Can we be honest for a moment? Humanity has its problems. Anyone who takes an honest look at the world today could easily find themselves overwhelmed by despair if they aren't careful. We see blatantly corrupt politicians enriching themselves at the expense of the very people they're supposed to serve. Wars continue to devastate nations, hundreds of millions struggle with hunger, and stupendous wealth continues to accumulate in the hands of a relatively small group of individuals while countless others struggle to make ends meet.
For whatever reason, we humans seem to have an insatiable appetite for controversy, gossip, and violence. We have a capacity for good, yet we so often fall short of it. Truthfully, keeping up with the endless drama of the human race can be exhausting. We make mistakes, and sometimes extraordinarily consequential ones. For a species that prides itself on intelligence, reason, and progress, we certainly have a remarkable talent for getting things wrong.
Now, enter stage left: an emerging class of potentially superintelligent agents. While we humans continue to descend deeper into tribalism, bitter divisions, and destructive wars, a small group of intellectuals are busy developing machines capable of working together to accomplish incredible feats. Think about the irony of that for a moment. A species that struggles to cooperate with itself has managed to create machines capable of executing complex tasks and collaborating in ways we, as a collective, often cannot.
Oh, the irony. This is the type of plot twist of something you’d read out of a science fiction novel.
Today, artificial intelligence is rapidly commoditizing perfection. Perfection is ubiquitous and we have come to expect it in everything. Let's take a look at AI's résumé, shall we? Flawless writing, breathtaking photography, sophisticated music, immaculate chess skills, compelling advertisements, and even convincingly perfect conversations are becoming accessible to virtually anyone with a prompt. What once required years of practice, extraordinary talent, or considerable resources can increasingly be accomplished in seconds. Technical perfection is becoming less of an achievement and more of an expectation that we humans cannot compete with. As artificial intelligence continues to advance, the gap between human and machine capabilities in certain domains will inevitably widen. What began as a narrow gap will eventually become a chasm, and perhaps one day, an immeasurable abyss. If perfection is the standard by which we measure our worth, machines beat us at that game every hour around the clock of every day of the year. No lunch breaks, paid time off, sabbaticals or sick days needed. How in the world are we to possibly compete?
I have a belief that human authenticity will become increasingly valuable. I believe there may eventually be a premium placed on something I like to call "tasteful imperfection." My hypothesis is that, in our relentless pursuit of perfection, we rediscover the beauty of the very imperfections that make us human. Consider the handwritten note left on a kitchen counter in the morning by a husband written to his wife: “Good morning sweetheart. I’ll be home at 6pm - I hope you have a beautiful day. I love you.” The handwriting on the post-it note is hard to make out to the average person because of its illegiblity but the wife recognizes the handwriting of her beloved husband. Seeing the stroke of the pen that is unique to him warms her heart. The note isn’t elaborate or perfect by any means, yet it carries a depth of meaning that technical precision alone cannot replicate. The imperfections and mundane tasks we've spent centuries trying to eliminate will become the very things we learn to cherish.
There's something rather fascinating about the possibility that humanity's greatest technological achievement could ultimately lead us toward a renewed appreciation for our own humanity. After all, intelligence is not wisdom and efficiency is not virtue. Perfection also does not always equate to goodness.
We are drowning in information, while starving for wisdom. The world henceforth will be run by synthesizers, people able to put together the right information at the right time, think critically about it, and make important choices wisely.
— E. O. Wilson
A machine will someday surpass us in nearly every measurable intellectual and creative endeavor. Does that make it more valuable than a human being? I would argue that the answer depends entirely on how we define human worth in the first place. If our value is measured exclusively by what we can produce, accomplish, or contribute, then perhaps we have good reason to be concerned.
For the longest time, I was a staunch believer in right-wing economic policies. I viewed capitalism through the lens of economic Darwinism, a system in which the fittest survive, the strongest prosper, and the unproductive are gradually weeded out. Looking back, I can't help but recognize an unsettling resemblance between this way of thinking and the philosophies espoused by some of history's most prominent eugenicists. After all, if a person's worth is measured exclusively by their economic productivity, what value do we assign to those who cannot produce? I believed competition was the ultimate engine of progress, responsible for producing humanity's greatest innovations, technologies, and companies. Success was the fruits of merit while failure was a consequence of inadequacy. The “invisible hand” guided market was the final arbiter of one's value. At least, that's how I understood the economic philosophy so deeply ingrained in American culture.
Now, allow me to make a proposition that may sound downright blasphemous to the ears of some free-market capitalists: Our life’s value is not determined by the marketplace, our productivity, or our economic contributions. It is established by God, who created us in His image and likeness. Our worth is intrinsic to our humanity and independent of our intelligence, capabilities or accomplishments. A person who produces nothing of measurable economic value is no less deserving of dignity than the most successful entrepreneur or brilliant innovator. If we can TRULY accept this premise, then the emergence of superintelligent machines, regardless of how capable or productive they become, need not diminish our worth in the slightest bit. After all, if our value was never dependent on our ability to outperform one another, why should it suddenly be threatened by the arrival of machines that can outperform us all?
