For the first time in human history, we have tremendous control over our own species’ future. Today, we can reprogram genomes, engineer synthetic life, and in general do really awesome things that are nonetheless completely unnatural. We have overridden many of nature’s systems and have taken humanity’s fate into our own hands, because now we make the decisions, independently of – and sometimes (foolishly) against – nature and its holistic well-being. But this marks a transition nonetheless: We are becoming a new species, we are becoming Homo Evolutis.

Despite the onset of this technological renaissance, not much else has changed. From an evolutionary perspective, we live in relatively unchanged bodies and we have the same basic hardware we had thousands of years ago… The key difference is that today, we’re surrounded by technologies that can be (1) Biologically foreign and (2) Capable of amplifying human intent tremendously.

The exponential growth of technology has changed our world forever. In many ways, the human mind is starting to out-evolve its hardware; technologies — and thus, our minds — are now growing faster than our biology can adapt. This has triggered 3 main changes:

1. Network Society — Improved connectivity and globalization. Technology is a connective and empowering force. “Progress” is at least to some extent synonymous with the growth of technology. Numerous studies have demonstrated technology’s usefulness as an effective antidote for poverty, human rights violations, and poor health or education standards.
2. Changes in social norms, psychological behavior, and human nature. Technology has left some people feeling stressed, overburdened with information, or perhaps a little uncertain about the future. For those of us living in the first world with Internet access, it has also allowed us to exchange information at a more rapid pace, leading to what psychologists might call “network society syndrome”, which entails looking at screens for most of the day and relying on technology as if it were an exocortex (an extended or external brain). These and other changes in how and where we spend the majority of our time are influencing our mental, physical, and spiritual health in ways we have yet to fully understand.
3. Changes in how we spend time: Technology is no longer simply a means to an end, but also a new way of spending time in and of itself. Technology is no longer something we merely use as a tool to change the physical world. Today it has entered the mental realm, becoming a vital tool not only for the management of information, but also as a means to capture, remix, and share human experience. Whereas technologies of the past allowed us to do more (augmenting our physical abilities), technologies of the 21st century also permit us to think more (augmenting our mental abilities). This is new; for most of our species’ history, technology was simple and tool-like; objective-based; a means of doing something. But today, technology is deeply embedded in an information context – it’s a completely new way of spending time.

Still, many regions of the world lack access to technology — a phenomenon known as the Digital Divide, which we still need to fix.

We need to start thinking about the future of technology, and how it affects (and will affect) long-standing balance. The responsibility is becoming increasingly ours as we continue to build new technologies that promise to change the natural world and the ways in which we spend time. We can’t expect nature to clean up all our messes, nor can we continue building new technologies without regard to human psychology, environmental consequence, health, or reason. Technology’s benefits are numerous, but these shifts also raise questions about sustainability, data ownership, freedom, privacy, and piracy — questions also discussed in The New Digital Age: Reshaping the Future of People, Nations, and Business and in A Whole New Mind: Why Right-Brainers Will Rule the Future.

The world is changing more rapidly than ever – a new era has dawned, the origins of which we typically attribute to technology’s “exponential growth” like it’s some kind of uncontrollable hydra. But this is a fallacy — despite technology’s rapid growth, we (economic players, citizens, people) control it completely. Every economic transaction, every social encounter, every choice to favor the health of the natural world over short-term profit — helps shape the future of nature and technology on Earth.

Two rates of evolution

Biological evolution can’t keep up with the rapid growth of technology and information. This makes me wonder: How can we make these two rates of evolution balanced, intertwined, and sustainable? If the growth of information technology continues to accelerate exponentially, then what does it mean for the future of life on Earth? In other words, how can we protect our biological future as humans?

To answer this question, we need to systematically rethink why we use technology — as in, for what reasons. Are we using technology to protect what we already have, or to create something brand new?

Personally, I feel that we need to put Earth – and the health of its inhabitants – first — before the economy, before new technologies of dubious value or disproportionate environmental expense, and before anything else that might hinder or limit our ability to live on Earth in a sustainable environment. My point is that the natural world isn’t worth trading away for anything. All too often, it seems that we prioritize abstract notions of “progress” or “development” like those are the only things that matter, but I would argue that the health and integrity of the natural world should be our first priority. After all, what supports that economic growth to begin with? Without nature (i.e. environmental health, stability), we have nothing.

