Ready Writing

1A

There is no denying that technology dominates modern life. The cell phone is quite literally everywhere, capable of tracking its owner’s movements. If one ever looked at Google Chrome’s Auto fill settings, it is quite unsettling how much information is known about a person. Name, phone number, address, email. Add a social security number or a credit card and it is an identity thief’s playhouse. Yet as smart as these machines are, they are far from intelligent. All of the power Siri has was given to it by human beings through some clever programming. Today is still a long way off from either a Mr. Data or a terminator. White AI may be a very frightening prospect, it is much less horrifying than modern humans equipped with today’s technology with a malicious intent.

As Weiner states humans “may not know, until too late, when to turn it off”. In case of Jurassic Park, the off button should have been pressed before the dinosaurs were made. In the book, Mr. Hammond’s park runs almost entirely on 1990’s computers trying to contain creatures that have not taken breath in 65 million years. As the computer system begins to show problems and the main programmer goes AWOL all of the dinosaurs get loose leading to the deaths of several people including the park’s creator himself. The novel proves the point of “just because one can doesn’t mean one should.”

In 1990 computers just were not capable of running a system so large. Indeed the internet barely existed. For example, the Mars Pathfinder website circa 1997 contained six links and required one to go through a menu page (nota drop-down menu like that of the modern age, an actual page just to get where one wants to go) to visit any given part of the site. It shall be interesting to see how such a park fares on modern technology when

Jurassic World is finally released.

When Norbert Wiener wrote “Some Moral and Technical Consequences of

Automation” many of today’s “intelligent machines” did not exist. Wiener did not have dial up let alone LTE’s blowing fast speeds. It would be interesting to get his opinion now, especially on the war machine. In the 1960’s the country was basically off of

Truman and Eisenhower’s push for nuclear weapons, which, while very frightening and lethal, could not be launched without human input. Now, Unmanned Aerial Systems such as the Predator can hover above an area for days waiting for an enemy to come out. What happens when such a weapon gets hacked and falls into the wrong hands? Even if a terrorist cell does not manage to bring down a military UAS, civilian drones are fairly easy to make, strap a bomb to, and send off to cause destruction. As shown by the recent gyropter landing on the Capitol lawn, the nation’s capitol city has some serious airspace issues to resolve. A drone is much smaller than any helicopter or airplane and multi-rotor designs are capable of flying as slow as any bird. In such a drone strike, there really can be no way of knowing who to blame until someone tracks it, and there lies the terror.

Weiner talks of a “’push button’ nuclear war” which sounds strikingly similar to the movie War Games. In the movie, a boy hacks into a war simulator missile array.

While any missile he shoots is hypothetical, the machine’s missile is all to real.

Eventually the machine is disarmed by forcing it into an infinite loop during a game of tic-tac-toe, the implications of such a machine and its power to “do anything to win a nominal victory even a the cost of human survival “are worrisome if the military does not pull the plug or indeed have no plug to pull when the time comes.”

As frightening a machine like that is, it is still unintelligent. It may be able to

“learn” in a sense that it can find the simplest solution, the computer that could threaten humanity would have to be able to think and change its programming to fit its ideals.

Such machines are present in the television series “Star Trek: the Next Generation.” In the show, Commander Data, an android, is seen being able to think and at times come up with his own system of beliefs. Yet he is not fully human in appearance. However, during one episode the crew finds a duplicate of Data called lore who’s programming is slightly different allowing him to behave like a human. This frightens the colonist with which he lived so he was dismantled and Data was made. This may be the undoing of any computer wanting to rule the world. Human beings reach a point that if a computer or robot is too humanlike, in either appearance or behavior, they begin to fear it.

However, what if people want to be controlled and assimilated into a cyborg/technological society. The cellular phone, while almost always with people is not connected to them. Yet society is moving in that direction. The Apple Watch is the first step, having much of one’s phone’s functions right there on their wrist, but even it can be taken off. What happens when technology becomes a parasite of sorts, feeding off the body’s energy to give one texts directly to the brain. Possibly the more important question is what happens if the server that controls such technology is taken over by a man or machine and an army of stolen bodies is created? While the 1960’s atom bomb was deadly, at least it killed people instead of forcing them to watch their bodies move without their command. In conclusion, while nightmares like AI do cause people to think, they are just that, nightmares. As the saying goes “guns don’t kill people, people kill people.”

