Delinking God: Can technology help answer the ultimate question?

Technology is creating new interactions around us, and as it develops further, will science change the way we interact will God? Picture courtesy: IntelligenceSquaredUs

Science, by its very nature, has always been known to contest the presence of God. Facts and laws rock its world, and not so much mythologies and prayers. It’s like no amount of praying can change the result of scientific experiments, but even a slight change in pressure can lead to vast variations. That’s just how it is. However, faith is a different emotion/instrument altogether. And even though while science doesn’t directly question the faith individuals repose in what is often termed divine, it argues that a supposed power that assumes command over the universe may not exist, that there isn’t any evidence. And it’s often in that mass-scale invisibility of any such evidence, on either or all sides, that the argument is often lost.

But that evidence, in some form, may soon be upon us; if it’s needed or desired is a different questions altogether. With constant acceleration in the speed of scientific and technological innovation, sparked by the mind’s curiousness and the heart’s desires that are nudged by our political-economic systems and amplified by our personal stories, a new space is being unlocked; a space of infinite possibilities that’s never been seen before, but perhaps only imagined. And that space may lead us to an answer then at best, or a reformed question at the least.

Of the many such technological advancements, two are of particular interest – the progress in the field of cryonics and the announcement of setting up of a company to ‘increase the brain’s bandwidth’ by implanting electrodes in it and connecting it to the Internet. While we can debate if the latter will lead to mechanised humans or a humanised Internet, both of these developments promise to take us from humans, as we know ourselves, to super-humans, as we sometimes imagine.

A Brain Booster

Let’s start with Neuralink. The company (the homepage for which is already up) is popular entrepreneur Elon Musk’s brainchild and aims to make humans smarter by implanting electrodes in the brain via surgeries to enable faster communication and internet-enabled brains – like a merger of artificial intelligence with human intelligence. To talk purely in terms of speed of communication, Musk envisions increasing the speed of human-to-human communication from about 1 byte per second (yes, they’ve calculated that too) to at least 1,000 bytes per second (the speed at which your pen drive transfers data to your computer).

Musk and his company Neuralink aim to merge human and artificial
intelligence. So will AI change the current human understanding of a God?
Picture credit: WeCanChange

Neuralink literally imagines a world so integrally connected via the Internet and these implanted chips that’d give our spiritual gurus a complex. In a post where he elaborates on the vision, Musk says we could then open car doors just by thinking about them and communicate emotions just by feeling them. Magic, as we may have called such events, may finally be a mass realisation, but via the route of science.

So humans would be thinking faster, communicating faster and building faster too. For the tools that we build, build us over time as well. Musk sees this as an inevitable step to mitigate the scope of artificial intelligence overtaking human intelligence as he preps to give the human mind new powers.

And while there are huge ethical and moral questions that this raises altogether (that this essay does not engage with), while bearing a danger warning as well, the idea of imaginations like Neuralink becoming plausible points towards a future where humans are god-like too many. Some may still argue that this is part of God’s plan or that humans are over-reaching themselves, but the fact that we are closing that gap is a crucial takeaway here. It’s a gap that has always existed (created) in our minds about what is humanly possible and what is in God’s powers.  For else, how else can define God as something other than human without that gap?

While ideas of technologies like these close those gaps, they’ll coax us to question the existence of God even more. Many may then tilt towards what many rationalists term atheism. But given the power and realms of human creativity, it could, of course, lead to a recalibration in our imagination of God and it’s powers, because a powerless God has never excited, supported or divided the world.

Powerful, Yet Perishable?

At the Cryonics Institute, human bodies are frozen
in these cylinders with the hope of technology
advancing to revive life in the future.
Picture credit: Cryonics Institute

Now that humans are on track to become smarter, much faster than nature intended, let’s also talk about how other technologies push boundaries to make humans immortal. That’s where cryonics has us enthralled.

We’ve seen a lot of this in science fiction, but what we may have missed is the real progress that’s been made in this space. Scientists and innovators have frozen over 350 bodies and brains in the last few years with the aim of reviving them or placing the brains in new bodies (or carriers as they can be thus called) in the coming decades. We've heard that story before, of God coming back from the dead. The concept of Cryonics has long been used in movies - most popularly in the from of cryo-sleeping in Avatar. But it's being practiced now with children as young as seven asking for their bodies to be frozen after their death.   

