Does Technology Make Us More Human? Watch the TEDTalk that inspired this post.

Amber Case in her TEDTalk, "We Are All Cyborgs Now," concludes, "... it's not the machines that are taking over. It's that they're helping us to be more human, helping us to connect with each other. " As someone who has focused her career on how we negotiate our work and family lives, I wonder if information and communications technology (ICT) encourages us to be more human. In fact, it appears that ICT is a mixed blessing with the potential to negatively impact our ability to have meaningful lives and meaningful work. True, cell phones, laptops and tablets makes it easier to be in touch with the important people in our lives. As Case indicates, we are able to connect instantaneously to everyone we know, no matter where they are or what they are doing. ICT has helped today's working families to manage their busy lives since parents and kids can stay connected during the work day. With our devices always on us, unexpected events can be communicated in real time. However, it seems that all these "screens" can negatively impact our relationships with family and friends. A family might be watching a movie together, but typically cell phones are within reach, and family members might also be surfing the internet on their laptops or checking their Facebook pages. The presence of these devices, with their pinging and buzzing, reduces the chances that everyone will be laughing at the movie together or commenting about the plot. Rather, they may be texting a friend or reading a review about the movie on Rotten Tomatoes. So, they are not really totally focused on interacting with their family members in the room. In addition, they may be directing their energy to acquaintances listed as friends or contacts, rather than their close connections. Many have written about how ICT interferes with our ability to think deeply or reflect on our lives. Case notes that, "... people aren't taking time for mental reflection anymore." We are continually responding to incoming stimuli and feel tremendous pressure to be "in touch" which interferes with our ability to slow down and calm down. We are often multi-tasking, so it's very difficult to restrict ourselves to a single point of focus and think creatively. The impact of ICT surfaces on the job. ICT allows many people to work more flexibly, particularly knowledge workers with jobs where work is not where you go, but rather what you do. These days, our jobs can be more fluid and integrated with non-work time. So maybe you get up, work a few hours, head to the gym, work some more, pick up a kid at school, finish up on the laptop while they are doing their homework, and then put in a few hours in the evening when the kids are asleep. You might check email on Sunday evening to get organized for Monday. The good news is that you can work anywhere, anytime. The bad news is that you can work anywhere, anytime. It's hard to know when work ends if you interact with global teams across time zones or you don't leave an office to signify the end of the day. A 2010 study found that more frequent use of ICT (computer, email, cell phones, Internet) results in being more effective at work, but also generates increases in workload and the pace of work demands. In a subsequent paper, 83 percent of workers indicated that ICT increases productivity, but 53 percent describe greater stress levels. The November 2012 Pew Internet Research survey found that 29 percent of cell owners describe their cell phone as "something they can't imagine living without." Employees report tremendous pressure to be immediately responsive to co-workers and bosses. Our digital devices are hard to turn off for fear of missing out. Recently, a New York Times article reported on device-free parties where people check their phones and other wireless devices at the door, like we used to check our coats! The article also described 4-day Digital Detox retreats where you can focus on your internal self for a reprieve from the endless stream of incoming external stimuli. If ICT is going to make us more human, then we need to focus on our high-quality connections and set boundaries around the presence of ICT in our lives. Our relationships with ICT will change as technology evolves. But we must take charge of ICT, or technology won't make us more human, but rather more stressed, less creative and more disconnected from our friends and family. Ideas are not set in stone. When exposed to thoughtful people, they morph and adapt into their most potent form. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Is Technology Making Us Less Human? This article is one-half of a point-counterpoint with Ray Kurzweil's article, "The Man-Machine Merger."