Technology is only dangerous when it falls into the wrong human hands. In the year 2015

2001: A Space Odyssey’s HAL 9000 is still just a thing of cinema (unfortunately, so are the spaceships). There is no technology today that is capable of killing off humanity all by itself, and through the careful work of future generations who know when to press the off switch, there never will be.

Ready Writing

2A

Over thousands of years, humans have experienced several stages of evolution, from the Neanderthals to the Cro-Magnons to the Homo sapiens we are today. However, humans have evolved in more ways than just physically. From the most basic rock tools of the “cavemen” to the mass automation of the Industrial revolution, humans have been using technology to evolve into more sophisticated beings capable of accomplishing more and thinking at higher levels. Today, technology has evolved to a point where machines can basically think much faster and more comprehensively than humans. This has frightened some people, who envision a future of oppressive robot overlords, but if we have this wonderful resource of technology than can think, basically, better, than us then there is no reason we shouldn’t take advantage of it. If humans are cautious in monitoring the capabilities of advanced technology and artificial intelligence, we can use it to evolve into the most sophisticated humans yet.

The great science fiction writer Isaac Asimov imagines a future in which humans merge with machines in his short story “The Last Question.” The story presents a series of scenes, each set in a different future time period, in which humans ask their artificially intelligent supercomputer, Multivac, the question, “Can entropy be reversed?” or, in other words, “Can we prevent the universe from ultimately destroying itself?” Each time the question is asked, Multivac has the same answer, “INSUFFICIENT DATA FOR

MEANINGFUL RESPONSE.” Over time, the humans in the story evolve alongside

Multivac, both human and machine becoming more technologically advanced. Finally, in the last scene of the short story, both humans and Multivac are just consciences floating around in space. The humans ask the question one last time and get the same response before merging with Multivac. Now alone in the universe and possessing all the consciences of mankind, Multivac watches the stars blink away one by one until the universe is nothing more. At last, the answer to “the last question” comes to it, and it proclaims into the nothingness, “Let there be light!” This short story is an extreme, fantastical version of human evolution, in which, after merging with machines, humans become God. Of course, realistically this wouldn't happen, but as machines and humans grow closer together, humans will become more sophisticated and capable of higher levels of thinking, just like Homo sapiens are capable of higher levels of thinking than

Neanderthals.

When most people think of humans and machines becoming one, they think of humans becoming more and more like machines, not machines becoming like humans.

However, this is the case in the Oscar-nominated film, Her. In the film, the main character is a man who lives in a future society dominated by technology in which artificial intelligence plays a huge role in daily life. Each person has an earpiece that they have in at all times, with an artificially intelligent operating system that can answer any questions they have, tell them their schedules, or perform any number of tasks, much like the “personal assistants” built into smartphones today, such as iPhone’s Siri. The main character of the movies purchases a new operating system, the most advanced one yet, and as he talks and listens to “her” (the operating system) all day, he begins to grow very close to her and think of her as another person. At this point in the movie, this man starts to sound a little mentally unstable, but then the viewer starts to get the sense that the OS genuinely likes the man back, like the machine is actually capable of feelings. Although the movie ends with the operating system having to leave, Her provides an alternative example of how humans and machines could evolve together, as it only makes sense that as humans evolve, so will machines.

However, as the aphorism says, “With great power comes great responsibility.”

It’s important that humans are cautious in developing newer, better technology.

Technological giants like Bill Gates and Elon Musk have already issued warnings as to the power of artificial intelligence. It’s important that humans don't blindly plunge ahead, thinking only of what can be done, not what should be done. In this area, we can learn from Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein. In the novel, the protagonist, Victor Frankenstein, is completely consumed with the desire to discover the secret of life. He works for months, not sleeping for day at a time, experimenting, recording data, and coming up with new ideas. He doesn't think about what will happen once he actually discovers the secret or what ramifications might accompany the creation of life. He thinks of only the great service he’s providing humanity. When he finally succeeds in creating life, he is horrified at the grotesqueness of the monster he’s created. At this point, though, it’s too late for him to turn back. The monster, angry with his creator for making him such a wretched creature, ruins Victor’s life by killing his loved ones, and eventually Victor dies in the pursuit of his monster. The story of Victor provides an important lesson for the people developing artificial intelligence today: even with the best intentions, things could go wrong. However, this doesn't mean people shouldn't continue to experiment, learn, and evolve. We should absolutely continue developing newer and better technology, just cautiously. Humans are driven to become better, faster, stronger versions of ourselves, and technology can help us do that. We’ve already naturally evolved from “cavemen” to modern humans, and we can advance even further with the help of technology.