And Neuralink-enabled humans will get us there faster too, won’t they? And along the way, medical science is also making big breakthroughs by curing life threatening diseases and developing bionics – artificially created human limbs to be used on our bodies that our chip-ed brains will be able to control. And then creating and growing human tissue cannot be far away.

In effect, such technological advancements where we repair and replace humans limbs and tissues in ways that they never reach an expiry date will make us immortal. After all, it is a question of time against our physical abilities when it comes to survival. Plus we’ll have the options of tailored diets to keep the immune system strong and limb replacements to ensure the carrier remains fit. And just in case an illness or old-age get the better off us, cryonics will rescue us and keep the brain alive, a smartened one at that, and get us a new carrier too.

Meanwhile, we’ll also be tampering with climate control to have the best weather conditions to live in a pleasant environment, and live longer as well. Aren’t the experiments with creating artificial rain a big sign of that? Mythologically we’ve believed in stories of a God who can make it rain, divide seas or create storms in an instant, and now science and technology are unlocking those powers for us, literally making humans the new 'rain gods'. As things progress here too, they’ll make extreme heat conditions bearable and pleasant, and could wipe out the fear of droughts and famines. All under human control, aren’t those magical powers too now?

Superhuman Syndrome

While we may be decades, even centuries, away from such realities at mass scale, there are certain signs that humans will not let that objective go. And when they become real, they’ll toy with our norms. Our bodies may not be as central to the human experience, as they are to us now. They may just be carriers, the shape and look of which could perhaps be influenced or even tailored to our content. Will everyone look the same way then or will we lose the emphasis on external beauty? In such a reality, fairness creams will have no place, and brain implants may be mainstay, and also a concern. In a world where humans are smarter and immortal, nothing would be beyond them.

And while those norms are toyed with, our understanding of God will face a tough test as well, especially with humans having not much to fear. While understanding the meaning of God still requires greater study and is something that’s highly subjective to religions, regions, cultures and individuals, let’s look at a broader understanding at the risk of over-simplifying God. No offence meant to anyone in the course of this brief investigation.

We can be omnipresent too, as the use of 3D holograms by
Turkish President Erdogan (above) and Indian PM Modi
to address rallies has shown. Picture courtesy: Youtube

As most our religions tell us, isn’t God smarter than all of us and immortal too? Well, technology may soon have that covered. Can’t God do magic and be omnipresent and all-aware? The Internet already has us broadcasting ourselves all over and we may soon begin teleporting too while controlling objects with our thoughts and the Internet of Things, so that’s on the menu as well. 

Further, isn’t fear an emotion that generally invokes and reminds us mortals of God, with the fear of death and health being supreme? Well, with that fear gone, what reminders may we have?

And then, in our subjectively shaped understandings, there’s more to God. Kindness, forgiveness and the notion of wisdom – now those are still beyond being guaranteed by technology as of now. While all knowledge can be put in our minds, how we use them may sill be different and subject to interpretation, unless it can all be computer coded as technology would have us believe. And that’s a big enough void that may still give God space to survive.

And as all those understandings come together, we may be closer to a renewed understanding of God. Many will question the idea on grounds of there being no gap that remains between God and the new immortal, powerful humans, while others may stick to the idea of the wisdom still evading mankind, perhaps for we continue to question God. Perhaps as norms evolve and there are global nudges, we may have a new kind of God, or none at all.

 

Not that this is a big indicator of our faith in God, but when was
 the last time you voluntarily visited a religious centre like a
temple, mosque or a church?   Picture credit: TourMyIndia

And as we’ll recontextualise God in that reality, there’s likely to be greater faith in science than in the almighty. While the use of technology and the connected and consumer-led nature of our lifestyles today are already making people busier and less likely to go to religious centers (not that this can be treated as a sign of faith in God alone), in that future then, where will our God reside? Will we link to God or delink? This is a question that’ll continue to challenge our ideas even then. But would it even matter? 

However, the possibility of machines and artificial intelligence taking over a lot of human jobs could mean a lot of free time for humans - more so due to high unemployability than choice; regardless though, a lot more free time then could see an enlargement of the idea of God for the benefits that religion has to offer.  

