2019 by BRAM E. GIEBEN (AKA TEXTURE)

Chapter 3 - DEBATE

Source: Shoutbox (Broadcast on the ABCFox News Network)
Dated: June 15, 2017
Format: Unexpurgated audio transcript
Participants: Seth Polwarth (Presenter), Professor John Romney, Pastor Mitch Gladstone

Seth Polwarth: In the studio today we’re pleased to have two very knowledgeable experts in the field of nanotechnology. Evolutionary biologist and natural philosopher, Professor John Romney of New York University is an outspoken opponent of nanotech, and the best-selling author of ‘Death in Life.’ Joining him will be the pro-nanotech Christian reverend and well-known advocate of the Intelligent Design Schools Forum, Pastor Mitch Gladstone. Father, Professor, welcome to Shoutbox. We’re honoured to have you.

John Romney: Good to be here.

Mitch Gladstone: A pleasure as always, my child.

SP: Professor Romney, for the viewers at home who haven’t yet read ‘Death in Life,’ why don’t you start by outlining some of the ideas in your book?

JR: I’d be glad to, Seth. As an evolutionary biologist, I take it as read that human evolution is driven by replicators. By which I mean, a process of copying and selection, the end result of which is the production of complex, interdependent systems such as, for example, Venus flytrap plants and oak trees, bears and sharks, and of course human beings. On the face of it, all these categories I have mentioned seem very different. A bear is not a shark: although they are both predatory animals, large differences exist.

SP: Such as?

JR: Well, the shark is cold-blooded; the bear is a warm-blooded mammal. But there are similarities too: both creatures have complex brains. How are they similar to the ostensibly ‘brainless’ Venus flytrap, also a predatory organism? For that matter, how can we compare these creatures to other, non-predatory plants? The answer is that they are all constructed from self-replicating DNA. In a sense, they are all machines that have been built and sculpted by evolutionary processes to be carriers for DNA. By breeding they ensure the DNA’s continued replication through countless generations. This process is described in the work of the forefather of evolutionary theory, Charles Darwin, and is almost universally accepted as scientific fact.

MG: Ahem.

JR: (Pause) Arguably humans differ from animals, insofar as they are not entirely driven by the first replicator, DNA, and its instructions to replicate through sexual reproduction, which can be described as the vertical transmission of genetic traits. Humans also pass on customs, ideas, music, religious beliefs and so on to their offspring, and importantly, to their contemporaries. This happens in such a way that these ideas, or memes, as the twentieth-century scientist Richard Dawkins termed them, can be transmitted horizontally as well as vertically. They can be transmitted from person to person, within a generational span. As far as we can tell, we are the only creatures on the planet upon whom the second replicator, memes, are at work.

SP: So how does this all tie in to your work?

JR: In my book, I argue in favour of the usefulness of certain parts of our memetic heritage – the idea-space transmitted through imitation, learning, and practice through trial and error. I believe that nanotechnology is in danger of usurping the function of memetic evolution, by making the acquisition of new skills and ideas un-necessary. Nanotechnology promises us the potential for unlimited resources, and therefore infinite leisure. Furthermore, advanced nanotech will be guided not by human minds, with their hard-won memetic inheritance, but by Artificial Intelligences which can calculate up to one million times faster than the human brain. I argue that if we unleash AI and nanotechnology into the biosphere, we will be unwittingly introducing a third replicator into the evolutionary process. By taking away our need to compete with, and co-operate with one another, we will remove the evolutionary drives of the first and second replicators – the need to reproduce will be overtaken by massively extended lifespans, made possible by advances in medical nanotech.

SP: What effect could this have on human culture?

JR: The need to co-operate, sharing ideas and spreading memes, and also the need to compete – which subjects memes to selection – could be removed from human culture almost completely. I suggest that this will make us definitively less than human in the short term, and in the long term could lead to our total extinction as a thinking, self-perpetuating species.

SP: Thanks John, that’s fascinating stuff. Turning to you, now, Pastor Gladstone – can you tell us what makes you disagree so strongly with the Professor?

MG: With pleasure, son. My argument is a lot shorter, and I hope clearer than Professor Romney’s. It concerns knowledge and wisdom far more ancient than that of Darwin or Dawkins. I’m speaking of course of the Holy Scriptures, specifically the Bible, although the point I will make is echoed in the holy books of all the Abrahamic religions. God’s instruction to humanity was first and foremost that we: ‘Go forth and multiply.’ I believe that this was God’s way of speaking about what Professor Romney calls replicators. God wants to fill the universe with his children; amen to that.

SP: That seems pretty straightforward...

MG: It isn’t quite as simple as all that, son. The problem that has faced humanity for the last few hundred years was one of scarcity – the Earth has finite resources. Nanotechnology, as it develops, will solve this problem. Simply by re-arranging atoms, we can grow proteins capable of feeding ten times the current nine billion of God’s children who walk the Earth. Furthermore, as lightweight and almost cost-free construction by nano-assemblers helps us to build Earth-like habitats in outer space, we will soon no longer need to cluster upon the face of the Earth. We can, quite literally, go forth and multiply. I believe that this is God’s divine will. I believe that His hand guided the pioneers of nanotechnology, such as Vincent LeSanto – one of my dearest friends - to their discoveries.