Technology advances so rapidly, and we do not know how far it can take us. Who knows, the next step in our evolution could even be a race of techno sapiens.

Ready Writing

3-A

A Medical Professional’s Guide to Losing Life

The first step in becoming a true medical professional is believing that you will change lives, that you are a warrior for life, and, yes, that you will never lose a patient under your caring hands. The older doctors will scoff at you and your bright optimism.

They see the light in the young professional’s eyes, and with faces scarred by time and smirks sculpted by sorrow, they will doubt your optimism. As a beginner in the infinite world of maladies, you will think that your job is to fight death. Do anything and everything in your power to fight that cursed destroyer of worlds, usher of nightmares, creator of pain and suffering. You were taught to use any weapon available to you, that is of course, if the patient signs off on all the legalities. Scalpel in hand, sterilized armor on, and a full cavalry of medical equipment behind you, you ride off courageously into the battle against death in all its forms. You were taught to fight with everything available to you, even if that battle lies inside another human’s body. This is medicine, and in medicine, the end justifies the means. Stuff that body with morphine, poke constellations in that work of dying art if it means breathing that beautiful breath of life for another second. Go ahead and prescribe all the chemicals mined out of the corpse of the earth, and go ahead and fill the stomach with a concoction of who-knows-what. You are a warrior after all, and since the end justifies the means, you should do whatever if takes to drive the destroyer of worlds from this single human body. But then, what if “the end” really is the end? What if there is no tomorrow for your patient, and the hourglass is finally up? The string is cut, the last petal fallen and disheveled. What now? This is medical school: how to fix a broken body. How to artificially poison natural poison. How to stop God for a few more days, years, decades. This is not medical school: how to stay locked in a gaze with a dying man. How to wipe tears from the brimming eyes of a child going nowhere. How to appreciate the impending darkness of a setting sun, how to smile at a flower slowly un-blooming, how to partner dance in a burning room. The second step to becoming a medical professional is accepting that you must learn to tend to a dead person. It’s impromptu. It’s freestyle, it’s a sudden face-off with death, and no one taught you how to play this game. The person lying in bed is yours. It’s a somebody who was a someone, and this body is yours to harvest until death reaps it. How to? You will be terribly confused with failure and choked up by fear; after all, as your patient’s hand shoots out before him, reaching into a distance your eyes weren’t taught to see. Maybe you should shut the curtains to keep the light out, or maybe your patient wants a glimmer of a last radiance. You wouldn’t know. The patient’s hand in the air is now slowly gripping onto something. Could it be he is holding onto life? Is he being handed back all of his memories? Is he holding onto God’s coattail? Should you hold his hand, to have him have that last human connection before falling into the arms of cursed death? You wouldn’t know. The MCAT never asked you this type of question. At the last second, you do what you were taught to do. Use your weapons and fight death.

You use every tool available to you, and suddenly you remember that time in your childhood when you shook your dead goldfish violently in its bag to only realize it had been dead and there was nothing left to do about it. Death is death is death is death. Your patient’s hand is no longer out. It let go of something, you don’t know what. The medical amateur should then come to the conclusion that the third step to becoming a true medical professional is letting people die. Let death reap what life has sown. From the beginning, you had known that death is only a part of life, so why is it so hard to let a person die in peace? Why had you shaken the poor little goldfish, why had you sent waves of electricity through a body already gone. You let somebody die. The medical professional will then shut the curtains, page somebody for clean up, remove his gloves disappointedly, all to the tune of a flat line like in those medical dramas. You remember how that patient felt under your gloved hands. Leathery, wrinkled skin or flesh, taught skin still ready to grow and be used. A shuddering breath like a machine or a smooth, last exhale. Eyes that glimmered in the hope of rising again or eyes that glimmered under the intense operating bulbs. Did they go quietly into the night or did they rage against the dying of the light? Every memory is fresh on you like black, wet ink. You know now, thought, that eventually that cadaver will only be a black tattoo in the darkest, foggiest crevices of your mind, indistinguishable from the rest of the dead.

You realize it is just another body in the ground. Dust is to dust.

