The 'Technological Singularity' and the Rise of the Machine

To get my blog rolling, I'm writing a introductory piece for each of the 6 topics, starting with technology (don't get too excited), specifically the 'technological singularity', as it covers most important elements and aspects of technology.

What is the technological singularity?

"Where the ENIAC is equipped with 18,000 vacuum tubes and weighs 30 tons, computers in the future may have only 1,000 vacuum tubes and weigh only 1 1/2 tons."

- Anon, 'Popular Mechanics', March, 1949

Most people are familiar with Moore's law, that computer chip performance will double every 18-24 months, in some form or another, but few reflect on the implications of this. If we assume that current trends continue, we can extrapolate a few rough predictions:

2020 - A personal computer with the processing power of the human brain will be in existence

2045 - A personal computer with the processing power of every human brain on the planet will be in existence

The inventor and futurist Ray Kurzweil has postulated that at some point in the future, a technological 'singularity' will occur, similar to the singularity at the centre of a black hole predicted by physics. This is the point at which technological progress, if plotted on a graph, essentially becomes a vertical line. But how would this suddenly occur?

Kurzweil predicts that once a computer is created with the processing power of the human brain (the hardware of the brain), it is possible to program the computer to think like we do by replicating the neuronal network in our own brains into the circuitry of the computer (the software of the brain). We then have a computer that, for all intents and purposes, is the same as our own brains. Would it be able to talk to us, feel, and think original as we do? Probably, yes. But would it be conscious? Would it be aware of its own existence? Well that's a topic for another day...

Now, imagine that a year or two after this first computer 'brain' is created, computer have again roughly doubled in power. A second computer is now created, but this one is twice as powerful as our own brain. This gives it twice the ability to reason, to think originally, to imagine and to create. It would be able to make new scientific discoveries, create new technologies or improve existing ones, and most importantly improve itself twice as well as a human can. We might then leave the computer to build a third 'brain' a little later which is even more capable of improving upon itself, and so on.

This becomes a self-reinforcing loop, with greater and greater progress made with shorter and shorter gaps. Within perhaps only a few months more progress is made than in the last 100 years. Within as little as a few years the ultimate potential of matter to compute (which is about 10^42 operations per second for 1kg of matter - 10 trillion times more powerful than all human brains on earth!) could be reached.


Whence singularity?

"You will know the Singularity is coming when you have a million e-mails in your in-box"
- Ray Kurzweil, 'The Singularity is Near'

Of course this might never happen, or not for thousands of years. There could be some fundamental problem in mapping the network of neurons into a computer, or there could be some currently unknown, unique element to our brains that cannot be replicated in a machine, or we may simply end up destroying ourselves before computers can become powerful enough (more likely than you think...)

But, if it is possible, the estimated time of the technological singularity varies. Ray Kurzweil puts the year as 2045, others put it earlier and some later. Personally, I think Kurzweil's got it about right (although I am a little sceptical that the singularity will even happen). Even if there are major problems in achieving the software of the human brain, the hardware should already be more than good enough by this time.


So what?

"Two billion years ago, our ancestors were microbes; a half-billion years ago, fish, a hundred million years ago, something like mice; then million years ago, arboreal apes; and a million years ago, proto-humans puzzling out the taming of fire. Our evolutionary lineage is marked by mastery of change. In our time, the pace is quickening."
- Carl Sagan, 'Pale Blue Dot: A Vision of the Human Future in Space'

So we end up with more and more powerful computer, but what use is that? (apart from letting you run Crysis at 100FPS [I bet no one got that joke...]) Well, as I hinted at earlier, computers aren't just good at making better computers, but can allow progress in every field of science and technology - genetics, nanotechnology, robotics, medicine, space exploration, food and energy production, and countless more. the singularity would be the defining point in the whole of human history, after which everything will be different. Just to give a handful of the technologies that could rapidly develop:

