Ted Talk

Allowing her inner-activist to break out of her shell, Alicia Nealon discusses new and emerging technologies and social media sites can shrink the global community, while simultaneously create large scale social change.

The Surrogates: Written, animated, dramatized, and everything in between

Reading The Surrogates was a different experience than watching the movie The Surrogates. Besides the glitz and glam of Hollywood, the movie presented much more dynamic and relatable characters than the book did, which is probably why myself, as well as my classmates, seemed to enjoy the movie more. Not limited to the constraints of 2-D pages, the movie explored the identities and backgrounds of the characters more than the book.

The book, however, offered a much more developed debate on the issues and ethics surrounding surrogates. While the movie concentrated on entertainment and audience engagement, the book devoted itself to presenting the issues at hand. I particular found it very interesting how the book incorporated scholarly articles after every chapter. In the classroom setting, the book lent itself more to facilitating lively and well-supported discussions.

Surrogates: a book, a movie, an ethical debate.

Tracking a world where humans can purchase unflawed robotic versions of themselves to act in the real world while being remotely controlled from the unattached world of their homes, The Surrogates, both the movie and the book, follows a supposedly ideal society where crime has plummeted and people are able to lead seemingly more fulfilling lives. After reading the book and viewing the movie, however, I have to wonder, "is this really a better life?" Take FBI agent Tom Greer, played by Bruce Willis. He and his wife share a superficial relationships with each others surrogates, yet are unable to share any real or genuine moments as husband and wife. In the novel, Tom asks his wife to share dinner with him, but she declines because it will take her too long to prepare her surrogate. How can this be a more satisfying life? Can one truly be happy if they are only able to interact with others in their surrogate form? And if so, does this mean that your identity is no longer based on your natural human persona, but rather on your mechanical surrogate image? Personally, I believe that The Surrogates highlights, although in an exaggerated manner, how a dependancy on technology can corrupt the unique originality of the human mind. In my opinion, each mind posses an innate integrity, a gift of unique thought and expressions. Technology, such as surrogates, so desperately tried to perfect humanity, that it often fails to celebrate this unique gift.

What does it mean to be human?

What does it mean to be human? Is it as simple having opposable thumbs? Or is it bigger? Maybe our ability to think and reason on a higher, more emotional level? While there seems to be many answers, big or small, to this question, the fact remains that we are indeed human and have been given one life on earth. Or have we? What if we could live multiple lives on earth. Technology gives us this opportunity. Whether it be an alternative personality on social media sites such as facebook or second life, or an alternative appearance created on the operating tables, technology has developed ways of transforming natural human existence. It gives us a chance to recreate our original human existence into something new, something different, and presumably something better.

Is it really better? Reading the article The Tech Lab: Bruce Schneier and watching the Ted Talk with Nick Bostrom, we are exposed to the two extremes of supposed effects technology has on human existence. While the article calls for a sense of accountability for the negatives of technology, the TED talk celebrates the positives. They stand has polar ends; one representing a scared and paranoid viewpoint of technology, the other celebrating it with excitement and promise.

In his article, The Tech Lab: Bruce Schneier, Schneier creates a strong attack on technology, claiming that "data is the pollution of the information age." Citing the developing security technology of cameras and surveillance devices, Schneier conjectures that "what was once ephemeral is now permanent." In other words, he worries that technology has made us prisoners of the digital age. No longer are we free to live our lives without them being recorded, "cross-indexed and correlated, and then used for secondary purposes" Schneier mandates that "we must, all of us together, start discussing this major societal change and what it means." He asserts that the ethics of our society must catch up to the technology that is currently controlling it.

Nick Bostrom, on the other hand, offers a much more optimistic viewpoint of technology in his TED talk. Although offering staggering statistics and lofty ideas about existential risk, Bostrom highlights the "more subtle and difficult to grasp" concept that life isn't always as wonderful as it could be. Is this really the best we can do? Bostrom believes that technology can improve human life because improvement is not just about eliminating negatives, but about adding positives. How do we go about such improvement? Bostrom suggests that we have to change. Although he acknowledges technologies ability to change human biology, he believes that technology has the ability to change our human consciousness. It affords us the opportunity for life and possibilities to be limitless. Because technology is always growing and expanding, the chances humans have to change and improve their lives are too. Technology poses new and exciting ways to improve human life because it creates the human consciousness of limitless possibilities.