On page 132 Gibson makes a reference to the expense of meat and the process of creating it. This procedure, arduous as it is, parallels new attempts to genetically modify meat. In fact, synthetic meat has already been created, and was likened to the flavor of soggy pork. The reference in Neuromancer articulates the problems with food production and the ability for technology to supplement this need. Genetically modified fruits and vegetables have become a part of our lives to the extent that it is hard to distinguish between GM and regular produce.
Another concept is something the entertainment industry is striving for, and would flourish in the invention of, on page 136 there is a reference to "dreaming real," a perfected and fully interactive hologram. Technology can simulate smell, sensation, and imagery, but has not fully incorporated these components into one system. The potential to create something so real is disturbing yet compelling. I could only wonder how violated our personal boundaries will become when we can synthesize intimacy.
Nevermind synthesizing intimacy - if something so real can be created, will people ever need intimacy with another real person again? Imagine being able to create your perfect spouse. They will never argue with you, never cheat on you, and will always share the same interests you do. When simulations become as "real" as real life but retain full customization, the question will become whether or not real life will even be something worth living after you're able to afford simulator and life support equipment.
ReplyDeleteI don't think we, as mere humans, know what we want... people spend a lot of time living in alternate realities (WoW) before they figure out how un-fulfilling simulated life truly is (based on the testimony of friends I know who have left these communities). The best relationships, in my humble opinion, are riddled with conflict because our mates balance our needs.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I think the idea of full customization of a spouse is enticing, but would end up being extremely boring and unfulfilling. If you have all of the power to customize your partner, there will be no surprises, good or bad, in your life and you would forgo the chance to learn new things, grow, and/or change as a person through experience with other, real people. Also, on a more evolutionary note, if people resorted to simulating intimacy and spousal relationships instead of actually having them, there goes the human race.
ReplyDeleteI think Jennie's point is worth reiterating: how is the human race suppose to continue with simulated spouses? Regardless of its capabilities, I don't think technology should ever serve to completely replace relationships. It doesn't have to either, because the scope and direction of technological innovation is, at least for the time being, up to us. I think these ethical boundaries should be a larger part of the dialogue in research & development fields.
ReplyDeleteThe idea of the interactive hologram reminds me of the presentation I did for the class. A professor at Osaka University in Japan has successfully created robots that look just like humans and even have realistic human movements (such as eye blinking and the chest rising and falling as though the robot is breathing).
ReplyDeleteThe biggest hurtle they have yet to jump is the ability for the robots to respond to complex ideas. They can answer simple yes/no questions and make juvenile remarks. But human motivation and thinking is so complex that it is, as of now, impossible to program into robots.
When that is possible, for robots to react and respond just as humans do, who knows what might happen? If robots can look and act like humans, are they still non-humans? If they have their own motivation, can they be considered human?