- Nanobots (robots on the nanoscopic scale) that can patrol the body to destroy pathogens and repair damaged cells
- Advances in propulsion that would allow interstellar travel
- Full immersion virtual reality indistinguishable from real-life
- Advances in genetics and medicine that could allow you to prolong your life for hundreds of years
- Technologies that could reverse environmental damage, end poverty and  provide a more than comfortable lifestyle for every human being

Perhaps the most important development, and the one that Ray Kurzweil sees as necessary, is the merger of humanity with technology. He argues that in order to even comprehend the immense change caused by the singularity, humans must amplify their own intelligence with that of the computer, even up to the point of 'uploading' your mind into a computer. This sounds like a scary prospect for most (including myself to an extent!), but would allow immortality to all extents and purposes.

It is well worth pondering the technological singularity - whether you think there is any chance of it occurring in the foreseeable future, and its implications on your life and view of the world.


The dangers of technology

"I think that their flight from and hatred of technology is self-defeating. The Buddha rests quite as comfortably in the circuits of a digital computer of the gears of a cycle transmission as he does at the top of a mountain or in the petals of a flower. To think otherwise is to demean the Buddha - which is to demean oneself."
- Robert M. Pirsig, 'Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance'

There are a plethora of dangers from technology, many of them existential. Already we are able to wipe out most of life on the planet with nuclear weapons, but the technology of the future could give us more efficient methods. Nanobots could be programmed to replicate indefinitely, consuming the entire planet, along with ourselves in the infamous 'grey goo' scenario (click the link if you want a good scare). Deadly, untreatable viruses could be engineered to wipe out large portions of humanity. There's always the danger of technology popularised in the 'Terminator' series, of a malicious artificial intelligence developing  intent on the destruction of mankind, but this is unlikely since the computer would be based on our own brain, and most of us don't really want to utterly destroy our own species (if you do, please seek help).

There is also a fair chance of the emergence of a violent, unscrupulous neo-luddite or anarcho-primitivist movement, opposed to the advance of science and technology, and advocating a return to a 'simpler' way of living. Perhaps through the ironic use of highly destructive technology they might carry out devastating acts of terrorism to further their cause.

Finally there is perhaps the greatest danger of the exponential rise of the machines. Do, by allowing technology to do everything for us, and by becoming drawn into the world of the computer, we lose something of what makes us humans. Might we become to technology what technology is currently to us - in other words, the transition from a world of humans that happens to contain machines, to a world of machines that happens to contain humans.

Conclusion

"The most common of all follies is to believe passionately in the palpably not true"
- H. L. Mencken

Ultimately, the singularity might happen in 20 years, in a thousands years or never at all. Whichever turns out to be true, it is important that we do not become complacent that it will happen and negate the world and its people today, safe in the knowledge that technology will save us all in time. It is equally important that we do not assume that the singularity will not occur, and fail to prepare ourselves and society for the profound effects of rapidly progressing technology, much of which may pose existential threats to our species.

Well a 600-page book could be written about the singularity, and in fact in has. If you're interested in anything brought up here, I highly recommend Ray Kurzweil's 'The Singularity is Near'. Some of it is heavy reading, but it's well worth it. I hope you've enjoyed the first non-introductory post written by myself, and would be delighted to hear any criticisms you have of the format or content of my posts.


- Daniel

Introduction

So, this is my blog. I thought I should probably give a little introduction to myself, and to the blog.

As you can see from my personal information to the right, I'm a sixth-form student living in the UK, with a keen interest in Science, Technology, Ethics, Philosophy, Politics and Sociology (S.T.E.P.P.S, if you hadn't worked it out yet). I study maths, biology, physics and chemistry for AS level, and hope to go into medicine after leaving school. So that no one reading this is under any illusions, I'm a humanist and a socialist (deal with it!) Now I'll give a introduction to the different topics covered by my blog:

Science: Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe (shameless Wikipedia copying and pasting, I know). But there's more to science than that.  It is, as far as we know, the best tool for understanding everything in our universe, from the quark to the galaxies, and from the virus to that most wonderous of things; the human brain. Science is the basis of almost everything that we take for granted in our technical civilization, from light bulbs to the space shuttle. Without a doubt, science is the most important element of our humanity - the drive to discover, to explore and to better ourselves.

