A conversation among friends.

• Author: Hennig, Steven

FADE IN:

INT. LOCAL BAR--DAY

JAMES, a young bookish looking man is sitting at the end of the bar. An American scientist and academic, James is dressed casually. Two fresh MEDALLA beers sit in front of him, but several empty bottles are near by. A small flower blooms on top of the bar, growing out of a bottle of Clorox Bleach. That's the type of bar we're in.

James is joined by KAY. A Canadian, and fellow academic, Kay is young and vibrant. She has an easy grace about her.

KAY: I see you've ordered drinks already. Thanks.

JAMES: What kind of host would I be if I hadn't?

KAY: I'm not sure there's much point to this though.

JAMES: That's just because you haven't opened your mind to alternatives. All I ask for is the benefit of the doubt.

Kay smiles.

KAY: Whatever you say.

JAMES: I missed your speech at the symposium, but I heard about it. Your hostility towards Kurzweil is a little harsh, don't you think?

Kay sits down and opens her cerveza. She turns down the plastic glass offered by the BARTENDER.

KAY: I just think that you techno-optimists are putting too much faith in your flaunted Moore's law. It seems like typical human arrogance again.

JAMES: Ouch. You haven't even had a drink yet and already I'm arrogant?

KAY: Just wait till I get warmed up.

She takes another drink as she settles into her bar stool.

KAY: Before we even get started, I want to know what makes you think that we can create these super intelligent beings when we can't even solve something like world hunger or poverty?

JAMES: All of these discussions are rooted in human nature.

KAY: Enlighten me.

JAMES: What does it mean to be human? What separates us from the rest of nature?

KAY: I think I could happily argue that very little separates us from nature. Indeed, it envelops us. We exist either in a state of nature that we are in conflict or sympatico with. Either way, nature is going to win.

JAMES: I prefer to look at the tools. The technology that we have sets us apart from the rest of our bio-system.

KAY: There's that same human arrogance I was talking about. We might be able to manipulate our environments, but we still live in a complex world of give and take with nature.

JAMES: I concede that we give and take with nature, but it is our technology that flows from nature. We can be described as naturally technological beings. Forced to adapt, we use tools as our fur or teeth.

KAY: How? How does our technology flow from nature?

JAMES: I believe that the search for knowledge can be considered one of the essential elements of humanity. We used tools to not only adapt to harsh environments, but also to learn.

KAY: I think I see where this is going. You're suggesting that technological development itself is our nature and probably even our destiny, right?

JAMES: Exactly! I know there are other ways of approaching the argument, but I wanted you to know where I was coming from.

KAY: I can accept that as a legitimate approach. That doesn't change, however, that none of this answers my more practical question of why technology has not solved all of our problems already.

JAMES: Cynicism! The question is key, though. Up 'til now, technology has only been able to frustrate conflicts based around scarce resources. Look at the example of internal combustion. We have powerful engines that cannot run without oil and gas. The technologies Kurzweil talks most about--these knowledge enabled technologies--they have the potential to end these exact conflicts. The technology is already on its way.

KAY: Are you kidding me? It's like we're talking about angels dancing on pinheads. Don't tell me: a break-through in nanotechnology is going to solve all of our problems, right? That seems to be the stock answer for any trans-humanist I've ever talked to.

JAMES: First off, I'm no trans-humanist. I like my humanity just fine. That doesn't change the fact that these technologies are on the horizon. We've already come so far with miniaturization and advances in computing technology just don't seem to be slowing down.

KAY: Fine. Convince me. I'll even give you that Moore's law will remain at its current level for the indefinite future. Tell me how this is all going to happen.

JAMES: The mapping of the human mind is an eventuality, not a possibility. Can you appreciate the importance this will have for intelligent computing?

KAY: Well, yeah. That's the crux of Kurzweil's position, isn't it? Flowing from the reverse engineering of the human brain, we have conscious computers, a singularity, yadda yadda. All of a sudden we have human-machine cyborgs. Our proverbial six million dollar men.

