The possibility of a technological transcendence, where human minds are uploaded into digital networks or installed into cybernetic bodies, has fascinated and frightened us in equal measure. This concept, once confined to the realms of science fiction, is becoming an increasingly plausible reality as our understanding of neuroscience and our capabilities in technology advance. However, this burgeoning reality brings with it a host of complex social, ethical, and legal issues that we must anticipate and address. The potential for great societal unrest is immense, and it is incumbent upon us to prepare for it.

Consider the factions of people who wish to transcend the limitations of their biological bodies. Some yearn to upload their consciousness into a digital network, forsaking their physical form entirely to exist in a purely digital format. Others are drawn to the idea of cyborg-ification, replacing parts of their bodies with mechanical or digital enhancements, or even installing their biological brains into android bodies. The motivations behind such desires are myriad, ranging from a thirst for immortality, the pursuit of enhanced abilities, or a simple fascination with the possibilities of technology.

However, these individuals who seek to blur the lines between humanity and technology may face severe backlash from parts of society that view them as traitors to the human race. There is a deep-seated fear of the “other” that has been a recurring theme throughout human history, and those who choose to become cyborgs or digital beings will likely become the newest incarnation of this perceived threat. Vigilante groups may rise, targeting those who choose to upgrade or digitize themselves.

The prospect of such violence is disturbing, yet historically, violence has often been the catalyst for political action. The question then becomes, how many human-cyborgs will need to be targeted before the government feels compelled to intervene? Will the government be strong enough, both in terms of political will and resources, to stand against the vigilantes and protect the rights of these new beings?

In the past, societies have demonstrated a troubling propensity for segregating and persecuting those deemed as “other.” The potential for cyborgs to be sent to concentration camps or otherwise isolated from society is a chilling possibility. Governments may also pass restrictive laws under the guise of preserving the “integrity of the human race,” making the process of becoming a cyborg more difficult and perhaps even criminal.

Moreover, as human-cyborgs become more commonplace, they will need to be integrated into society in a meaningful way. Will they be allowed to work, marry, or secure home loans? It’s crucial that the government takes proactive steps to ensure that the rights of human-cyborgs are protected, and that they are not discriminated against in any aspect of life.

The emergence of human-cyborgs is a testament to the incredible progress of our species. Their existence challenges our understanding of what it means to be human and forces us to confront our prejudices and fears. As we stand on the precipice of this new era, we must take it upon ourselves to welcome these new members of society, rather than reaching for our metaphorical pitchforks.

To do so, we need to begin discussions now about the legal, ethical, and societal implications of this technology. We must engage with philosophers, lawmakers, scientists, and the public to develop a framework of laws and societal norms that will protect the rights of human-cyborgs. These conversations will undoubtedly be difficult and fraught with controversy, but they are essential for ensuring a peaceful transition into this new era.

The advent of human-cyborgs is inevitable. It is our responsibility to ensure that we greet this future with open minds and compassionate hearts, rather than with fear and prejudice. We must endeavor to create a society that upholds the rights and dignity of all its members, irrespective of their biological or technological composition. The choice to become a cyborg should be viewed as just another personal decision, a right to self-determination that each individual should be free to make without fear of persecution.

History has shown us that periods of rapid technological change can trigger societal upheavals. The Industrial Revolution, the rise of the internet, and now the advent of human-cyborgs all represent profound shifts in our way of life. Each of these transitions has been accompanied by a certain degree of unrest, as society grapples with the implications of the new technology. However, with foresight, empathy, and thoughtful legislation, we can mitigate these upheavals and guide our society into a future where technology and humanity coexist harmoniously.

The prospect of human-cyborgs may seem daunting, and the potential for unrest is real. However, we must not let fear guide our actions. Instead, let us embrace the challenges and opportunities that this new era presents. Let us engage in open, honest dialogue about our hopes, fears, and expectations. Let us work together to create a society that respects and protects the rights of all its members, whether they are made of flesh and blood, or silicon and code.

In conclusion, the future is a place of infinite potential, filled with myriad possibilities. The emergence of human-cyborgs is but one facet of this future, but it is one that will challenge and redefine our understanding of what it means to be human. By anticipating and preparing for the potential unrest and challenges that this transition may bring, we can ensure that our future is one of acceptance, equality, and peace. Rather than fearing the coming of the cyborgs, we should welcome them as a testament to our species’ indomitable spirit of exploration, curiosity, and innovation. The future is coming, whether we like it or not. It’s up to us to ensure that it’s a future worth looking forward to.