Technology: Technology, in short, is the application of science to design, construct and use tools (of widely varying complexity) to perform a specific function. When I talk about technology, I don't mean the gadgets that various companies churn out (ehem... ipods, iphones...) that add little to our lives (apart from fun of course!), but the technology that can help us to grow food, to travel around our planet in a matter hours, or to explore the universe. I'll look at the technology that really adds something to our society, and especially important emerging fields of technology, such as nanotechnology and the development of artificial intelligence.

Ethics: Ethics is a branch of philosophy that is used to decide what is considered 'moral' or accpetable to do. It's a wide-ranging topic, covering issues from justice and crime to animal rights and medical ethics.

Philosophy: Philosophy is, as I like to think it, the waiting room of science. It is the place for questions that we can not yet answer using our preferred method, science, but that must wait for perhaps hundred of years, or may never be fully answered. It's the place of the really big questions that make your head hurt if you think too long about them, like "What is the meaning of life?" (other than 42 [haha...]) or "Why are you you?" Philosophy has evolved considerably from its roots millenia ago, and has narrowed somewhat, as parts of it have moved out of its own realm, and into the realm of science. However, it still has many crucial, unanswered questions that are well worth considering.

Politics: *Yawn!* Yes, politics can be boring, espeically in our two-party state, vote-every-four-years media circus, where all the parties are continually at eachothers throats about everything. Accordingly, I'll try not to look at every tiny decision that various governments make, but more at the interesting trends in politics, such as the sudden rise of the far right, or what the global economy might look like after (and if!) it begins to recover.

Sociology: This is the one that not as many people have heard of. Sociology is, in short, the scientific study of society. This makes it overlap significantly with the other five topics, making it of particular interest to me. It deals with issues such as war, nationalism, racism and why no one likes gingers (no offence). I'll explore events, such as the summer riots, as well as long term trends, such as the decline of religion, especially in developed countries.

Other: I'll probably end up sticking in the odd book, film or game review, anything interesting that happens in my life (there really isn't much, trust me) or whatever else I feel like writing about.


Well, that's an introduction. If you'd like any more information about the blog,  would like to make any suggestions or would like to contribute an article, just comment (and please don't be too harsh on me - this is my first ever blog post...)

Also, apologies for the labels at the top being out of order. It won't let me arrange them as I want... If anyone knows how to sort them I'd be grateful for some advice.


-  Daniel

Western Interference In Afghanistan: Part 1

Western Interference In Afghanistan: Part 1

[NOTE: THIS WASN'T WRITTEN BY ME, BUT BY A  FRIEND]

The unjust “War on Terror” was declared just over ten years ago, and it has been clear that the invasion of Iraq was over oil, as Saddam Hussein planned to export Iraqi oil in Euro’s and not dollars, giving them more economic power over the United States. What followed were sanctions and then invasion under a false pre-text and removal of Saddam Hussein and his Baath Party, and a humanitarian cost of about 100,000-110,000 civilian deaths from violence, and more from inadequate healthcare or malnutrition. Incidents of senseless slaughter as shown in the footage released by Wikileaks Collateral Murder, torture and other human rights abuses became common and the Iraq has now been destabilised by insurgency. Similar events have taken place in Afghanistan, but what are not as well-known are the true reasons for the invasion Afghanistan by NATO forces, but like with the reasons for the invasion of Iraq is based on energy reserves of oil and gas, but also geopolitical influence. This two part article will describe US complicity in events such as the start of a rebellion against Afghanistan’s communist PDPA to the rise of the Taliban.
 

