Anthonares

I just finished reading “Radical Evolution : The Promise and Peril of Enhancing Our Minds, Our Bodies — and What It Means to Be Human” by Joel Garreau, though I’ve already blogged about portions of it here and here. This entry is a bit of a broad overview of the book itself, and some final thoughts I have about the implications of the ideas within.

Garreau presents three “scenarios” for our coming evolution: Heaven, Hell, and Prevail. Each scenario is championed by an individual or series of individuals, and supported by either facts or events. He then succinctly summarizes each scenario in order to contrast them and offer a series of “predictions” or guideposts to tell which of his three paths we are headed down. This lumping of a disparate group of ideas into three broad categories is both innovative and slightly limiting, though I think it helps to clarify the topic and drive the narrative more than it misconstrues the subtleties of reality.

Heaven is championed by Ray Kurzweil, and consists of the central theme of humans either evolving out of our biological confines or of us originating our silicon successors. The Hell scenario is much the same, though as championed by Bill Joy predicts much darker consequences for our future. Instead of benign computer overlords we get ruthless enslavement or even simple extermination.

The Prevail scenario comes from a variety of people, and is something of the creation of Garreau’s. He argues that humans have an uncanny ability to “muddle through” most anything, including any coming Singularities. The Prevail scenario differs most importantly from the other two in that it does not accept the idea of a Singularity as defined by Kurzweil. Instead of some undefined point in the near future beyond which our crystal balls of extrapolation simply break down, the Prevail scenario sees slowing growth, particularly in our assimilation of technological change. It argues that exponential increases in computational power do not necessarily equal exponential societal change.

In a final section entitled “Transendence” Garreau editorialized a bit more freely than previously. Here he lays out his vision of our transformation, and displays most fully his optimism in humanity itself. He suggests embracing the changes that must come. Instead of allowing them to change human nature, we should force those changes to become part of our existing and constantly evolving human nature. We dictate the terms of our own evolution.

Garreau’s experience as a journalist comes out strongly in “Radical Evolution”. His tone is a bit sensationalist, he presents his ideas and themes without much subtlety and does not seem to analyze any of his topics too deeply. Instead, he “reports” on a set of facts, individuals, and events while weaving them into a narrative that is driven by his commentary. Interestingly, the book lacks chapters entirely (being instead divided into sections), but the author’s ability to segue between topics makes the book flow along nicely. His voice, though omnipresent, is always pleasant and stands in nice relief against the somewhat radical ideas of the individuals he features. However, his journalistic neutrality is (mostly) maintained throughout, and every viewpoint is treated fairly and fully. I look forward to a follow-up work by Garreau as the rapid progress of the very technologies he writes about will necessitate an update soon.