provide the computational faculties required for AI to become the
prevailing intelligence, superseding humans as rulers of technology.
―The advent of molecular computer chips only hastens the time when
machines will achieve the ability to think, plan, intuit, and respond in
ways that are beyond human capacity‖ (Gorewitz, 1999, p. 351). Our
machines will become more intelligent than those who made them.
Nanotechnology in concert with AI will drive the innovations
of the future, influencing social institutions in somewhat predictable
ways. The disciplines of healthcare are already experiencing rapid
advances in technology that portend a future of physiological vitality
and longevity. ―We will see nanotechnology and biotechnology
making impacts on our life that might seem like magic to us but will
be quite normal to our children‘s children‖ (Pearson & Neild, 2006, p.
31). The effects of this ―magic‖ are becoming manifest:

In essence nanotechnology entails the…manipulation of matter
at a scale ranging from single atoms to micron-sized objects. It
has already enabled miniaturization of many current devices
resulting in faster operation or enhanced integration of several
operations. From the biological standpoint, nanomaterials
match the typical size of naturally occurring functional units or
components of living organisms and, for this reason, enable
more effective interaction with biological systems. (Raffa,
Vittorio, Riggio, & Cuschieri, 2010, pp. 127–128)
The long-range consequence of nanotechnology on the field
of healthcare conceivably could effect an institutional paradigm shift.
Imagine having ailments and disease repaired or prevented before
any damage is done; the objective of the medical profession would
be to maintain health rather than treat sickness. At the same time Ray
Kurzweil was writing The Singularity Is Near, he co-authored a book
with Terry Grossman entitled Fantastic Voyage: Live Long Enough to Live
Forever:

In Fantastic Voyage, [the authors] provide readers with the
information they need to live long enough and remain
healthy enough to fully experience the wonders of life in the
post-Singularity world. In writing these two books, Ray has
painted a clear picture of the future and provided a
blueprint for how to get there. (Grossman, 2006, p. 41)
Kurzweil‘s vision of a healthy future is rapidly taking hold;
―Nanotechnology has ushered a new era of nanomedicine and life
nanoscience with very significant potential for more effective
therapy of life-threatening or disabling disorders‖ (Raffa et al.,
2010, p. 134).
Billions of nanobots will travel through the bloodstream in
our bodies and brains. In our bodies, they will destroy
pathogens, correct DNA errors, eliminate toxins, and
perform many other tasks to enhance our physical well-
being. As a result, we will be able to live indefinitely without
aging. (Kurzweil, 2005, p. 300)

Living forever may not be feasible—or even advisable—but
remaining healthy into old age poses some novel psychosocial issues
for gerontologists to ponder. A study of the social implications of a
healthy population is, however, beyond the scope of this paper.
There are also those who disagree with Kurzweil‘s fantastic future:
While we‘ll certainly learn to push human capacities to their
natural limits in coming decades, I see nothing on the
horizon that would allow us to exceed those limits. Biology
seems far too frail, slow, complex, and [well-defended] (both
at the molecular level and with regard to social custom) for
that to be plausible within any reasonable time frame.
Furthermore, by the time we are able to substantially
improve our biology, we probably won‘t want to, as there
will be far more interesting and powerful technological
environments available to us instead. (Smart, 2006, p. 46)

The issue of longevity also raises questions of spirituality.
Will humans, with access to limitless intelligence and virtual
immortality alter their perception of the divine? Or will the
consequences of hubris continue to be mankind‘s undoing? It
would be pure conjecture to speculate on the state of spirituality in
such a future; somehow, I envision the need for institutions of
religion to remain inviolate. Whether AI is capable of taking on the
human dimension of spirituality is yet another matter:
Will machines make moral distinctions? Will they foresee
their own demise? Will they suffer doubts? How does a
machine behave when it is uncertain? I am not sure if we
really want these questions to have answers. After all, it is
only the human that recognizes the soul in things, who is
conscious of suffering. What is the machine‘s process of
communion, of seeing the light, of finding faith? (Gorewitz,
1999, p. 352)

These are questions that will confront future generations,
for their world will be inhabited by intelligent technologies. ―The
prospect of living technology makes many people uneasy...most
people think about Frankenstein or Crichton‘s Prey‖ (Bedau,
McCaskill, Packard, & Rasmussen, 2010, p. 95). ―Biotechnology and
nanotechnology are often compared. One should not forget,
however, that fundamental opposition toward nanotechnology is
less likely than toward biotechnology. The latter, [biotechnology], is
seen as tampering with nature, whereas the former,
[nanotechnology], does not evoke such associations‖ (Siegrist, 2010,
p. 844).
There are, however, welcome changes in our military
institutions; warfare is already being transformed by technology, and
future means of conducting operations are being conceived in light
of bio and nanotechnologies. ―The terms ‗military‘ and ‗operations‘
may become obsolete‖ (Kunstler, 2011, p. 5) in the context of our
present and past concepts of warfare:

The cause of this change is quite glaringly obvious. New
core technologies such as nanotechnology, robotics, genetic
engineering, ―supercomputing,‖ magnetics, photonics,
applied quantum mechanics, imaging, and wave resonance
are ushering in a suite of military capabilities that would
have been inconceivable as recently as the Vietnam War era.
(Kunstler, 2011, p. 5)
Technological advancements will entirely transform
traditional methods and tactics; modern warfare, as presently
perceived, is dependent on extensive and complicated logistics
necessary to implement and maintain equally ―massive and complex
weaponry‖:

In contrast, in the new era of weapons based on the
aforementioned new core technologies, massive destructive
power will require minimal logistical support and very few
or no human agent(s). Geography and topography will
become less important, as will the competitive advantage
conferred by military training, firepower, and the size of
one‘s forces. (Kunstler, 2011, p. 8)
Warfare conducted without the sheer weight of military
force is made possible by seemingly miraculous developments:
―autonomous weapons authorized to fire at [their] own discretion;
bacteria used to break down explosives in mine fields; smart-
bacteria weapons to alter behavior of [the] enemy; [swarms of]
robots with polymer muscles and strong AI [in place of humans]‖
(Pearson & Neild, 2006, pp. 32–36); cloaking of infrared profiles to
disguise targets making them appear as nonthreatening objects; and
―photonics [that] can facilitate real-time electronic warfare waged by
a unit carried by one person‖ (Kunstler, 2011, p. 14). Humanity
continues to excel at destroying itself as a pretext for defending
itself. Now, the question is, can civilization endure and flourish
given the level of intelligence possible in the very near future?

Intelligence is the operational word in the answer to that
question. The knowledge that is taught, how it is disseminated, and,
ultimately, how it is used will determine the fate of mankind.
Educational institutions are pivotal in this regard; theirs is a crucial
task, foundational to all progress and development that is built upon
the accumulated knowledge and wisdom of human history. ―Most
education in the world today, including in the wealthier communities,
is not much changed from the model offered by the monastic
schools of fourteenth-century Europe‖ (Kurzweil, 2005, p. 336).
The transition, however, to a ―decentralized educational system‖ has,
even now, begun:
We are now in the early stages of this transformation, but
already the advent of the availability of vast knowledge on
the Web, useful search engines, high-quality open Web
course-ware, and increasingly effective computer-assisted
instruction are providing widespread and inexpensive access
to education. (p. 336)

Kurzweil envisions a future wherein ―students at any age,
from toddlers to adults, will be able to access the best education in
the world at any time and from any place‖ (p. 337). In a post-
Singularity world, ―the nature of education will change…when we
merge with nonbiological intelligence. We will then have the ability
to download knowledge and skills, at least into the nonbiological
portion of our intelligence‖ (p. 337). Assuming the reality of such a
scenario, educational institutions, as we know them, will no longer
be necessary, and the need for teachers—human teachers, that is—
may also come to an end.
Will we still be human? ―Some observers refer to the post-
Singularity period as ‗posthuman‘ and refer to the anticipation of
this period as posthumanism‖ (p. 374). Are technologically modified
humans still human? Do neurological implants and nanobots
coursing through our bodies change the human equation? ―Our
merger with our technology has aspects of a slippery slope, but one
that slides up toward greater promise, not down into Nietzsche‘s
abyss‖ (p. 374). As long as humanity preserves civilization, society
will have need of its institutions, as much to guide the populace in
its values and behaviors as to express the values of its culture:

In 1486, Giovanni Pico della Mirandola eloquently centered
all attention on human capabilities in his manifesto of the
Italian Renaissance, Oration on the Dignity of Man. In it, God
says to Adam, ―We give you no fixed place to live, no form
that is peculiar to you, nor any function that is yours alone.
According to your desires and judgment, you will have and
possess whatever place to live, whatever form, and whatever
functions you yourself choose.‖ (Garreau, 2006, p. 34)
―‗The future can‘t be predicted,‘ is a common refrain…But…when
[this perspective] is wrong, it is profoundly wrong.—John Smart‖
(Kurzweil, 2005, p. 35).