Many times, the medical professional will leave empty handed. No victory to take home. The only thing the professional will come home with is questions. Questions and questions and questions. Why didn’t I leave it alone? What is my job, my duty? Why didn’t medical school teach me about death? You laugh at yourself. Why did I pay so much for medical school when I wasn’t even taught to value you the process of life? The eternal sunrise and sunset of life…why hadn’t you been taught to value the beauty of age? You can fancy the oldest wines and watch in awe as somewhere in the world a hurricane rips through a town, but you still have yet to appreciate the controlled, chaotic beauty of destruction. You know that out there, there are still many health care providers who choose to fight death even when the battle is beyond ugly and the battleground already worn and ready to crumble. You with that you had known since the beginning to just let life and death play it’s game and simply let yourself and your patient be pawns.

Until the end of your career you will regret shaking that goldfish and you will never know what that man was reaching for in the distance. Death is death is death is death and sometimes it is absolutely beautiful.

Ready Writing

4-A

A Beautiful Ending

Humans have always had an uneasy relationship with death. Everyone understands, at some level, that they will one-day experience it, but very few dwell on it.

Medical science has allowed modern people to live much longer, healthier lives, but has yet to banish the specter of death completely. Throughout literature, history, and even current events, men and women have struggled with the concept of death and its implications, both for themselves and for society as a whole.

A preoccupation with death, and the afterlife that was believed to follow, can be traced back to the earliest civilizations of antiquity. Ancient Egyptian culture was centered around preparing for the afterlife, and the pharaohs went to great lengths to be ready for their eternal demise. The pyramids, a direct result of this fixation with death, sometimes took decades to build, and the process of mummification, intended to preserve the ruler’s body for use in the afterlife, was costly and extraordinarily complicated.

Whole segments of the Egyptian economy were based entirely on the process of death, ensuring it maintained a central cultural niche.

The Egyptian cultural fascination with death stood in stark contrast with the attitudes held by either northern neighbor, the Greeks. Personifying death as the god

Hades, the Greeks saw death as something to be feared and avoided, not extravagantly prepared for. Though Hades occupied a central role as the oldest and one of the most powerful of the gods, there were not temples build in his name. The lord of the underworld was not even considered one of the Olympians highest of the gods, precisely because of the nature of his sphere of influence. Greeks prepared for their afterlife by attempting acts of bravery and heroism, in hopes that even in death they would avoid

Hades’ influence in the field of Elysium. The aversion to death occupied such a central role in Greek thought that many of their myths feature the descent of the hero into the underworld, only to return in victory to the world above.

In contrast to the attitudes of celebratory preparation or grim acceptance which characterized the ancients’ views on death, those in later centuries were more inclined to attempt to avoid it. Juan Ponce DeLeon lost his wife in Florida during the Spanish colonization while search for the mythical “Fountain of Youth” that would grant him immortality. Even in the 1800’s this idea of “cheating” death still held, popular appeal, as demonstrated in Oscar Wide’s story “The Picture of Dorian Gray.” In the work, a young gentleman finds a way to seal his soul in a self-portrait, so that it will age in his place.

The story the focuses on the slide into utter depravity caused by Dorian’s agelessness, which is only broken when he looks at the picture of himself, reversing the curse. Though

Gray does indeed “cheat” death, the effects are far from permanent.

Every today, society demonstrates the influence of the past in our own handling of death. Though no one today spends decades constructing a pyramid, the passing of a loved one still celebrated with funerals and mark with gravestones. Though few live in fear of Hades, the idea of “eternal life” remains a central event of many religions, and, though few try to “cheat” death, most people attempt to sustain their life as long as possible.

Attitudes about death vary wildly today, as evidenced by the ongoing debate over

“assisted suicide” or the “right to die,” both of which represent politically charged terms for medical euthanasia, or the end of a terminal patients’ life according to their own wishes. Supporters see this as granting a dignified, peaceful death to those with no hope of recovery, while those against the practice claim it devalues human life, and is medically unethical. A handful of states allow the practice, and several high-profile cases have surfaced questioning the constitutionality on the ban on it in others states. Despite this, it continues to remain controversial, among not only the public, but the doctors, patients, and families who it directly affects.