I'm sitting in this caf in Silicon Valley, watching conversations flowing between Macs, tablets, mobile devices, and their owners. Im imagining the volume of information that is being streamed back and forth just from this one, small public space. That thought blows my mind. Never have we had greater access to knowledge than we do right nowlimitless information just a few clicks away, the line between man and machine increasingly blurred. But what are we sacrificing when we tether our brains to our mobile devices, relying on them to tell us when were hungry, where we should go for cocktails, what driving route we should take, and what we should buy our significant others for their birthdays? Is all of this connectivity helping us to evolve into a more intelligent species, as some futurists speculate, or is this actually hurting us? An even bigger question: As we surrender our cognitive independence to our devices in an effort to make our lives easier, what is happening to our humanity? Is it a tradeoff between greater intelligence and loss of humanity? We have this amazing and wondrous thing called a brain, and yet as we make increasingly greater strides in technological innovation, we are tempted to use this masterful tool less and less. If you use technology at every opportunity as a replacement for critical thinking or problem solving, in time, those skills will begin to lose their edge. Your brain is like a muscle. If you stop using your cognitive skills and instead rely on technology to do all of your thinking for you, in time, those skills will start to atrophy. Use GPS to direct you everywhere you go? Your spatial skills will gradually start to worsen. Rely on autocorrect and spell-check for every bit of typed communication? Your spelling skills will start to suffer. A New York Times article explains that with the invention of cell phones and computer technology, the ability of young Japanese to read and write kanji has seen a drastic decline; technology provides the characters for you, so there is no need to learn how to draw them by hand. The worsening of our basic cognitive abilities is bad enough, but I see an even more problematic issue associated with the increasing use of technology, and this has to do with the idea of augmenting intelligence. Ray Kurzweil, a prominent futurist, believes that the key to advancing human intelligence is the "singularity," or the merging of man and machine. He thinks that by combining the computational abilities of a computer with the average man, a race of super-intelligent humans will emerge. However, I think hes wrong about this. Intelligence is not equal to computational power or processing speed. The fact is, theres a reason why computers havent yet reached human level intelligence, and it has nothing to do with how fast they can compute, or how much power we can load them with. Its because humans have something that computers dont, something thats a pretty significant component of intelligence that many people are all too quick to disregard. This critical element? Creativity. When we over-rely on technology to do our thinking for us, not only are our cognitive skills losing their edge, but our creativity can suffer as well. Why do we care about creativity? For one thing, creativity is at the root of our ability to problem-solve novel situations. Creativity is what we use when we're presented with a new problem and need to figure out the best course of action. When we let our devices make all of these decisions for us, we stop utilizing those problem-solving skills. What happens if your device breaks, or makes an error? If you dont keep those skills sharp, what makes you think youll be able to make a quick and accurate decision when faced with a new dilemma? Computers have been trained to paint pictures and compose music, but they have not yet mastered creative cognitionthinking divergently, going back and forth between conventional and unconventional thinking, making errors, and deciding on the best, most useful response, given a particular situation. On this level, creativity can be seen as intelligence that is emergent from serendipitous error. But this isnt how we program computerswe want them to be error-free. However, error makes us human. And error is essential for creativity. To eliminate the possibility of human error by allowing technology to make decisions for us, our ability to think creatively will suffer. If mindless acceptance of data provided to us by our devices in the absence of critical thinking or creative problem solving becomes the norm, we are edging away from humanity and closer to becoming robots. Is this really what we aspire to do? As a robopsychologist, I aim for the opposite; I strive to develop AI that thinks more like humans, capitalizing on serendipity and error, in order to learn more effectively. Im not saying technology is all bad, just that it can be used for evil if we arent conscious about how and when we use it. Whats more importantto be able to perform faster computations, or come up with a creative solution to a problem? I feel that today, creativity is a more critical skill. But then again, everything is a tradeoff. There are ways to make technology work to your intellectual advantage. On the one hand, using autocorrect while youre writing may hurt your long-term spelling skills, but it allows you to communicate faster in the short term

maybe even betterif you dont have to spend all your cognitive capital thinking about how to spell words and focus instead on narrative. It might even enhance creativity in this case. Consider as well the calculator that wont give you the correct answer until you make an educated guess about what the right answer is. It allows you to benefit from the speed and accuracy of technology, but forces you to remember how and why you are doing those calculations in the first place. In other words, it prevents you from getting too cognitively lazy and it teaches you math, not just calculations. Do I see the rise of technology as the Intellectual Apocalypse? Not necessarily. The best way to make technology work for you instead of against you is to be smart about itutilize it in order to allow you the time and mental energy to engage in higher-level cognitive activities, not as a crutch because you dont feel like activating your neurons. If you are creative about how you channel and process the limitless supply of information out thereremaining conscious about how, why, and when you use itI believe technology can actually increase your intelligence. But dont ask your device how to make that happenfigure that one out for yourself. Your brain will thank you. _____________________________________________________________________________________

From the world of high tech military gadgetry to innovative toys and consumer products, Ralph Osterhout is a master at ingeniously infusing anything he touches with technology. As the founder of a multitude of successful companies, Osterhout brings a business model and creed that is as unique and remarkable as his product history. He regularly ricochets between advanced military devices to underwater gadgets to interactive toys that annoy. His clients range from companies such as Mattel, Hasbro, and Tiger Electronics while products such as his Tekna flashlights persist as coveted keepsakes and internet lore. He is often referred to as the quintessential renaissance man but his transformative approach to product invention more accurately brands him a product prophesier. It's all about what the human being do. Not about technology. So, when some people blames technology, please look at themselves. Have they regulated their life perfectly??