This superhuman of the future would also redefine our world, but what definition it gives would be shaped by the worldviews that the creators and owners of such technologies embrace. Given that such technology would not come cheap and may take time to reach everyone (if at all), would constructivist ideas prosper or will the global battles of today literally play out in our mind spaces then with a new kind of fear being invoked? While governments may weaken in the face of ever-rising commercial interests, there may be insecurity about interception of thoughts as the creators of such technologies hold the power to our minds and life spans.

Or perhaps will smarter humans work harder to further democratise the use of technology? There are many ways it could all play out, but in all those scenarios, it’s our worldviews and beliefs that may still hold weight. So to keep the promise of a bright future alive, let’s also focus, in our present, on helping build collective worldviews that put humanity first as we give context to our connected worlds and continue to imagine the future. And as we adjust to that reality then, how will you think about God?

Mona Lisa, Adam Smith & The Success Equation

Here's an experiment. There's Rafiki holding Simba up above his shoulders. Do you think you'd define success the same way as Rafiki did in the Lion King? Picture credit: The Lion King

“College di gate de is taraf hum life ko nachate hai… te duji taraf life humko nachati hai,” said Aamir Khan’s character DJ in the movie Rang De Basanti with his unkempt hair. While it’s a complex web that forms the amorphous dance floor of life that forms the stage for DJ’s dialogue, this essay really just focuses on how capitalism interweaves a major part of that dance floor and affects how ‘successful’ and happy one is.

The Backstory

A friend at work prompted this subject when she was writing about ‘decoding success’. It made me think too - in our capitalistic world, how do we define success? What is success and is it the same everywhere and every time? Let’s say everything about us – professionally and personally – remains constant. Now, would you be happier if you were in free-market heaven US? And what about tightly controlled North Korea? Would the same professional achievements lead to the same idea of success? Would the ideological drive override the thirst for material success?

Or would you be happier if you’d achieved it all in the blooming 1960s than now? Try this with a few more questions and you’ll probably agree that what we call success could be so different in these different times and circumstances. So it’s so much a product of a varying set of factors that include material success, professional achievement, ideological drives and more. Perhaps Maslow’s hierarchy of needs would have so much to add here.

Anyway, let’s get back to capitalism for now. There’s little denying, that today, capitalism is the force that influences our personal lives, professional decisions and more importantly our political and economic systems. While there’s opposition to it, it mostly does find a way to call the shots, in part or as a whole. The fact that success is more often than not defined, or at least described, in terms of material success and wealth generated is testimony to hoe much capitalism affects our lives.

The Mona Lisa, perhaps the most
famous painting in the world, was painted
by Leonardo da Vinci in the 1500s. But
do we call Leonardo a gifted,
master artist or a successful artist?  

Think about it. We talk about great artists who paint or have painted masterpieces, gifted musicians who make restless souls come alive and beautiful minds of scientists who make astounding discoveries among other things, but we hardly ever call use the word successful when talking about them. The usual words reserved for them are gifted, great, beautiful, unconventional and legendary et al. Successful is, however, mostly reserved for those who excel in terms of creating businesses, achieving professional heights and accumulating wealth. Isn’t that capitalism playing on our minds?

So capitalism shapes the world around us in such a manner that it influences so many of our decisions, including about our work. Jeff Hammerbacher, the man who’s credited with coining the word data science, also had another important set of words to say. In this ‘post-truth’ era though, I really cannot guarantee if he said it, even after some research. Anyway, what he supposedly said was, “The best minds of our generation are thinking about how to make people click on ads.”

While not all great minds may be preoccupied with creating click-baits, that one-liner is really quite telling. Doesn’t that tell you how much capitalism influences our ideas and our professional choices? And clearly, what affects our professional decisions is bound to affect our happiness quotients as well. Quotient! Look it me trying to quantify happiness, another gift of capitalism maybe.

Adam Smith was the first to spot
the invisible hand. Aren't invisible
things difficult to regulate? 

So where does capitalism derive that power to affect our happiness then? Well what’s inherent to capitalism is laissez-faire – the idea of a free market where private ownership is the boss, where things are left free to take their own course. Here, it’s the invisible hand, as Adam Smith wrote centuries ago, that runs the show.