Humans need to prioritize human interests, plain and simple. This means pursuing goals that comply with global human ideals, values, and interests. If we let the economy (or technology) run out of control and tell us what to do (instead of the other way around), then we aren’t going anywhere promising. Yes, the rapid growth of information technology and economic markets is exciting — but these aren’t necessarily the things that matter most.

In short, I feel we need to check our priorities. Are we directing the economy towards human interests, or are we becoming slaves to the process? Do we pursue the next iteration of technology for a better planet, or “just because” we want to? What I’m saying is that technological growth is important, but what matters more is the kind of growth. The economy, and more specifically the technology sector — needs not only growth but also direction.

Technology (and the economy, for that matter) shouldn’t be used for any purpose other than ensuring basic human well-being, which means: Taking care of the environment, maintaining the basic health and quality of life of people worldwide, ending wars and conflict where possible, protecting basic human rights, and so on… This is especially important because of the digital divide. It is irresponsible to ignore (or worse, perpetuate) world issues by contributing to the same processes that widen the digital divide. And it’s hard to draw the line: how can we differentiate between economic activity that only widens the digital divide versus economic activity that bridges the gap?

We want to create a future where technology is evenly distributed – this will help alleviate poverty, and in so doing, protect the integrity of the natural world and its resources. Specifically with regard to economics, we need to reconsider abstract notions like “growth” and “progress” with regard to development, and look deeper into what those words actually signify. Technological growth isn’t just about more. It’s about strategy, which entails maximizing the best attributes and minimizing the bad. In this sense, growth can even mean less (but better)!

It’s not like we have to choose between nature or progress – we can absolutely have both. To me, it’s just a matter of balancing priorities.

Unrestricted markets, the exponential growth of technology, and the very finite resources given to us by nature are a dangerous mix. Nature always needs time to recharge, to regenerate; but technology’s growth is relentless — exponential. If the growth of technology is both undirected and exponential, then we face a serious problem. If we know Moore’s Law (exponential growth) to continue to be true, then we can’t expect linear systems to carry that weight – it simply won’t work. Markets can’t really ‘go exponential’ like technology can — neither can nature. If technology – or the economy for that matter – grows faster than nature can sustain it, then we’re in a tight spot.

The Digital Divide: We aren’t done yet

Before I was talking about technology for purpose. This can be difficult to define, but as a general rule of thumb, we need to focus our efforts on building technologies that actually help us, not undermine our priorities or wreck the planet. I’m talking about restorative technologies that solve problems.

Here in the first world, it’s easy to become distracted. We’re immersed in the future, but surprisingly insulated from world events. As we go about pursuing the next iteration of the iPhone, the rest of the planet faces serious problems. Elsewhere in the world, the very laws that bind us as human beings are being violated. I’m talking about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and how we fail to meet our species’ own “universal” requirements. To me, this indicates a lack of cohesion as a species. It almost seems irresponsible to have such disparate levels of technology, yet no one is to blame — economies just develop at different speeds.

But this also makes me ask: has the economy severed our bonds as human beings? Do we value short-term profitability more than our own species? By pursuing the advancement of technology so vigorously, have we forgotten about the rest of the world? Is economic progress really the only measure of success from a planetary perspective?

Of course not. But it’s easy to get fooled. My point here is that we aren’t done yet. For those of us living in the first world, access to technology comes with a responsibility – not only to (1) Use it well, but also to (2) Spread it evenly (i.e. help close the Digital Divide).

Basic human rights are being violated, and we’re here buying smartphones: Should access to technology come with a sense of ‘species responsibility’?

As global citizens, we must consider: If we enjoy good access to technology here in the first world, then doesn’t that access confer a certain responsibility to share-alike? As I’ve said before, we don’t want technology to turn into an exclusive club – it should be made accessible, in an effort to bridge the digital divide (which ultimately benefits everyone).

