This paper examines two robotic exoskeleton inventions developed at universities — one at the University of Tsukuba in Japan and one at the University of Twente in the Netherlands — through the lens of Joel Garreau's Radical Evolution framework. The paper outlines Garreau's main ideas and underlying assumptions concerning GRIN technologies (Genomics, Robotics, Information Technology, and Nanotechnology) and their capacity to transform the human condition. It then evaluates the potential of these inventions across three competing future scenarios: Kurzweil's optimistic "heaven," Joy's cautionary "hell," and Lanier's humanistic "prevail." The analysis draws on Moore's Law, the limits of biological extension, and questions about what it means to remain human as technology increasingly modifies the mind, body, and lifespan.
The paper demonstrates multi-framework comparative analysis: a single subject (robotic exoskeletons) is systematically evaluated through three distinct theoretical lenses in sequence. This structure — introduce subject, establish frameworks, apply frameworks — is a reliable method for organizing analytical essays in technology ethics and futures studies.
The paper opens with a brief orientation paragraph that previews all major sections. It then presents the two inventions as empirical cases before introducing Garreau's theoretical framework. The longest analytical section applies three competing future scenarios to the inventions in turn. A concise conclusion synthesizes the philosophical tension between technological possibility and human identity. The structure is linear and previewed, making it easy to follow across its five sections.
Moore's Law has not only held true over the years, it has even been surpassed in recent years. This paper provides an analysis of two inventions developed at universities, applying Garreau's Radical Evolution GRIN framework — Genomics, Robotics, Information Technology, and Nanotechnology — to evaluate their significance. It begins with a synopsis of Garreau's main ideas and the assumptions behind them, then examines how those ideas apply to the inventions. Finally, the paper evaluates the potential of these inventions through the lens of Kurzweil's "heaven," Joy's "hell," and Lanier's "prevail" scenarios before drawing conclusions about these trends.
Invention No. 1 — University of Tsukuba, Japan. Scientists at this university invented a partial-body robotic exoskeleton capable of allowing even polio victims to walk again. The exoskeleton is powered by mechno-servers that amplify the wearer's existing physical abilities and provide ways to otherwise control the exoskeleton appendages in cases of disability (Chiu, 2009).
Invention No. 2 — University of Twente, the Netherlands. A team of researchers at this Dutch university invented a lower-body exoskeleton that can help paraplegics walk and allows eight degrees of freedom in movement. This invention was commercially available in mid-2012 (Top ten robotic exoskeletons, 2013).
The first main idea advanced by Garreau is that people today live during a period in history when it has become possible to extend human life indefinitely. According to Garreau (2006b), "We are at a turning point in history. For the first time, our technologies are not so much aimed outward at modifying our environment" (p. 32). Technologies are increasingly aimed at modifying the internal environment as well, facilitating the human-computer interface. As Garreau emphasizes, "Increasingly, [technologies] are aimed inward — at modifying our minds, memories, metabolisms, personalities, and progeny" (p. 32). A reasonable scenario from this perspective would be an extension of the human lifespan within somewhat reasonable limits, perhaps as long as 200 years.
The second main idea concerns the implications of these trends for humanity. A full century of science fiction in which humans become robot-like through technological innovations is becoming reality today, and these trends have caused many observers to ask what the implications are for the human species. The introduction of exoskeletons such as those described above is consistent with these trends, but the implications remain unclear. As Garreau asks, "If we can do that — not in some distant science-fiction future but in the next five, 10, 15 years — then are we not talking about altering what it means to be human?" (2006a, p. 33).
A third idea advanced by Garreau is that technological innovation will outpace the Grim Reaper in the near future. Moore's Law may need to be reconceptualized, since its thesis that computer processing speeds double approximately every 18 months has been compressed to just a few months — and many experts predict that these rates will continue to accelerate. According to Younger (2006), "In the last decade, we have become the first species to start directly altering and enhancing our intellectual and physical gifts. The amazing capabilities of our genetic, robotic, information, and nano processes — call them the GRIN technologies — are doubling every few months" (p. 33).