Can technology make us more or less human? A new publication explores the hopes and fears for smart pills, life extension and cosmetic surgery. by Josie Appleton
Will enhancement technologies damage our sense of our humanity; or will they make us better humans, even creating a new breed of super- or post-humans? That was the question asked in a new Demos pamphlet, 'Better Humans?', launched at the Wellcome Trust in London last night. On one side stood those with heady hopes for the possibilities of enhancement technologies. Cambridge geneticist Dr Aubrey de Grey anticipated a massive extension of the human lifespan, achieved by offsetting the processes of ageing. Futurist Nick Bostrom argues that until now humanity has focused on cultural development - now is time for dramatic changes in the way in which we 'eat, sleep, defecate, fornicate, see, hear, feel, think and age'. Some even predicted that technologies could allow mind reading between individuals, reducing misunderstandings and perhaps social conflict. On the other side stood those worried that enhancement technology poses a threat to our humanity. The social theorist Jrgen Habermas is concerned that 'biotechnology will cause us in some ways to lose our humanity - that is, some essential quality that has always underpinned our sense of who we are and where we are going'. Guardian journalist Madeleine Bunting wonders whether her granddaughter will be pressured to take cognitive enhancement drugs to keep up with her classmates at school: 'in a competitive, unequal world, we could hurtle towards some horrible futures.' (1) Neuroscientist Steven Rose worries about brain implants and the authorities using technology to read our minds, and asks what this would do to 'our self-conception as humans with agency, with the freedom to shape our own lives'. This debate has a runaway, fantasy quality. It seems that all our hopes and fears for humanity are being projected on to these enhancement technologies; technology is often attributed with an autonomous power to decide our fate. 'We must be prepared for the changes when they happen', said one member of the audience last night, as if technological development occurs of its own accord. 'There is no stop

button available', writes Madeleine Bunting. Both sides forget, it seems, that it is we who invent and control technology. Panellists Daniel Glaser and Sarah Franklin (a neuroscientist and associate director of BIOS at the London School of Economics, respectively) helped to bring the discussion down to earth. Speculation is running way ahead of the science, said Glaser: 'We don't even know properly how our brains work.' Franklin reflected on her work with users of pre-implantation genetics, and said that most people just wanted to use these technologies to have healthy, ordinary children, rather than to produce sci-fi 'designer babies'. When we are talking about real science and real people, much of the speculation seems overexcited. Of course biological technology - like all other technology - will change our view of ourselves. But as US bioethicist Arthur Caplan points out in the Demos pamphlet, it is in our nature to constantly be changing ourselves. 'We are a creature or species.in a state of flux', he writes: there is nothing wrong with trying to be 'stronger, faster or smarter. That's what agriculture is. That's what plumbing is. That's what clothes are'. Today, some seem to equate being human with being natural, when in actual fact the exact opposite is the case. Add to this the fact that our physical bodies aren't as important to us as to animals. If you removed a lion's claws, it wouldn't be a lion anymore. Yet even if a human being is completely paralysed, he or she maintains their humanity. Stephen Hawking looks like a shrunken pile of bones, yet in his scientific investigations he is probing the secrets of the origin of the universe. If we remain human when we are paralysed, there is no reason why we would cease to be if we took memory-enhancing drugs or improved our eyesight. Perhaps the truth is that enhancement technologies can extend us and make us more human, or they can make us feel less human. This depends, not on the technologies themselves, but on us. If we are unsure of our ends and goals, enhancement technologies wont help us If we are enthusiastic about life, and sure of our ends and goals, enhancement technologies will enhance us. Life extension offers tantalising possibilities: after all, as de Grey points out, 'ageing not only kills you, but kills you very horribly'. Just imagine if we had 200 years to play with; the possibility for accumulated experience and achievement would be immense. Think of all those past geniuses who were cut off in their prime, and what might have been possible had they lived a few decades more. What exactly is so marvellously human about dying early, or forgetting things, or not being able to see properly? But on the other hand, if we are down about life, and unsure of our ends and goals, enhancement technologies won't help us. As one of the contributors asked, 'if a life limited to 100 years is devoid of meaning, why would living to 200, or even 2000, improve matters?'. In this situation, longevity would be more of a burden than a blessing. This is where all the examples of cosmetic surgery and pills come in. A contribution by journalist Decca Aitkenhead detailed the grotesque spectacles of cosmetic makeover shows, where participants surrender their bodies for redesign under the surgeon's knife. Steven Rose notes how drugs such as Prozac and Ritalin are being used to try to ameliorate the everyday stresses and difficulties of life. In these cases, people are looking to technologies as avoidance strategies, hoping that a new pair of breasts or a boost in Serotonin will inject meaning into their lives. This doesn't happen, of course indeed, they just become less able to face up to their problems, and less happy as a result. In all these questions, it's human values that are the key - not the particular technology being used, or even the provenance of the body part. It is possible to make a foreign organ into part of yourself - as seen in organ transplants, prosthetic limbs, or the recent face transplant of a French woman. Equally, it is possible to feel that your own body parts don't really belong to you - as seen in cases of sex-change operations, or voluntary amputation. The question hangs on whether we are self-possessed or alienated from ourselves. It's because this area is really a debate about values that it is interesting. Do we want to live longer - if not, why not? How do we use technologies to extend ourselves rather than avoid ourselves? It is also why it should be a matter for public discussion, rather than just the concern of scientists and futurists

