Advertisement

Artificial Intelligence, Human Evolution, and the Speed of Learning

  • Michael A. Peters
  • Petar JandrićEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Perspectives on Rethinking and Reforming Education book series (PRRE)

Abstract

Stephen Hawking suggests that a living system has the two parts: “a set of instructions that tell the system how to sustain and reproduce itself, and a mechanism to carry out the instructions” (genes and metabolism). On this definition, computer viruses count as living systems as do artificial intelligences. Hawking explains that human evolution has speeded up. While “there has been no detectable change in human DNA”, “the amount of knowledge handed on from generation to generation has grown enormously” (maybe a hundred thousand times as much as in DNA). This signals that we have entered a new stage of evolution—from natural selection based on the Darwinian model of internal transmission to cultural or self-designed evolution based on an accelerated external transmission of information. This paper presents a thought experiment about philosophical and educational consequences of the possible arrival of: (1) Hawking-inspired postdigital human beings created through self-designed evolution quicker than non-tampered (natural) evolution of human intelligence and (2) algorithmic non-carbon-based “living” systems. In our postdigital age, we are slowly but surely taking natural selection into our own hands, and we need to grapple with the pertinent responsibility.

Keywords

Stephen hawking Artificial intelligence Evolution Education Algorithm Postdigital 

References

  1. Asimov, I. (1950). The robot series. New York City: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  2. Barron, C. (2003). A strong distinction between humans and non-humans is no longer required for research purposes: A debate between Bruno Latour and Steve Fuller. History of the Human Sciences, 16(2), 77–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cronenberg, D. (1986). The fly [Motion picture]. Los Angeles: Brooksfilms and SLM Production Group.Google Scholar
  4. Deary, I. J. (2013). Intelligence. Current Biology, 23(16), 673–676.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2013.07.021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dietz, T., Burns, T. R., & Buttel, F. H. (1990). Evolutionary theory in sociology: An examination of current thinking. Sociological Forum, 5(2), 155–171.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01112590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Feenberg, A. (2002). Transforming technology: A critical theory revisited. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Floridi, L. (Ed.). (2015). The onlife manifesto: Being human in a hyperconnected era. Springer Science+Business Media.Google Scholar
  8. Freire, P. (1972). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Harmondsworth: Penguin Education Specials.Google Scholar
  9. Fuller, S. & Jandrić, P. (2019). The postdigital human: Making the history of the future. Postdigital Science and Education, 1(1), 190–217.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-018-0003-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hawking, S. (1996). Life in the universe. http://www.hawking.org.uk/life-in-the-universe.html. Accessed October 1, 2018.
  11. Hester, H. (2018). Xenofeminism. London: Polity.Google Scholar
  12. Hines, S. (2007). Transforming gender: Transgender practices of identity, intimacy and care. Bristol: Policy.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jandrić, P. (2017). Learning in the age of digital reason. Rotterdam: Sense.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jandrić, P., & Hayes. S. (2019). The postdigital challenge of redefining education from the margins. Learning, Media and Technology. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2019.1585874.
  15. Jandrić, P., Knox, J., Besley, T., Ryberg, T., Suoranta, J., & Hayes, S. (2018). Postdigital Science and Education. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 50(10), 893–899.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2018.1454000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jones, C. (2018). Experience and networked learning. In N. Bonderup Dohn, S. Cranmer, J. A. Sime, M. de Laat, & T. Ryberg (Eds.), Networked learning: Reflections and challenges (pp. 39–56). Springer International.Google Scholar
  17. Jones, C., Ryberg, T., & de Laat, M. (2015). Networked Learning. In M. A. Peters (Ed.), Encyclopedia of educational philosophy and theory. Springer International.Google Scholar
  18. Knox, J. (2016). Posthumanism and the MOOC: Contaminating the subject of global education. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  19. Onlife Initiative. (2015). The onlife manifesto. In L. Floridi (Ed.), The onlife manifesto: Being human in a hyperconnected era (pp. 7–13). Springer Science+Business Media.Google Scholar
  20. Peters, M. A. (2006). Towards a philosophy of technology in education: mapping the field. In J. Weiss, J. Nolan, J. Hunsinger, & P. Trifonas, (2006). The international handbook of virtual learning environments (Vol. I, pp. 95–116). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  21. Peters, M. A. (2012). Bio-informational capitalism. Thesis Eleven, 110(1), 98–111.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0725513612444562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Peters, M. A. & Besley, T. (2019). Critical philosophy of the postdigital. Postdigital Science and Education, 1(1), 29–42.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-018-0004-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Peters, M. A. & Jandrić, P. (2019). Posthumanism, open ontologies and bio-digital becoming. Educational Philosophy and Theory. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2018.1551835.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Plomin, R. (2018). Blueprint: How DNA makes us who we are. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  25. Préciado, P. B. (2013). Testo Junkie: Sex, drugs, and biopolitics in the pharmacopornographic era. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  26. Scott, R. (1982). Blade Runner [Motion picture]. Los Angeles: The Ladd Company, Shaw Brothers, Blade Runner Partnership.Google Scholar
  27. Shiels, P. G., Kind, A. J., Campbell, K. H. S., Wilmut, I., Waddington, D., Colman, A., & Schnieke, A. E. (1999). Analysis of telomere length in Dolly, a sheep derived by nuclear transfer. Cloning, 1(2).  https://doi.org/10.1089/15204559950020003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Singer, B. (2000). X-men. [Motion picture]. Los Angeles: 20th Century Fox, Marvel Entertainment, and The Donners’ Company.Google Scholar
  29. UNESCO. (1998). Teachers and teaching in a changing world. Paris: UNESCO.Google Scholar
  30. University of Edinburgh. (2018). The Centre for Research in Digital Education. https://www.de.ed.ac.uk/. Accessed October 1, 2018.
  31. Ursúa, N. (1996). The biologization of our culture: The challenge of new technologies. In G. Munevar (Ed.), Spanish studies in the philosophy of science (pp. 227–242). Boston: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. U.S. National Library of Medicine. (2015). Is intelligence determined by genetics? https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/primer/traits/intelligence. Accessed October 1, 2018.
  33. U.S. National Library of Medicine. (2018a). What is gene therapy? https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/primer/therapy/genetherapy. Accessed October 1, 2018.
  34. U.S. National Library of Medicine. (2018b). What are the ethical issues surrounding gene therapy? https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/primer/therapy/ethics. Accessed October 1, 2018.
  35. Williamson, B. (2016). Digital methodologies of education governance. Pearson plc and the remediation of methods. European Educational Research Journal, 15(1), 34–53.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1474904115612485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Williamson, B. (2019). Brain data: Scanning, scraping and sculpting the plastic learning brain through neurotechnology. Postdigital Science and Education, 1(1), 65–86.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-018-0008-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Beijing Normal UniversityBeijingChina
  2. 2.Zagreb University of Applied SciencesZagrebCroatia

Personalised recommendations