If we pursue financial gain alone – removed from the ‘bigger picture’ of environmental sustainability and without regard to the the future of our species from a basic humanitarian perspective — then it is likely that more than just the economy will fail. We must keep sight of what matters most and focus on corresponding changes to make, because we most certainly cannot have it all. Simply put, there are two ends of the spectrum: ‘Undeveloped’ nature, and ‘modernized’ human infrastructure. We need to find a good balance between these ends, and this, to me, marks a primarily economic challenge; thus one states should prioritize. We need a revised economy that factors two very key metrics into the price of goods: (1) Social benefit – e.g. ‘is this product obviously hurting society’, and (2) Environmental sustainability – e.g. ‘is the product statistically correlated with problems like environmental degradation, litter, or resource depletion?’

These are quantifiable metrics that should be factored into every economic transaction.

Closing the Digital Divide

A few short ideas for how we can make a real difference, starting this generation:

• Technology for a purpose, and markets with a direction: Design technologies in the first world for the whole world. This is just your average “mindfulness” prod. Markets should be motivated to benefit society and protect human rights – not just grow aimlessly without a real direction. Cutting-edge tech markets in the first world may be profitable, but they don’t make sense in a global context (…who cares about augmented reality when there’s no water). We need to focus on building technologies that benefit our species as a whole. Read: technology that solves (real) problems. We don’t want to perpetuate the digital divide even further by pursuing technologies that are valuable to only a small audience.
• Improve global access to technology → Better human rights protection. This is an obvious but related point. When a country has unrestricted access to technology, human rights violations tend to decline.
• Improve global access to technology → Reduction in poverty → Environmental & resource stability. Another positive side effect of modernization and improved access to technology.
• Access to technology also benefits education (although it is no substitute!)

Continued: technology for a purpose

I think there are some pretty impressive technologies being built right now. New phones, exciting new brain-computer interfaces, even optics that can deliver information directly into your visual field. Still, these new inventions exist in a global context. What’s the use of the next iteration of smartphone or laptop when the water’s polluted or the air’s impure? While we focus on reinventing the wheel for the nth time (e.g. creating new smartphones), there are some serious problems elsewhere in the world that lack the attention (or solutions) they deserve. If we’re so distracted pursuing technology’s newest iteration here in the first world, then what about everywhere else? Shouldn’t the economic development of technology here in the first world be incentivized to fit a more species-centric (i.e. holistic, global, purposeful) context?

The main issue I have with society’s current treatment of technology is the abstractification of purpose. I see a lot of new inventions, but the ones that help the planet in obvious or significant ways usually tend to be the worst-selling or least popular. “Technology”, as told by the mainstream media’s perspective, is apparently very gimmicky and fad-driven — very rarely is it seen as being humanitarian, life-saving, or even helpful to the environment and society. This is partly due to how the media handles technology, but it’s also just true: Technology is motivated by profitability and trends. Nonetheless, profitability is not a reliable metric of usefulness or how beneficial something is to human progress and society at large.

The main guiding force behind the growth of technology is market economics. Therefore, we assume that if something sells, then it must be good for our species — and this is not necessarily correct logic (it’s as fallacious as ‘if it feels good, it must be good’). We assume that economic growth equates to progress, and that the best-selling technologies are naturally the best ones for humanity. This also is somewhat naive and not necessarily true. I think this is why we need more government agencies and NGOs to incentivize the pursuit of worldchanging technologies even outside of economic markets, because the economy is still only motivated by one thing: profit — not philanthropy, social equity, or protecting environmental sustainability (although if these causes were outwardly incentivized, we might see better results).

We don’t want an economy optimized for profit, we want one that’s optimized for human interests. The economy should have a direction – a purpose – but “growth” in an abstract sense can’t be it.

If we optimize the economy for maximum profitability, chances are that individual consumers as well as the environment will suffer. That’s why we need an economy that is a reflection of real human interests – an economy that has inbuilt incentive to heal the planet.

I would be much more excited over an economy that optimized itself for environmental sustainability. To factor these kind of metrics into the price of economic goods would be a wise (albeit difficult) move.

I would argue that the majority of the problems we face today are the rest of unequal access to technology. This is a dangerous spiral because it only perpetuates itself… Hence, “Digital Divide”.

Generally, what I’m describing is the need for perspective – not only economic, but also social perspective. We are essentially using technology to define the future of the human race, and everyone should be included in that decision – not just the people living in the first world with access to the newest technologies. The digital divide must close, and the best way of accomplishing that may be through the economy – by taxing goods that are harmful to the environment, and incentivizing products that are sustainable or otherwise ‘statistically beneficial’ to society.