Augmenting Humanity? There has been a lot of talk lately on the net, about augmented humanity, how technology is improving our realitys. People like Everette Bogue seem to believe we are moving into a new way of life and that technology is augmenting humanity, I agree partially. This post is also not to criticize Everett, from what I know he seems to be doing some very interesting work, check him out. I agree that technology is awesome and that it has dramatically altered our day to day life, but we need to remember that technology is just a tool. We must not allow the tool to become our master, whats more important is who is holding that tool. Technology if used to its full potential could one day free humans of all monotonous labor. Currently we have a battle where corporations based only on profit are eliminating most jobs a person can do with automation. Imagine if you no longer had to work? How would you live your life? Most people after the initial excitement would go stir crazy, because they dont know how to be with themselves, how to be with boredom. If you had everything and didnt need to do anything to sustain yourself, soon you would find out that material wealth and sense pleasures will never give you the fulfillment and sense of freedom you dreamed about. The great thing is that at this point many people would start to move inward, trying to find meaning in their lives, finding peace within themselves. People would really start making serious efforts of inquiring into the mysteries of their own psyche. Find out why we have lost our connection to the natural world, the spiritual world. Once you conquer the material world and acquire every possible luxury, whats left? This was the reason that during the Greek Empire that so much advancement was made. They had acquired so much wealth, that the elite class had the luxury of leisure time, so they created the mystery schools. Where people like Plato and Socrates flourished. This reality was only available to a very select few. We need to create that type environment for the whole world. Technology could get us there if we could as a human race evolve to a state of being that is free of fear and greed, and more towards a system based on contribution. Unfortunately the powers that be, dont want this type of world. They like having the few control the many. I would like to see a world where technology freed people from basic labor, where technology provided the basic needs of food, clothing, and shelter for everyone. But we will need a new system, one not solely based on profit to emerge. One where its not based on constant consumption, planned obsolescence, and patents restricting innovation. One example is open source software, much of my favorite software is created by talented people who wanted to contribute for the benefit of all. Scientists and artists when posed with a problem will freely create, but most laws and politicians slow down human innovation. More than anything we need an evolution in human consciousness. Right now man only exists as potential, we have not awakened to what we are truly capable of. Nature only brought us up to a certain point, now it is up to us, to understand ourselves, to change ourselves, to become conscious beings. Right now the majority is unconscious, hence why we allow for many of the worlds ills to exist. We still live under fear and greed, our actions are simply reactive from this instinctive state of being. Technology is not a substitute for human consciousness. Instead of being empowered by technology, I feel that the opposite is actually happening, that much of the technology that is becoming common place in our lives, is helping us to be further from reality, making us less human. We become concerned with purely trivial things. Eric Schmidt of Google recently said that children now have two states of being, that they are either asleep or online. I hate to break it to Mr. Schmidt but not only children but the majority of humanity is asleep and even more so while being online, moving forward we will be going further into sleep, unless we do something about it. Here in the East (South Korea), you see how the younger generations lives revolve around their cell phones. As far as technology being a part of their life, I feel that they are leaps and bounds over the average American. Technology is being incorporated into every facet of daily living, outwardly it may seem like advancement, but if we fail to become conscious beings, it will have terrible consequences in the future. People make the mistake that just because they wake up in the morning they are no longer asleep. But if youobserve yourself and others you will see that most of us live in a world that is predominately the product of our imagination. Day dreaming our day away, our dream is always one day away. We are very inattentive, and now with the proliferation of all our gadgets, people are completely ADHD. We are always looking for ways to keep ourselves entertained. You may say whats wrong with this? That this is how it is? That everyone likes to use their imagination. That thinking uncontrollably is just part of our nature. Sorry to break it to you, it isnt, you did not come into this world like this. Yo u came as a blank slate of consciousness, and as you grew up you forgot what you are. They told you what you are.

