Who wants to live forever?

I'm often invited to speak about the future. Normally the invitation is for me to discuss what we can expect in the world of education and learning, and my presentations usually cover new and emerging technologies, new pedagogical theories, and a range of ideas about what future classrooms (if there are going to be any) might look like. There is also a range of ideas about changing roles of teachers and learners, and some speculation about what new technologies we might expect to see in the future. I very rarely tread onto very dangerous ground though. This is the speculative and controversial area of future humans.

Several terms can be used to describe our future as humans. Recently I wrote an article entitled Human 2.0, but the title is probably inadequate to describe the incredible and far reaching changes we might witness. I also wrote about the controversial potential of the impact of genetic, robotic, artificial intelligence and nanotechnology sciences on our future in GRIN and bear it. Another expression sometimes heard is 'post-human', but this sounds a little lurid and sensational, as though we have entered into a new phase in human evolution. Cyborg is a name given to those who are both cybernetic and organic by nature or design. The lines are blurred between how much technology we would need to integrate into and around/on our bodies before we actually begin to lose our humanity.

As Martin Rees, Astronomer Royal, claimed at a conference in 2013:

'Post-humans will evolve from our species not via natural selection but by design.  They could be silicon-based, or they could be organic creatures who had won the battle with death'

Whether or not this statement will ever be realised, we will need to wait and see. What we do need to ask though, is do we actually want a future like this? Do we really wish to subsume our humanity and immerse our identities under a sea of technology? Do we truly want to live forever? Am I alone in thinking that whatever name we decide to call our future collective state, and no matter how technologically advanced or integrated we choose to become with our technologies - we will, and must - always maintain an essence of our humanity.  Very few of us will really wish to live forever. Physically and biologically it is impossible to do so. Metaphorically, and with a stretch of our imagination, it may be possible. There are theories that we can live on (or at least our memories can live on) within the vast digital acreage of the cloud. This is already possible, because whatever we create and share via the cloud, is indeed preserved for future use by ourselves and others. But this is not our true essence, our consciousness, our real selves. It is merely a representation of each of us. It is merely another version, albeit more accessible and malleable, of the diaries, books, films, music, photographs, paintings and sculptures previous generations have left behind for us to experience. As the dying android in the movie Bladerunner says:

'I've... seen things you people wouldn't believe... Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched c-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate. All those... moments... will be lost in time, like .... tears... in... rain. Time... to die...'

To truly 'live forever', computers would need to capture our humanity, the true essence of who we are. And since it is impossible for any of us to conclusively define who we are, how can we ever expect a computer to work it out? Our ideas may truly be in the clouds, but our heads certainly aren't and we are still a very long way off from being 'post-human'.

As ever, your views are welcomed.

Single frame from the movie Bladerunner via Wikimedia Commons


Who wants to live forever? by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.