According to Garreau, the logical extension of these trends suggests that the day may come — and sooner than many people think — when the cyber-mechanical-exoskeleton human interface becomes sufficiently sophisticated to pass the Turing test. Garreau emphasizes that, "It may not be long before you run into a young lady so seriously modified that you might ask whether she represents a transcendence comparable to the difference between Neanderthals and today's humans" (2006b, p. 34). Just how much of the "human" can be replaced before people are no longer human? These changes in physicality will surely have some effect on the individual psyche, but when does the spark of humanity depart?
After the kidneys, spleen, heart, lungs, liver, and other vital organs have been replaced? Or after the legs, torso, and arms have been replaced with a full-body exoskeleton? Some theorists such as Garreau argue that it will even be possible to transfer the entire store of human memory and emotion into these "cybermechanopeople," so that the essence of individuals can live on long after their physical deaths. As Garreau puts it, "She might have a significantly transformed mind, memory, metabolism, and personality. You'd be curious whether this had changed her immortal soul" (2006a, p. 34). This final scenario is a chilling prospect in many ways, though it may not be fully achievable, as noted below.
One of the fundamental assumptions of Garreau's thesis is that technology will outpace human frailties. Other authorities argue, however, that the biology and physics involved may reach their logical limits long before computer processing speeds reach theirs. As Braun (2011) points out, "In the year 2011, we do not possess the medical knowledge or the technological ability to radically extend the lifespan of a human" (p. 48). Braun suggests it may not be possible to extend the human lifespan beyond the century mark by any measurable degree: "We have a much greater understanding of human biology, genetics, and the importance of nutrition than previous generations, but nothing proven to help someone live beyond the 122-year record lifespan" (2011, p. 48).
Is it possible to marry man and machine and still remain human enough to need religion? Kurzweil's conceptualization of "heaven" suggests that it may be possible, in the foreseeable future, to realize the man-machine cyborgs that have so far existed only in science fiction. According to Braun (2010), "Given the multitude of scientific endeavors to extend human longevity it is very plausible that one or several of them will be successful. Further, this is a worthy human pursuit, particularly to those unsatisfied by religious offers of eternal life" (p. 48). To the extent that technology can meld mind, body, and machine will likely be the extent to which human reliance on mainstream religion is diminished.
From Kurzweil's perspective, the prospect and realization of immortality through technologies such as the exoskeletons described above would mean that mere humans become superhumans no longer dependent on God, with hyper-secular humanism becoming the guiding philosophy of the future. Some religious theorists argue, however, that people living longer — perhaps very much longer — does not necessarily diminish faith, but rather provides more time to understand the relationship between the divine and creation. Braun (2011) asks, "Should Kurzweil's estimation of the mortality line be taken seriously or should it be judged alongside history's many failed apocalyptic pronouncements?" (p. 48). Just as debate over stem cell research has delayed potential advances in medical technology, fears about what immortality might mean for Homo sapiens introduce similar hesitations. As Braun (2011) advises, "A discussion about the prospects of science developing ways for humans to transcend mortality should break down into two basic questions: could we and should we?" (p. 48).
Because Moore's Law is being outpaced, Braun (2011) argues that advances in technology will outpace human mortality to the degree that extended longevity — possibly indefinite longevity — can be achieved. As Braun puts it, "In short, medical therapies will repair the biological damage caused by aging faster than we age" (p. 48). Critics have argued, however, that Kurzweil's models mistakenly extend exponential growth too deeply into the future to be considered reliable. Even though Moore's Law has accurately described exponential growth in computer processing power since 1965, the laws of physics will prevent indefinite miniaturization of computing power. Therefore, despite inventions such as the exoskeletons described above, Kurzweil's "heaven" may remain the stuff of science fiction.
You’re 71% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.