These economic changes would be a good first step. Now we arrive at this series’ guiding question: how can we facilitate the spread of ICT and help make technology universally available? Moreover, how can people living in the first world use technology in ways that benefit not only the first world, but the whole world?

Technology comes at you fast

Only in the past century have we have gained incredible control over life, the physical world, and the state of our own planet. I don’t need to provide examples of how technology can create – and destroy – because in the past century, we’ve seen plenty of both. The point is, technology can change the world.

Technology amplifies our abilities as agents of causation — but we still lack a common direction or purpose as a species. Our progress is stratified and subject to disparity — technology is just unequally distributed. We often override nature — but we aren’t any wiser. Before we get too ahead of ourselves, we need to come back and agree on some basics before exponential change really takes off, because if we stand for nothing, we’ll fall for anything.

Here are some guiding questions to consider over the course of this series: Can we use technology to redefine the human condition? If so, in what ways are appropriate, and how will these changes affect society? Is society itself bound to change? How can we balance the exponential growth of technology with nature, which has been along for much longer? How can people living in the first world help make technology globally accessible and without capitalist hooks?

The Evolution of Ideas (Creation of an Information Economy)

The phrase, “the pen is mightier than the sword,” hasn’t really been true for most of human history. For centuries, biology was the dominant factor in evolution; only those with the best genes lived long enough to influence the future. In other words, the scholars with their stone tablets or papyrus scrolls were often attacked by the dudes with axes. The mice had no choice but to hide from the raptors, but somehow, we are still here.

Matters are somewhat different today — natural selection has effectively been recrafted; it hardly acts on biology at all (especially for those of us fortunate to live in the Global North, where instead cigarettes and self-destructive lifestyles make up for natural selection). Modern society has spawned an entirely new breed of natural selection, one where ideas compete with each other to win popular opinion, which has created a new competitive economy of ideas and information. This ‘new’ natural selection favors innovative thought, which theoretically causes the best ideas (“memes”) to naturally rise to the top. Information “selected” by the information economy lasts long enough to “reproduce” and diffuse throughout the collective mind of society.^[1]

As a species, we have taken our first steps into the realm of information. Despite the unequal distribution of technology and the Digital Divide, we are moving away from yesterday’s industrial economy and toward the information economy, exponential intelligence, and the Singularity / Omega Point.

What Initiated this Shift?^[2]

• Physical labor is no longer a necessity: Machine automation has reduced the demand for physical labor. People have more time for creative work. We are making the transition to an information economy.
  
• Importance of design: In a society of abundance, design is gaining more importance over mere functionality.
• Resource stability: Next year’s harvest looks good. Our material needs are set. At least here in the first world, we have all the stuff we need.
• Less barbarians, more security: There are significantly fewer dudes roaming the countryside with axes, which allows us to build great things like libraries and universities, where the growth of information has a network effect and can accelerate exponentially (see below).^[3]
• Rise of Network Society: Today, ideas propagate much faster than ever before, which further contributes to growth.

We choose our own future

What lies ahead? Given recent technological advances, we may as well decide for ourselves – seeing as we now kind of direct the process of evolution itself… which is a big responsibility, and not one we want to undertake without gaining some real consensus as a species; agreement on human ideals in a planetary sense. Personally, I think protection of the environment should be our top priority — a global imperative, at that. To me, it makes so much sense for the economy, technology, and nature to be aligned as one force – a unified direction of progress. We need to protect this balance – for instance, we don’t want technological growth at nature’s expense or vice versa.

“Homo sapiens, the first truly free species, is about to decommission natural selection, the force that made us… Soon we must look deep within ourselves and decide what we wish to become.” – Edward O. Wilson

“The day may come when we are able to take the best biology of the known animal kingdom and make it part of our own… We would become a species that could, literally, control its own biological destiny.” – Ars Technica

“We’re going to move from a Homo sapiens into a Homo evolutis: … a hominid that takes direct and deliberate control over the evolution of his species, her species and other species.” – Jean Enriquez

We could just as easily turn a blind eye to the future and never have these conversations – but as David Deutsch explains in The Beginning of Infinity, societies that fail to adapt to change (i.e. “Static societies”) are doomed to fail. We can’t just ignore exponential change, we have to surf it.