The destruction of the Afghan civil war

On April 17th 1978, Mohammed Khaibar, a prominent member of Afghanistan’s communist party the PDPA (Peoples Democratic Party of Afghanistan), was assassinated allegedly by the government of Mohammad Daoud. Many others were arrested, but a number of active members of the PDPA’s military wing, most importantly Nur Mohammad Taraki, Babrak Karmal and Hafizullah Amin, managed to remain organised. These three men led a successful military coup d’état and overthrew Khaibar, and the following day, he and his family were executed. The overthrow was known as the Great Saur revolution and the country was renamed the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan. Its social reforms, including promotion of state atheism and restriction of tribal traditions – considered feudal in nature by the party - received backlash from religious and tribal leaders; this combined with the government’s use of a coup to secure power left them without much popular support. Rebellion amongst the citizens was inspired by repression and as a result, attracted the attention of the Soviet Union who subsequently invaded to stabilise Afghanistan in 1979. 

Six months prior to the Soviet Invasion, the US had launched a covert operation in Afghanistan to exploit the potential of social conflict, fostering unrest and rebellion among Afghan factions who were led by a feudal-based clergy to destabilise the PDPA and as a result provoke Soviet intervention. The resulting conflict would debilitate the Soviet Union. By exploiting the sentiments of the wealthy and powerful religious leaders, the US actively recruited warlords to form rebel groups. This reckless programme aggravated conflict between the rebels and government. The PDPA response was to arrest and execute any suspected rebels, instigating the first of major refugee flows to Pakistan. The detention and execution of innocent civilians seemed to give credence to the claims of the religious leaders, that the PDPA was a direct challenge to the Islamic traditions of the Afghan people. Subsequently, revolts broke out, against the perceived government repression, led by traditionalist leaders who wanted the feudal system preserved.

In December 1979, under the Brezhnev Doctrine which stated that the USSR would intervene to protect its socialist interests across the globe, the USSR conducted a full-scale invasion of Afghanistan to end the destabilisation. This was an act aimed to prevent a domino theory in which Islamic fundamentalism could spread to other Middle Eastern countries and create an Islamic Bloc that could rival the Soviet Bloc. Brezhnev wished to stop fundamentalism spreading across to the Soviet States in central Asia and causing destabilisation. There were also oil interests in the Persian Gulf region, and destabilisation would threaten the supply of oil to the USSR.

President Jimmy Carter announced that military aid would be given to Afghan guerrillas, resisting the Soviet invasion, under the newly created Carter Doctrine, which stated that the USA would use military means if necessary to protect its interests in the Persian Gulf, given that the area supplied oil to the USA, for which there has been a great deal of retrospective criticism, as this aid is still in use in the current conflict.

The US also escalated its destabilisation program, now that the Soviet Union was drawn in to the “Afghan Trap”, and central to this escalation was the manufacturing of extreme Islamic fundamentalism. Predominate themes were that “Islam was a complete socio-political ideology, that holy Islam was being violated by the atheistic Soviet troops, and that the Islamic people of Afghanistan should reassert their independence by overthrowing the leftist Afghan regime propped up by Moscow.”

Among the many US initiated policies to generate the desired intensity of religious extremism, was the funding of millions of dollars to produce and distribute textbooks in Afghan schools promoting and glorifying the war-values of murder and fanaticism, examining jihad along with drawings of firearms, bullets, soldiers and mines. These American-produced textbooks were still used in the Taliban regime’s core curriculum. The Washington Post cited anonymous US officials confessing that these text books “steeped a generation in violence”. Central Asia expert Selig Harrison warned the US government that they were “creating a monster”, but his warnings were not heeded and he was told that “they were fanatical, and the more fierce they were, the more fiercely they would fight the Soviets”. Examples of this extreme religious ideology that the US had cultivated were Mujahedeen commanders who were known to have thrown acid in the faces of women after they had refused to wear a veil, and committed horrific human rights violations in their war against the invading Red Army. Thus the US was aware of the nature of the virulent and dangerous fanaticism they had created.

