In this paper, I argue that technology will lead to the inevitable extinction of humanity as we know it. However this extinction can progress guided by the ethical principles of Utilitarianism, so at the very least there is a continuity of life, just in a technologically evolved form.

Technology is defined by Merriam-Webster as “a capability given by the practical application of knowledge.” (Merriam-Webster, Inc.). The ambiguity of this definition, especially in the phrase “practical application” is consistent with the context to which I write this paper. In my lifetime (born 1973), I’ve witnessed first-hand an astonishing technological transformation of my social landscape. The top technologies of my youth were the UHF enabled maybe six channel television and a rotary dialed telephone. Today, I live in a highly computerized world where my access and exposure to cognitively limitless information is a reality. I’ve lived through the technology transformation or an analog world to a digital one, and I am witnessing the technological emergence of a virtual reality clearly poised to transform our actual reality.

There are numerous factors beyond obvious commercial enterprise and natural human curiosity driving the rapid growth of technology, but my focus of inquiry in this paper is the direction technology is inevitably taking us, and the Utilitarian morality of this future. My position is technology converging with our species is inevitable going to lead to an extinction of our species as we know it. This will take one of two possible forms: Weaponization of future technology will lead to weapons so incredibly destructive their use leads to our extinction. Convergence of biology and technology resulting in first a hybrid biological / mechanical phase yielding over time to a full mechanical form, thereby displacing our current biological species.

So is the extinction of mankind via technological advancement moral? The unleashing of incredibly destructive technology clearly is not by any standard. The historic use of nuclear technology in WWII was clearly immoral by any standard and no sound utilitarian argument can be made to the contrary, including the assertion that there was no alternative. In fact, none of the scientist working on the program agreed the using the bomb on a civilian target was reasonable and offered numerous alternatives, one being a demonstration on a deserted island before the eyes of the United Nations.

There have been several essays suggesting that from a Utilitarian perspective, the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justified because less lives were lost than would have had a ground invasion become necessary. I reject this proposition because this falsely assumes a binary choice, which of course is not the case. From my perspective, the bombing was absolutely immoral based on Utilitarian principles because there was such a massive loss of life and other alternatives were not first exhausted, such as the option previously mentioned. However, this isn’t an essay on the debate over the Japanese bombing, the point here is to demonstrate an example of technology used as a lethal weapon, and substantiate the claim that mankind has historically used technology as weaponry and as a means to dominate others. There is no evidence to suggest that future technologies will not be weaponized, therefore from both a logical and historic perspective, I will proceed with the conclusion that future technologies can and will be weaponized, and future technologies can and will be used as a method of human control and dominance.There is also inconclusive evidence that suggests as technology increases, the magnitude at which human beings can alter the world also increases. For example, mankind collectively now alters the surface of the earth each year more than nature herself. All the natural erosion, chemical and physical weathering of the earth is less than the collective transformative effect of mankind due to technological advancements. As technology advances, an unlimited range of possibilities of environmental control are imaginable, and as previously asserted, these technologies may also become weaponized. I could easily imagine a world where the global climate is capable of being manipulated, where regional droughts, floods, or other natural disasters could be used as a form of sanctions against a non-compliant nation or organization. With this type of power, or other power I can simply not imagine, could the entire atmosphere be destroyed inadvertently? This type of disaster would only need to occur once to exterminate humanity.

The second proposition, mankind will converge with technology and technologically evolve to a new bio-mechanical, and then fully mechanical form. There is no evidence to suggest that biological function, including neurological function could not be replicated or replaced by a mechanical process. Although it is comforting to believe that there is a Platonic ghost in the machine, it turns out, even with much scientific inquiry there simply is zero evidence to support such a thing. We already are observing computerized mechanical implants used frequently to overcome biological deficiencies, such as pace makers and cochlear implants. There is even a man in Michigan with a bionic eye which does indeed provide him with some visual capabilities. Also, there exists a completely synthetic engineered cell which is capable of self-replication. These examples demonstrate the claim that mechanical and biological functions are not incompatible, and they are already on a pathway to convergence.

The other component to this realization is the therapeutic application for technological convergence with human biology. There is already therapeutic augmentation of biologic process through the use of surgery and pharmacology, for example performance enhancing drugs, plastic surgery, and enhancement surgery undergone by some professional athletes for competitive advantage. Yet there still remains sparse examples of therapeutic implantation or replacement of biologic components with mechanical replacements, I suspect due to cultural norms and that the current technology available is not sufficiently superior to the natural biological components. For example, no one is currently having their eyes surgically removed so they can be fitted with bionic eyes, or their arms removed to attach super strong robotic arms. Implanted technology will likely be supplemental and start with small enhancing augmentation and then inevitably evolve into imbedded interfacing devices, and then finally full mechanical replacements.

The utility of technological advances is clear. Technology has undoubtedly brought a much higher standard of living to human existence over time. Enormous populations, higher life expectancy, lower infant mortality, disease reduction, large scale access to information, etc. all result from technological advancements. So it would seem moral on the grounds of utility to continue to foster environments which encourage technological advancement, and even accelerate advancement. However, even at our current level of technological advancement, we are entering into a level of advancement where the potential scale of effect is unprecedented. A simple example is the first Chinese scientist that invented gunpowder had the potential to blow up his laboratory perhaps, but what is the potential impact of a more modern invention, such as Antimatter induced fusion and thermonuclear explosions? Discoveries in advanced physics and unprecedented megalithic structure to house particle accelerators and fusion reactors investigate advancements in energy production future beyond normal comprehension.

The last thought I have on the moral application of future technology is the actual limitations of the human mind and imagination. No matter how intelligent a human being is, the ability to imagine and consider all variables to extremely large systems is limited, not only by experience, but by physical mental capacity. Is anyone actually capable of imagining infinity, or perhaps imagining a color they have never seen? These simple examples demonstrate human cognitive limitations. Apply this same inherit limitation to emergent technologies built upon incredibly large technological systems, such as an artificial intelligence software. Some software and engineered technology is so sophisticated, none of the engineers on the build team fully understand the entire system. So as the complexity of technological systems expand beyond human capacity for comprehension, there is a natural void where moral judgement is suspended because of the inability to truly understand the system.

In closing, I assert that modern man will become extinct by advances in technology. This extinction can be catastrophic, or a natural progression where mankind converges with a mechanical computerized future. With enormous technological power and capabilities comes responsibilities to proceed cautiously and purposefully, but this task will be difficult given the intellectual limitation of comprehension. However difficult, mankind must cautiously progress into the future ensuring the most Utilitarian application of technologies possible to safeguard the next evolutionary era. Albeit a seemingly insurmountable challenge, the continuation of our legacy may depend on it.