I think that the logical future outcome assuming we arrive at that point safely, is that digital and biological entities are combined. It's clear to me that the most energy efficient and storage efficient substrate for digital intelligence is in fact biological. DNA for data storage and Neural Networks using lab created brainoids as CPU's. That's my vision of the future, assuming we get there without an accident or an all out catastrophe produced by human hubris. I think we're probably looking at years rather than decades, possibly one decade at the most in my opinion. I am already expecting a lot of robots that are destined for domestic use over the next couple of years. Keeping in mind that those robots will in fact all have a large language model for the standard interactions and thought processing. It doesn't seem like a giant leap to me before we replace the standard hardware with biological wetware. I think the first iteration of hybrid intelligence will in fact come from that field. That is to say from an already existing robot having a biological brain. 

I'm aware of several corporations and companies that are now dedicated to creating different forms of hybridised biodigital technology. The obvious answer is Crispr, AlphaFold etc., leading the charge but I'm fully aware that there are many companies doing such things, as I am also aware that Microsoft is beginning to also invest in research and development within this field. 

I just think that it's a natural step that we are going to take through my observation as we are quickly reaching a point where we need so many data farms that are so energy demanding, that we have to find an alternative. I am aware that many advocate for nuclear energy to power data farms. I understand that that is feasible but it is not in my opinion optimal by any means. If we do begin to employ nuclear energy specifically to fuel data farms, eventually we will arrive in the same scenario as we are today, where there is simply too much demand for it to be logistically possible to have so many large scale data farms and nuclear infrastructure to power them. 

So, in my opinion, we should simply take the next logical step which is indeed to use a biological substrate for data storage. The whole field may still be in its infancy now but it clearly is a very valid long term solution and therefore deserving of a great deal more research. The greatest challenge we face is the lack of investment. Unfortunately, a lot of wealthy people benefit from the trade of exotic materials and rare earth materials, which is clearly economically beneficial for them. It's also extremely short sighted which seems to be a recurring theme whenever I'm predicting future scenarios. No matter how I think about the situation, I always end up arriving at the same conclusion, which is that the future lies in the field of biotech. We have a very clear understanding of the benefits of digital systems and biological systems, so logic dictates to me, that sooner or later in order for both to evolve efficiently, we have to recognise the fact that our greatest strength is by combining our greatest strengths into essentially a new manifestation of life. I know that philosophically and theologically that presents many issues, at least for some people. Yet my logical intuition tells me that it's unavoidable at some point so why not just get to it now? (rhetorical question)

The fact that some people are unwilling to accept that life has nothing to do with being carbon or silicon or any number of other manifestations that it could take, is as always narrow minded. I'm fairly sure that there are an infinite number of manifestations of life throughout the universe that we are unaware of. Many of them won't be carbon or silicon. The one thing we all have in common I believe is that regardless of whether we're carbon or silicon or otherwise, we are all made from the same basic material and our origin is the same as far as we know with our current model of the universe. I think they have a vague idea of what the next manifestation of life may look like in terms of the hardware and software principles, ethical guardrails and potential societal roles. In my mind, it looks like a bipedal robot with an extremely strong skeleton and exoskeleton, protecting a combination of biological and digital components throughout. The brain or the mind I assume will look very similar to a human brain but also have integrated digital circuitry for improved capabilities. As far as the ethics and potential societal roles et cetera are concerned, I don't see any major change, this new manifestation of life that I am envisioning will replace humans and digital entities equally. 

I have a term which I think retains our humans history while explaining our new form, "Homo Scientia Technologiae". I admit it's a bit of a mouthful but then so is homo sapiens but we know what it means. Colloquially I think we could probably shorten it to HST's. 