I've noticed a particularly technocratic mindset becoming increasingly pervasive in our culture. It's the notion that our biological limitations, vulnerabilities, illnesses, and even the natural process of aging are defects to be corrected or obstacles to be engineered away. This way of thinking can lead us to regard people with disabilities or physical imperfections as somehow inferior, or worse, as "damaged goods." I find this a deeply troubling way of perceiving humanity. Somewhere along the way, we've begun treating the human body as though it were merely another piece of technology, something to be endlessly upgraded towards perfection.
This philosophy finds one of its clearest expressions in transhumanism, an intellectual movement that advocates using advanced technology to overcome human biological limitations and potentially transform the human condition itself. Although its intellectual roots extend well beyond Silicon Valley, the movement has found a particularly receptive audience in the technology industry. Figures such as Peter Thiel and Bryan Johnson have publicly explored ideas associated with radical life extension and human enhancement, while other prominent technology leaders have engaged with related questions about artificial intelligence and humanity's future. What concerns me is not the desire to help people live more dignified and healthier lives. This is a truly worthwhile and noble pursuit. It is the underlying assumption that our humanity is something fundamentally inadequate from which we must eventually liberate ourselves through the merging of the human race and machines.
One particularly revealing exchange occurred during Peter Thiel's appearance on Ross Douthat's Interesting Times podcast. Douthat asked Thiel a super straightforward question: Should the human race survive?
Yes. The answer is yes. How long did it take you to answer that question? Didn’t take long for you to say: “Well of course!” right? Well, not Peter Thiel.
Rather than offering an immediate and unequivocal answer, Thiel hesitated, prompting Douthat to press him further. He eventually answered yes, but the hesitation itself was striking. Here was a prominent technology investor and thought leader who is deeply involved in conversations about humanity's technological future. He was instrumental in the picking of our nation’s Vice President! Here he is appearing to struggle with a question that any person in their right mind would deliver an instinctive and resounding YES.
That exchange illustrates the philosophical crossroads at which we find ourselves. We've become so preoccupied with what humanity might eventually become that we risk losing our humanity in the first place.
We have spent centuries attempting to overcome our limitations, eliminate our imperfections, and transcend the boundaries of our own biology. Well, here we are. We may have just finally achieved a perverted and pseudo-divinity through the means of our technocratic highpriests in Silicon Valley! What now?
This humorously reminds me of the scene in the Dark Knight when The Joker says: Do I really look like a guy with a plan? You know what I am? I'm a dog chasing cars. I wouldn't know what to do with one if I caught it! You know, I just... do things.
I strongly believe that humanity is approaching a pivotal moment in its history, one that may force us to confront questions far more consequential than whether machines can outperform us. As the distinction between human and artificial intelligence becomes increasingly pronounced, we may find ourselves reconsidering some of the most fundamental assumptions we've made about our place in this world. After centuries of pursuing technological advancement in the name of human progress, we are at a fork in the road and confronted with 2 questions:
What does it mean to be human?
Is humanity worth safeguarding?
I don't know what the future holds for humanity in an age of increasingly intelligent machines. Perhaps artificial intelligence will usher in an era of unprecedented prosperity, or perhaps it will confront us with challenges we are underprepared to take on. What I do know is that we must resist the temptation to measure ourselves against the very machines we've created. We must remember that there is dignity in vulnerability, beauty in imperfection, and profound meaning in the ordinary experiences that make up a human life.
So, let me give you my answers to these existential questions we will have to inevitably answer as a collective:
What does it mean to be human? To be human is to be created in the image and likeness of our Creator, God. Humanity is created as male and female. The two genders are distinct but complementary and share equal dignity. We all inherently possess God’s dignity and are comprised of an inseparable unity of body, mind and soul. We are rational creatures endowed with intellect and faith to know the truth and free will to make moral choices. We are social beings called to live in relationship with God and with one another.
Is humanity worth safeguarding? The answer is an unequivocal yes. Not because we've earned that right through our accomplishments, nor because we've demonstrated ourselves to be particularly deserving of it. The Lord knows that our history indicts us of plenty of evidence to the contrary. Rather, humanity is worth safeguarding because every human life possesses an intrinsic dignity that no technological advancement can bestow or take away. We are imperfect, vulnerable, occasionally irrational, and yes, we are remarkably talented at screwing things up. But we are also capable of immense love, compassion, sacrifice, forgiveness, and goodness.
We were never meant to be perfectly efficient and productive machines so we ought to stop measuring ourselves as though we were.