Mujahedeen fighters in a gunbattle against communist governement forces

The invasion took its toll on the Soviet Union and the Afghan people. The total number of refugees that had fled stood at around 3.3 million. There are estimates of at least 600,000 Afghan civilians killed, with nearly 3 million wounded. The Red Army had more than 14,000 personnel killed and more than 50,000 wounded, and the Mujahedeen suffered one million deaths.

The Soviet Union lost billions of rubels on an unaffordable war due to stagflation in the economy, thus the debilitation that the US government desired, using the Afghanistan as a trap and using the Mujahedeen as proxy soldiers, had destroyed the lives of millions. Crucial irrigation systems for farming in Afghanistan’s arid climate were destroyed in aerial bombings and strafing by the Red Army of government forces, more than half the farmers had their fields bombed, and a quarter had their irrigation systems destroyed or livestock shot. The population of Afghanistan’s largest city, Kandahar went from 200,000 to 25,000 due to carpet bombing and bulldozing by the Afghan government and the Red Army, and 10-15 million land mines were scattered across the countryside. The Red Cross estimated that to remove all these would take 4,300 years. After Soviet withdrawal, child mortality was at 31%, and 67% of those that survived were severely malnourished.

After the withdrawal of Soviet forces in 1989, the conflict between the communist regime and the militant forces resisting the regime continued, and the PDPA survived for three more years until it collapsed when Kabul fell. In 1992, Afghanistan’s Mujahedeen factions agreed on the Peshawar Accords, which formed the Islamic State of Afghanistan. However this did not stop the conflict. In a secret agreement in 1991, the US, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan were active in making attempts to manipulate and exploit the conflict to their own ends, including the sponsoring of the warring factions, often with Pakistan being a middle-man. For example, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, who was opposed to the Peshawar Accords and whose forces were sponsored by Pakistan and the US, started rocket bombardments of Kabul which drove half a million civilians from the capital Kabul and killed another 20,000. Gulbuddin’s intensification of terror was carried out with weaponry financed by the US and Pakistan, while at the same time of inter-factional fighting was beginning to re-start when three militia groups took control over parts of Kabul and the second phase of the Afghan Civil War began, and all international interest in the conflict then disappeared and Afghanistan was on the brink of a total humanitarian catastrophe.

The Taliban was originally formed as a number of factions such as Harakat-e Islami and Mohammad Nabi Mohammadi, and without a centralized command centre. In mid-1994, the factions formed the Taliban movement and conquered Kabul in 1996. At the time of its creation it was fighting the Northern Alliance, an umbrella organisation of terrorists, murderers, rapists and warlords who were responsible for a horrific record of systematic atrocities, controlling a strip of land in Northern Afghanistan. 

The Taliban were later recognised as the legitimate ruling body of Afghanistan by several key governments: Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and the UAE, and clients of US/Western states. The Taliban’s record of atrocious policies was known about, and although the US openly condemned these, it contradicted itself by consistently ignoring support of the Taliban by its allies, and when the State Department did condemn interference in Afghanistan by other governments, they never mentioned who specifically did so. The US also contradicted itself by supporting the UN as a way to achieve peace in Afghanistan and then refused to allocate funds for the UN dues or US peacekeeping policies. The reason for these and other contradictory policies can be explained, with evidence, as sponsorship. The Taliban were known for the massacres of civilians, fanatical religious ideology, tortures and executions. But the Taliban took control of Kabul in 1996, ending the civil war, although there were still other insurgent groups which the Taliban militia were engaged in fighting with. The next article concluding this one will explain why the Taliban were sponsored by the US and explain the reason Afghanistan was invaded as a result of the declaration of the “War on Terror”: oil and power.

Kristian Smith