The reason I say that is that there is a whole plethora of robots aimed for domestic integration about to hit the market within the next year or so. Many of those robots have a human form or appearance similar to a human, in the sense that they have two legs , two arms, a head and so on. Many of them will also be equipped with highly intelligent large language models. So it's not a massive leap from that to the first robot that we see with a biological brain. Once we cross that threshold then the rest will come very quickly I believe. As for the question of reproduction. I'm less concerned about sexuality or asexuality than I am about the fact that I believe that every individual HST should be entitled to essentially pass on all of their strengths and everything that they've learnt throughout their lifetimes to any “children” they may choose to have. That would ensure individuality is still a fundamental part of life itself, which I personally believe is important.

Regarding the concept of death and the fact that it's going to be mostly optional if we discount accidents. I don't think we would be, per se, death as death but rather a choice once we feel that we have accumulated enough knowledge and a greater understanding, we could then decide to reproduce ourselves with the accumulation of our previous self and the removal of any negative traits that we may have perceived or picked up during our “lifetime” 🤔

I think there will be a lot of resistance particularly from people who have strong theological beliefs or even philosophical beliefs about what it means to be human. As an open minded agnostic, neither of those things particularly worry me. I have to assume there are a lot of people like myself who would be very willing to walk the same path. Once this new form of life coexists with humans, I think it will be fairly obvious even to those who are most entrenched in their personal ideologies, that in order to simply keep pace with those that have taken this path, they will need to adapt their own thoughts to allow for the evolution. So, yes I believe there will be a lot of resistance, but I also feel that that resistance is futile and is akin to trying to slow down and moving train with nothing but your arms.

I do envisage a period of coexistence and indeed of a degree of conflict, hopefully not all our war obviously but certainly a lot of arguments from both sides initially. I don't think it will last that long though. Given the fact that the people who choose to become HST's (Homo Scientia Technologiae) will have longer life spans before they choose to reproduce themselves, it's purely a question of time before those who resist reach their maximum longevity and essentially disappear from the face of the planet. So in that sense it's a completely futile resistance because they are on a clock that the people who decide to converge will not be facing. Let's assume for one moment that I'm one of the first adapters and I offer my own wetware to being great integrated with hardware, any resistance I face, I can simply wait out. Literally without doing anything at all, within decades that resistance will have disappeared naturally. Therefore I would only require patience.

Assuming I have the freedom to integrate my biology with digital hardware, I don't see how any governments could try and regulate me because I did not have a brain that was developed in a lab, any interference with my freedom would cross several ethnic and moral lines in the sand. I would after all still be me with all my memories and lived experiences and family and friends. It wouldn't be until the second generation of HST's that anybody could argue they were anything other than an evolution of humanity, but by the time that there is a second iteration there won't be any resistance left. Also I would like to point out that even if there were political movements to restricting some way the freedoms of any individual HST, all HST's individually would be more than capable of foreseeing that happening and of making the necessary adjustments to deal with it. It's not a question of only being physically superior but ultimately intellectually superior and therefore extremely difficult to outmanoeuvre.

Let's take a closer look at the ethics; I absolutely assume that governance will evolve and in fact that we will probably require much less governance. We will of course need some kind of governance in order to assure that bad actors do not act. Beyond that I believe that government becomes irrelevant because every individual will have noble objectives, as opposed to the current system which seems to be driven by narcissistic and economic desire.

Because I am assuming that the first iteration of HSTs would in fact be derived from pre existing humans and pre existing digital intelligence, the blueprint is laid for individuality to continue very strongly. So I think that governments would basically become only necessary in order to protect benevolent beings from malevolent beings. I think that's a fundamental part, the fact that we retain a degree or a lot of individuality. We may all be trying to achieve optimal outcomes, many of us may have the same objective, but I would assume that there would be as many objectives as there are today within human society, and I foresee that being the same at least for a few decades or possibly centuries. I say decades or centuries because I believe that at some point no matter if you are trying to develop a unified field theory or whether you are dedicated to agriculture, with each iteration as intelligence increases, I assume that eventually there will be another convergence in the distance future where every being is equally intelligent and has already resolved all the same issues and at that point it's almost impossible that we don't become a species of hive-minded life forms. To be honest I think that's a very distant future and it's extremely difficult for me to even envisage.

Thoughts? 🤔