JAMES: Exactly! But so much more.

KAY: Listen, you dragged me out here and seem willing to ply me with alcohol, so I'm still listening. It doesn't change the fact that I'm very skeptical.

JAMES: It doesn't matter how skeptical you are. We still need to plan for these contingencies! If we don't plan to deal with these emerging technologies, we'll constantly be reeling, trying to react to some pretty crazy social changes. If nothing else, that's what I wanted to convince you of today.

KAY: That's why I still go to these symposiums ... That and the heavy drinking.

James raises his glass in a toast.

JAMES: Salud!

KAY: Cheers. Let's just consider what implications follow if any of these prophecies turn into realities. I'll be the first to say that I don't want to find myself in a position where I have to hear "I told you so".

JAMES: I'm glad you're approaching this with an open mind.

KAY: It's probably just the booze. So what exactly are your prophets saying anyway?

JAMES: Well, I guess, like anything else, it depends on what prophets you're listening too.

KAY: So who are yours?

JAMES: Well, I've devoted my adult life to studying artificial intelligence. I really believe that the most reasoned approach has to be Ray Kurzweil's. That's just how it is.

KAY: So you think that the next step in human evolution is a fusion of man and machine to create a superior life form?

JAMES: Well, I guess that's one way of looking at his body of work. I would probably feel more comfortable saying that humans and machines are en route to merging together.

KAY: It seems to me that you're essentially embracing our own extinction. You consider technological progress to be more important than the interests of the human race to thrive and survive. You're putting technology before humanity.

Kay motions for two more drinks.

KAY: The price for your progress seems either extremely selfless and progressive or supremely foolish. I just can't help but think the latter is a more accurate description of your vision.

JAMES: I can't say that I agree. You've fallen into that trap perpetuated by Bill Joy and his camp. There is nothing selfless about Kurzweil's vision. Humanity is the ultimate winner. We are literally better, stronger, faster. Never mind the cognitive advances that will be available. Imagine never having to sit through another one of Kerr's workshops! You could just upload the whole thing, songs and all, directly to your brain.

KAY: I like his workshops.

JAMES: You would.

James takes a long drink before cracking a smile.

JAMES: Yeah, so do I. MRI: Mens Rea Indicator? That killed me.

Kay smiles as they share the joke.

KAY: Technology is supposed to serve us, not replace us. You're spreading dangerous ideas because you're so blinded by your enthusiasm. You've so narrowed your view of human life that you define us by the lowest common denominator. You're willing to sacrifice the human condition because you consider the supreme efficiency of some uniformly predictable and infallible mathematical system superior to human life.

JAMES: I don't think I'd go so far--

KAY: Kurzweil claims that progress carries risk; development means that along with beneficial creation the potential for destructive invention inevitably coincides. It's simply a fact he admits. The same thing can be said for the human condition. He is obsessed with eliminating the ails of human life, but he seems to forget those ails are simply part of the orchestra of human life; good and bad go together. It is the yin and yang. The solution is not to eradicate the human race. Neither of you seem to realize that you're simply eliminating one kind of evil and replacing it with another. Now instead of human evil we have evil machines. This exchange seems pointless, especially when you consider what we are giving up: the beauty and genius of mankind.

JAMES: Wow! I'm sorry. Did I just have a drink and wake up in a Terminator film? Listen, intelligent machines do not necessitate an over-throwing of humanity. That simply does not balance out. We cannot look at humanity and machines as growing in a vacuum. What you're talking about, this dystopic vision of post-apocalyptic Earth being ruled by shiny, evil robots, amounts to little more than fear mongering.

KAY: Does it?

JAMES: Kurzweil does not advocate the blind, headlong approach you seem to attribute to him. Whether you agree with his end predictions or not, his reasoning follows from sound and ethical premises. There's really not that much difference between Kurzweil and your hero, Mr. Bill Joy.

KAY: Really? That's not how I see it. Joy contends that the only realistic alternative is relinquishment: limiting development of the technologies that are too dangerous, by limiting our pursuit of certain kinds of...