Essay Prompt

This need to be structured in MLA format. Prompt for Transcendent Man

I first became aware of Ray Kurzweil many years ago, but was introduced to this documentary about him by a student a few semesters ago. I knew his book, The Age of the Spiritual Machines, but hadn't, up until that time, been aware of his theories concerning "the singularity."

Unquestionably, Kurzweil is a brilliant inventor and a man of vision. His work has helped millions of people - not only those of us who use flatbed scanners, but the millions of those who can now "read" due to his work with technology for the blind. Furthermore, no one can argue the fact that technology has been experiencing exponential growth for decades. What is in question, however, is just exactly where this growth is leading us. ??

While some of those interviewed in the documentary agree that humans and machines will someday merge, others think the idea is absurd. For example, William Hurlbut, an M.D., fears what might come of this, and also thinks that Kurzweil should take a more moderate approach. Conversely, Ben Goertzel, an AI engineer, supports Kurzweil's theory, but also warns that such a blending of man and machine could lead to some sort of dystopian society. Similarly, Kevin Warwick, a professor of cybernetics at the University of Reading, sees a Terminator-like scenario developing, while Dean Kamen thinks that advances in technology may, in fact, make immortality possible at some point in the future.

What do you think? Is Kurzweil correct in assuming that we (humans, that is) will, sooner or later, have to be artificially augmented in order to keep up with the ever-increasing advances in technology? Would you be willing to submit to such augmentation? To be injected with nanobots in order to stay ahead of the machines? Or do you believe that all of this is just speculation on the order of science fiction - I, Robot or Blade Runner???

On another, more philosophical, level, should man strive to be immortal? It's certainly something that mankind has dreamed about for centuries, but should we seriously attempt to attain it? What type of problems would such technology generate? Would it lead to "Artilect Wars" as suggested by Hugo de Garis? Should such knowledge, even if we can attain it, be "forbidden." Is it playing God? Should we heed the advice of Mary Shelley's Victor Frankenstein and leave well enough alone? As Jurassic Park's Dr. Malcolm warns us, we all to often are concerned with "can I?" instead of "should I?" Or, is it too late, because, as Kurzweil says, one cannot stop progress?

Essay

If Shelley's Frankenstein taught us anything it was that man should not play God. Enlightenment Man -- Victor Frankenstein to be specific -- is enamored of science in the gothic novel and obsessed with recreating life, or rather reanimating life. He succeeds, but fails to plan for his creation's soul. The monster's soul yearns for companionship, well-being, and even God -- and...
...

Instead of peace, he ends up pursuing revenge -- murdering the wife of his creator and ultimately leading Frankenstein into the Arctic, where the two are lost in a figurative icy Hell. The ideas underlying Frankenstein are that human life is precious, that it is endowed with a soul by a Creator; indeed, the essence of the novel is that God exists, that man is not God, that God has a purpose in mind for man. Though the novel does not expressly reveal this purpose, history does provide some insights -- especially the history of the Christian West. For believing Christians, the purpose of life is to know, love and serve God so that we may be happy with Him in the next world. Various cultures have expressed this same view in different ways: Hindus express it in the idea of reincarnation; Buddhists in the idea of Nirvana. The point that these cultures, religions and philosophies make is that life has a purpose. Christianity explicitly states, moreover, that this mortal life here on Earth is not an end in and of itself but rather a beginning -- the prelude to eternity, which is found on the other side of the grave. Choosing which eternity we will posses depends upon our disposition: we may choose ourselves and go to Hell, or we may choose Christ and go to Heaven.
For the Christian, death is not something to be avoided, but rather something that is a punishment for sin -- for Original Sin -- that which makes human nature fallen. AI, as Kurzweil sees it, is a way to avoid death, to escape the debt that the Christian God has placed on all creation. For Kurzweil, the myth of religion is most likely not something he genuinely feels compelled to regard as important. His interests are in science, in nanotechnology, in "the law of accelerating returns," as he calls it (Casti 663). Not everyone believes as he does, however; some, who still maintain the traditional views of the past and of the Old World in particular are more inclined to abstain from venturing too far into a contemplation of playing God -- of obtaining immortality without Him. Too many myths for ancient times (the Greeks and Romans, for example) tell what happens when presumptuous man flies too close to the sun. Kurzweil appears to be daring us to do just that. His vision is certainly bold -- but it also seems to discount the whole of human history in the sense that human nature is what it is: and for those who believe that God has created man, man's spirit is not evolutionary. It, in fact, is God's and is called to return to God. This return is a humbling experience, as man's pride ever since the Fall (according to the Christian narrative) is his own worst enemy, constantly leading man to consider himself an end in himself, his own passions and interests the only that matters. In his pride, he fails to consider how he must look to an infinite Judge Who is really the source of all things.

None of this matters, of course, if the world chooses to embrace the vision offered by Kurzweil. Many may seek…