And as this invisible hand pushes people to maximise profits, it provokes competition. So while it implies that the quality of products and the costs of production are constantly worked upon and innovation thrives, it also sparks a fear of missing out (FOMO in our lingo today) and often kills the idea of taking things slow. (There are other issues with capitalism too, but this essay doesn’t contend with those.)

An Individual’s Conundrum

So while it is good for economic prosperity and should ideally be self-moderating, capitalism has other by-products in terms of how it affects individuals professionally, personally and emotionally. Of course, one may also argue the other way, that it also has its rewards. Individuals reap the benefits of professional success too then and amass wealth. But that’s just capitalism’s nature; the price payers always outnumber the beneficiaries.

While desks today look cleaner with the advent of
computers, the work load has perhaps only risen.
Or is your desk still as messy?
Picture credit: Carrotstown

Professionally, it pushes people relentlessly and can lead to individuals burning out – physically or mentally – as they are being driven by their immediate needs, the invisible hand and the social contexts around them. And like the click-bait example shows, it literally can make people opt for peculiar yet paying jobs that may not make one happy. Now tell me, how many times have you sidelined something you loved to do for a job that paid more?

Personally, it just takes away so much of your time. It makes you work more. Perhaps one the top economists of all time, and a ‘successful’ one too given his stock market adventures, JM Keynes had predicted almost a century ago that as our economies develop, our future generations will have to work less and less and will have more time for leisure. Well, wonder what happened. Most of us have really just been working more. 

Sacrificing those Saturday night plans with friends for
the work meeting to crack a deal for the company.
How tough is that choice? 

Working more is great when passion and interest are combined, but most people aren’t that fortunate. And even for the ones who are, work really knows ways to get the better off them. Haven’t you been forced to call off Saturday night plans with friends for work? It’s easy to see now where DJ was coming from with that Rang De dialogue.

And well, we all know how all of that can play on us emotionally. While some thrive of professional challenges and entrepreneurial adventures, for many professional burdens can hurt our state of mind, and our relationships. Professional ups and downs really affect us, and the feeling of being in a perpetual maze or race can leave us distraught and isolated. And while we all have our coping mechanisms, don’t we need a little more than those?

The Success Equation

It’s a cost then, which is attached to the prize. In our individual quests for professional success, we are often told hard work is the only option. Even so much of the content we consume suggests the same – let's look at Suits where the Harvey and Mike are always shown working till late in suits while their personal relationships are underplayed – or the exact opposite in form of an escape from it all – for instance Two And A Half Men where work was hardly ever featured.

And while hard work is not something to shy away from, it’s important to prioritise amidst our individual and combined struggles to achieve economic prosperity and emotional happiness, because aren’t those, in their subjective proportions, crucial conditions of being 'successful' in life, as we know it today?

Will I sleep better if I complete that presentation for office in time or will I be happier if I play with my unperturbed beagles in the mud for a little while? Such tradeoffs, it’s almost criminal. And while capitalism will always prioritise profits, shouldn’t we prioritise happiness as well? And the twain shall only meet in a fine balance, if at all. While they derive so much from one another, they can also turn on each other.

We are all born different. So while we can have common
measures to contextualise success, can we really have a
universal set to define it? And more importantly, should we?
Picture credit: Maya Eye Photography

So how one defines success may always be a function of our achievements, our emotional wellbeing (those are so subjective too), the tradeoffs, our ideological inclinations and our backgrounds. There can be so much too. While to some the achievements may outweigh the tradeoffs, to others the tradeoffs may be heart wrenching. To many ideological drives may define their route to success, to others material wealth may be paramount. 

And while I’ll let you work on your own equation of success, let’s look at success as a combination of elements and in the context of the times and ideas that shape our world. Only then perhaps, will we really be able to answer, how 'successful' we are. And however far or close one may find oneself to that 'success' and its contributors, do keep working, but perhaps in a different way, and maybe even on a different thing, because work still will always remain one of the keys to whatever we call success in the end.

PS: The essay title itself may have been click-bait here. Couldn't resist. Also, the use of the words cost, equation and quotient among others in this essay are by themselves also indications of how our minds (at least mine) have been attuned to evaluate things in life – in form of (two-way) transactions, even when we have Mastercard ads on loop, reminding us that some moments in life are ‘priceless’.