Comments


No comments on this post yet.
Be the first to respond.
Curated and popular this week
LintzA
 ·  · 15m read
 · 
Cross-posted to Lesswrong Introduction Several developments over the past few months should cause you to re-evaluate what you are doing. These include: 1. Updates toward short timelines 2. The Trump presidency 3. The o1 (inference-time compute scaling) paradigm 4. Deepseek 5. Stargate/AI datacenter spending 6. Increased internal deployment 7. Absence of AI x-risk/safety considerations in mainstream AI discourse Taken together, these are enough to render many existing AI governance strategies obsolete (and probably some technical safety strategies too). There's a good chance we're entering crunch time and that should absolutely affect your theory of change and what you plan to work on. In this piece I try to give a quick summary of these developments and think through the broader implications these have for AI safety. At the end of the piece I give some quick initial thoughts on how these developments affect what safety-concerned folks should be prioritizing. These are early days and I expect many of my takes will shift, look forward to discussing in the comments!  Implications of recent developments Updates toward short timelines There’s general agreement that timelines are likely to be far shorter than most expected. Both Sam Altman and Dario Amodei have recently said they expect AGI within the next 3 years. Anecdotally, nearly everyone I know or have heard of who was expecting longer timelines has updated significantly toward short timelines (<5 years). E.g. Ajeya’s median estimate is that 99% of fully-remote jobs will be automatable in roughly 6-8 years, 5+ years earlier than her 2023 estimate. On a quick look, prediction markets seem to have shifted to short timelines (e.g. Metaculus[1] & Manifold appear to have roughly 2030 median timelines to AGI, though haven’t moved dramatically in recent months). We’ve consistently seen performance on benchmarks far exceed what most predicted. Most recently, Epoch was surprised to see OpenAI’s o3 model achi
Dr Kassim
 ·  · 4m read
 · 
Hey everyone, I’ve been going through the EA Introductory Program, and I have to admit some of these ideas make sense, but others leave me with more questions than answers. I’m trying to wrap my head around certain core EA principles, and the more I think about them, the more I wonder: Am I misunderstanding, or are there blind spots in EA’s approach? I’d really love to hear what others think. Maybe you can help me clarify some of my doubts. Or maybe you share the same reservations? Let’s talk. Cause Prioritization. Does It Ignore Political and Social Reality? EA focuses on doing the most good per dollar, which makes sense in theory. But does it hold up when you apply it to real world contexts especially in countries like Uganda? Take malaria prevention. It’s a top EA cause because it’s highly cost effective $5,000 can save a life through bed nets (GiveWell, 2023). But what happens when government corruption or instability disrupts these programs? The Global Fund scandal in Uganda saw $1.6 million in malaria aid mismanaged (Global Fund Audit Report, 2016). If money isn’t reaching the people it’s meant to help, is it really the best use of resources? And what about leadership changes? Policies shift unpredictably here. A national animal welfare initiative I supported lost momentum when political priorities changed. How does EA factor in these uncertainties when prioritizing causes? It feels like EA assumes a stable world where money always achieves the intended impact. But what if that’s not the world we live in? Long termism. A Luxury When the Present Is in Crisis? I get why long termists argue that future people matter. But should we really prioritize them over people suffering today? Long termism tells us that existential risks like AI could wipe out trillions of future lives. But in Uganda, we’re losing lives now—1,500+ die from rabies annually (WHO, 2021), and 41% of children suffer from stunting due to malnutrition (UNICEF, 2022). These are preventable d
Rory Fenton
 ·  · 6m read
 · 
Cross-posted from my blog. Contrary to my carefully crafted brand as a weak nerd, I go to a local CrossFit gym a few times a week. Every year, the gym raises funds for a scholarship for teens from lower-income families to attend their summer camp program. I don’t know how many Crossfit-interested low-income teens there are in my small town, but I’ll guess there are perhaps 2 of them who would benefit from the scholarship. After all, CrossFit is pretty niche, and the town is small. Helping youngsters get swole in the Pacific Northwest is not exactly as cost-effective as preventing malaria in Malawi. But I notice I feel drawn to supporting the scholarship anyway. Every time it pops in my head I think, “My money could fully solve this problem”. The camp only costs a few hundred dollars per kid and if there are just 2 kids who need support, I could give $500 and there would no longer be teenagers in my town who want to go to a CrossFit summer camp but can’t. Thanks to me, the hero, this problem would be entirely solved. 100%. That is not how most nonprofit work feels to me. You are only ever making small dents in important problems I want to work on big problems. Global poverty. Malaria. Everyone not suddenly dying. But if I’m honest, what I really want is to solve those problems. Me, personally, solve them. This is a continued source of frustration and sadness because I absolutely cannot solve those problems. Consider what else my $500 CrossFit scholarship might do: * I want to save lives, and USAID suddenly stops giving $7 billion a year to PEPFAR. So I give $500 to the Rapid Response Fund. My donation solves 0.000001% of the problem and I feel like I have failed. * I want to solve climate change, and getting to net zero will require stopping or removing emissions of 1,500 billion tons of carbon dioxide. I give $500 to a policy nonprofit that reduces emissions, in expectation, by 50 tons. My donation solves 0.000000003% of the problem and I feel like I have f
Recent opportunities in Policy
20
Eva
· · 1m read