The Singularity is inevitable; civilization is visibly on the cusp
of technological transformations affecting all aspects of social
institutions. Historically, institutions have been slow to respond to
changing societal norms and values, but change they must. There
will always be Luddites resisting and protesting the persistent march
of progress; ―we still have people today who want to live as we did
in the seventh century‖ (Kurzweil, 2005, p. 473). The wave of the
future has immersed society in a technological tsunami, inescapable
and tenacious in its grasp, altering patterns of human behavior and
catalyzing evolutionary progression.
―The overwhelming fact of contemporary life is the
geometric acceleration of technological development‖ (Mead, 2006,
p. 160). The curve of progress, that appeared so flat for eons,
perceptibly began to rise as the span between innovations became
shorter.

―Exponential growth is seductive, starting out slowly and virtually
unnoticeably, but beyond the knee of the curve it turns explosive
and profoundly transformative‖ (Kurzweil, 2005, p. 10).
Technological advancements are now beyond the knee of the curve,
no longer gently rising but on a vertical climb. Transformations
arrive ever more rapidly, and society is obliged to adjust its
institutional paradigms in order to keep pace. To comprehend
exponential growth during this vertical ascent requires a revised
perspective:
When measured by today’s rate of progress, we won‘t
experience one hundred years of technological advance in
the twenty-first century; we will witness on the order of
twenty thousand years of progress, or about one thousand
times greater than what was achieved in the twentieth
century. (p. 11)

This explosive escalation and intensification of progress
demands not only an entirely innovative analytical and critical
perspective but also an acceptance of radical adjustments and
adaptations to revolutionary modes of living. A conception of the
future is founded on present knowledge and projections of known
technologies. Nanotechnology and artificial intelligence are still in
their infancy, yet give the appearance of science fiction. What
emerges next is perhaps unimaginable:
The pace of technological change will be so fast and far-
reaching that human existence on this planet will be
irreversibly altered. We will combine our brain power—the
knowledge, skills, and personality quirks that make us
human—with our computer power in order to think, reason,
communicate, and create in ways we can scarcely even
contemplate today. (Kurzweil, 2006, p. 39)

Ethical and philosophical questions will abound concerning
distinctions between human and machine intelligence, but these
distinctions will no longer matter; ―biological and non-biological
intelligence working together [will create] a human/machine
civilization‖ (Merging with the machines, 2010, p. 59). Intelligence
will not be measured by the IQ of an individual but ―by the
intellectual capability of civilization‖ (p. 59).
The perception—and fear—of non-biological intelligence
dominating civilization may well come to pass; ―but it‘s still going to
be one civilization with people having different philosophies and
arguing about values‖ (p. 59). ―Will robots inherit the earth? Yes, but
they will be our children. [Marvin Minsky, 1995]‖ (Kurzweil, 2005, p.
260).

Bedau, M.A., McCaskill, J.S., Packard, N.H., & Rasmussen, S. (2010).
Living technology: Exploiting life‘s principles in technology.
Artificial Life, 16(1), 89–97.
Garreau, J. (2006). Will we still be fully human?. The Wilson Quarterly,
30(1), 32–34.
Gorewitz, S. (1999). The age of spiritual machines: When computers
exceed human intelligence by Ray Kurzweil [Review]. Journal
of Religion and Health, 38(4), 351–352.
Grossman, T. (2006, March-April). Ray Kurzweil‘s plan for cheating
death. The Futurist, 41–41.
Kunstler, B. (2011). Extreme asymmetric warfare of the future.
World Future Review, 3(3), 5–16.

Kurzweil, R. (2005). The Singularity is near: When humans transcend
biology. New York, NY: Penguin Books.
Kurzweil, R. (2006, March–April). Reinventing humanity. The
Futurist, 39–46.
Mead, W.R. (2006). The Singularity is near: When humans transcend
biology by Ray Kurzweil [Review]. Foreign Affairs, 85(3), 160–
160.
Merging with the machines: Information technology, artificial
intelligence, and the law of exponential growth: An
interview with Ray Kurzweil. (2010). World Future Review, 57–
61.
Pearson, I., & Neild, I. (2006, March–April). A timeline for
technology: To the year 2030 and beyond. The Futurist, 31–
36.

Raffa, V., Vittorio, O., Riggio, C., & Cuschieri, A. (2010). Progress in
nanotechnology for healthcare. Minimally Invasive Therapy &
Allied Technologies, 19(3), 127–135.
Siegrist, M. (2010). Predicting the future: Review of public
perception studies of nanotechnology. Human & Ecological
Risk Assessment, 16(4), 837–846.
Smart, J. (2006, March–April). Technology and human enhancement.
The Futurist, 46–46.

Effect of the singularity on social institutions in

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to Effect of the singularity on social institutions in (17)

Effect of the singularity on social institutions in