JR: I’d like to respond to that. You mention LeSanto Corporation. They’re just one firm who typify the reckless, un-scientific, cowboy attitudes of nanotech businesses in the US and abroad. They have a proven track record of poor scientific practice, openly bucking peer-review and legislation in favour of naked profit. They are unethical, and furthermore-

MG: They’re doing God’s work, son. Saving the world. If a few candy-ass liberals in Washington wanna hold them back, I say-

JR: I wasn’t finished. What I was trying to say is that we should think about the consequences of living in the world, the future we are letting corporations like LeSanto build. I’m not denying that nanotech has the potential to do great things. Neither will I debate the fact that it has already done much to ease overcrowding, feed the hungry, cure the sick and so on. All I’m saying is we should question the implications of the tech. We should let scientific reason guide us, not messianic naivety.

MG: Henry LeSanto is a personal friend of mine, and-

JR: So you keep saying.

MG: Excuse me, may I finish now? LeSanto understands the future. He believes that the progress of God’s creation should not be halted by naysayers, scaremongers and unbelievers. The problems we face – food crises, housing shortages, inequality – can be solved by nanotechnology. So why wait? Can you tell me why we should wait, Mister Romney?

JR: Professor. I believe we should ‘wait’ as you put it, so that we can make projections. So we can think carefully about the effects on society of this supposed cure-all solution. All you are looking at are the potential gains: I’m asking what we stand to lose.

MG: What if Jesus had done the same? What if he had said to himself: ‘I can show people the love of God, but what would it cost them?’ Where would we be then, sir?

JR: With respect Pastor, you are well aware that I am an atheist. Are you sure you want me to answer?

MG: Rhetorical question, son. Let me put it in terms you can understand. Evolution doesn’t pause to ask ‘why.’ It simply steps forward with the new model, the new mutation. Do I understand this correctly?

JR: You do, and thank you for making my point for me. If evolution can be guided at all, it is not be some anthropomorphic deity: it is by successful design, not by perfect design. New designs compete – those that succeed, those that are good at getting themselves copied, are replicated in the next generation. However, this does not imply that they are implicitly good: they may in fact be detrimental to species good. This is the meaning of Dawkins ‘selfish gene’ theory. Genes or memes exist to be copied, not to benefit the host. We, as a society, are the host for the nanotech meme. We can decide, consciously, here and now, to what degree the third replicator takes over our culture. We can limit nanotech enterprises; refuse to begin projects which require advanced AI guidance. If we begin these projects before considering the consequences, it may quickly be too late to do anything about it.

MG: So for fear of failure, we should ignore mankind’s greatest technological advance in a century, is that what you are saying?

JR: Don’t put words in my mouth. I’m saying we should learn it, harness it, control it, rather than letting it take over. Once the process of industrialization began, it was impossible to reverse. Pretty soon, we ended up with a polluted biosphere and over-crowded cities. Industrialization, by the way, is responsible for Earth’s population crisis, rather than any laughable notion of divinely-inspired procreation. But I digress: industrialized society was a meme, or group of memes, which we let control us. Nanotech is an even more powerful memeplex: unlike industrialization, which relied on Earth’s finite resources, nanotech has no projected end-point. Without careful control and restriction, an AI-controlled nanotech project could simply build ever more copies of itself, expanding exponentially at a rate which human minds could barely comprehend. That could very well leave humans at an evolutionary disadvantage. By ceding knowledge and construction to machines that can process a million times faster than a human brain, we run the risk of becoming an evolutionary backwater, no matter the fact that the machines were our own creations. There are simply no guarantees that these machines would have our best interests ‘at heart,’ so to speak. We could face our own extinction within mere decades. Who is going to prevent nanomachines from out-evolving us? God?

MG: God would not let his children die just at the point where they were about to carry out his divine will!

JR: Oh, well that’s fine then.

MG: There’s no need for sarcasm, Mister Romney-

JR: It’s Professor, you ninny. Seriously – who do you propose will ensure the safety of the human race in the face of a competing, replicating, evolving system which is vastly superior in terms of capacity, number and processing power? What would God do, exactly, to stop this happening? What safety protocols does he have in mind?

MG: There is no need to stoop to mockery and sarcasm, Professor Romney. I believe that Henry LeSanto is-

JR: A good man? Yeah, you said that already. What are you, his fucking publicist?

SP: Professor Romney, I don’t think that-

MG: How dare you!

JR: Ah, shut your trap, you goddamn windbag.

MG: Blasphemer!

JR: God-botherer!

MG: Satanist!

JR: Imbecile! Dinosaur! Child-molesting, arrogant fucking-

SP: -And that’s all we have time for on today’s Shoutbox. Thanks to my two guests, Professor John Romney and Pastor Mitch Gladstone, for a thoroughly stimulating debate. Next week, we’ve got two equally esteemed debaters going head to head, as we take on the issue of the forthcoming Chinese Space Elevator Project, with Minister of the People’s Republic of China, Chang Yi-Min, and US Senator and hotly-tipped presidential candidate in the forthcoming elections, former Hollywood star and well-known Scientologist, Will Smith. They’ll be going head to head on the next Shoutbox – be sure to join us! Good night, folks.