______________________________________________________________________________ Points of Misrepresentation, which allow the opposing team to point out that the speaker is misrepresenting their argument or setting up a Straw man. This point does not even require the speaker's acceptance, as the mere offer of a Point of Misrepresentation highlights that the speaker is unfairly treating their opposition. Accepting:

When you are speaking you should accept 2-3 points. Watch out for good speakers. If someone has killed off every other speaker on your side be careful and don't assume that you can handle them. Points should not be longer than 15 sec. but you can cut that person off before this if they are making a very poor point and particularly if you have a good put-down to use on them. Always deal with the point that is offered. Never accept a point as true, unless the offerer has made a mistake and it backs up your argument. Always try to dismiss a point as incorrect or irrelevant. A point ignored is allowed to stand and will go against you in adjudication. The Most common mistake I see as a judge is people accepting the first POI they are offered right on one minute. You haven't said anything yet. Don't take a point unless you have developed a point first. The second most common mistake is taking two points back to back. This is like having a conversation and destroys your ability to properly develop your argument. Just because someone offers you a point you DON'T have to take it if you don't want to. New technological developments often involve big promises while raising ethical questions. Human enhancement, using technology to boost the human condition, has been a recurring topic in recent years. It involves genetic alterations, electronic enhancements and other measures. We seem well on the way to an existence as cyborgs: half human, half machine. But is this acceptable? And especially: what exactly do we expect to achieve? Dr. Mark Coeckelbergh, lecturer at the University of Twente, asks these questions in his latest book Human Being @ Risk. Coeckelbergh says: We must realize that new technology always creates new vulnerabilities; the world is in a constant state of flux. Transhumanists embrace the new technological potential, and promise that new technology will make us less vulnerable, perhaps even immortal. Coeckelbergh, the books author, is also convinced that technology will change humans (as it always has). Nevertheless, he refutes the idea that this change will make us less vulnerable let alone immortal. Through his philosophical investigation of existential vulnerability and the effects of technology, he argues that our battle against vulnerability continually creates new vulnerabilities. In the process we transform ourselves and our environment over and over again. New Achilles Heels Information technology makes it seem as if we can escape to a risk-free world. According to Coeckelbergh, however, our involvement in digital networks and information flows actually makes us vulnerable to computer viruses and cyber attacks. And science may be able to alter our genetic code, but insofar as a new human is the result, these new humans will have new physical and psychological vulnerabilities to deal with. Coeckelbergh explains: We cannot simply wish away our existential vulnerability. Our very existence is an exercise in exposure and coping with this exposure, and our attempts to create new shields give rise to ever new Achilles heels. The author therefore calls for thorough and deliberate ethical and political reflection on new technologies and the new risks and vulnerabilities that they potentially create. The future of humanity is at stake, after all. Such ethics are not about the objective risks of new technologies and how we can factor them in. Rather, it is a question of how technology is changing human existence and its potential for future change. To the extent that we can control these developments, it is important to give due consideration to what kind of people we would like to be in the future.

Technology - the application of scientific knowledge for practical purposes, especially in industry Human characteristics of human beings