Death is, and likely always will be, a part of being human. As Atul Gawande writes, “it is the natural order of things.” Death is, however, the only part of life that it is impossible to prepare for. Though everyone will experience it at some point, no on living can say for certain what the experience of dying is try like. However, what is undeniable is that in many cases, death has been extended from an event to a process, spanning weeks, months and sometimes years. In the attempt to preserve life as long as possible, it seems evident that society has neglected to make that life worth living. No one wants to spend their final moments hooked up to machines, unable to move or speak. As Oscar

Wilde showed, death can only be cheated for so long, and to spend all of one’s time engaged in such a futile effort is at best useless, and at worst a waste of the time that is left.

Everyone deserves the right to die with dignity, and that doesn’t have to mean physician-assisted suicide. What it means is giving patients the option to accept their deaths. Death with dignity does not require celebration, fear, avoidance, or intention. It requires an acceptance of what is to come, and a desire to make the most of the time one has left. Medicine has through research, study, experiment, and study provided society with the means to better lives. Now it’s time for medicine to turn the page, and provide the means to better, and more dignified deaths. It has been said that the life of each person is a story. It’s in the hands of society to provide that story the opportunity for a beautiful ending.

Ready Writing

5-A

Don’t Duck, Just Roll

A fist slices through the air and lands on its intended target, making full impact.

Pow. A second fist follows suit, yet the blunt force is diminished. Thud. In the latter instance, the recipient of the hit loosens his body and does not resist the punch, thus softening its force. Boxing is a sport in which hits are inescapable; however, it is the competitors’ choice on how to respond to them. Acknowledging the upcoming blows and preparing for them, as opposed to stubbornly insisting that they can be avoided, allows the boxer to roll with the punches and lessen his pain. Much like boxing matches, life is peppered with challenges or “punches,” wherein the most prominent one is the issue of death. Largely due to medical advancements and improved living conditions, human life has increased to an average of seventy-seven years for men and seventy-nine years for women. Still, it is not enough. Society lauds longevity, glorifying ideals such as the illustrious Fountain of Youth or vampirism. Despite the appreciation for living longer, prolonging life does not necessarily equate to peace. Rather, extending the life of a sick individual or an elderly invalid may lengthen their suffering. Fighting against the ultimate hit in life-death-often results in misery. As a result, comfort can be found in accepting the inevitably death and not fighting against it in the final moments of life.

Consider, for instance, the violent life and peaceful death of Gregor Samsa in

Franz Kafka’s The Metamorphosis. Gregor, who has unexpectedly transformed into a lumbering, adult-sized insect, faces an entirely new lifestyle. Where his family once adored him and depended on him financially, they now cringe away. He is exiled to his room with the door firmly locked and the furniture removed. This is a fugitive “punch” in his life, as he is visibly shunned by his loved ones. As his purpose of being the sole family provider has expired, he has lost their respect. In fact, as he ventures out of his room, he is greeted with a terrified mother and spiteful father. The father hurls an apple at

Gregor, and the apple lodges itself between scales on his back. It festers and infects him.

This physical hit is one that Gregor can neither avoid nor overlook. He acknowledges that his usefulness in life, being the family breadwinner, has been fulfilled and he can do no more. With that recognition of him merely being a burden to family, Gregor deliberately allows the apple to continue rotting in his flesh. He knows death will come if he does not fight against the damage from the fruit, but he no longer wishes to prolong life. Living would be suffering, as he would be unwelcome in his own home and unable to venture into the outside world. In his case, death is a hit that is well received. Dying and leaving his family less stress constitutes a success, and that achievement gives Gregor comfort in his final moments.

Aside from a literary construct, the final stages of Vincent Van Gogh’s life also exemplify the peace that is found by succumbing to death. Van Gogh lived a tumultuous life, starving for his passion and suffering for his ambitions. He pursued painting recklessly, and continued to create art even when it brought him no fame or wealth.

Unable to pay taxes, he lay in prison for weeks. Upon returning home, he returned to painting. It was a fervent obsession, an inescapable need for him to paint. Time and time again, he faced “punches” in the form of governmental disapproval and a lack of buyers.

His craft was largely for himself; still, he was aged and ill, he finally sold one painting.

The only work from his oeuvre that would be sold during his lifetime was “The Red Vineyard.” Wholly satisfied with finding appreciation for his masterpiece, minor as the appreciation may have been, he continued with his art. He had no funds to pay for a doctor, but he had no interest either. The experimental medicine of his era comprised of various herbs and, most notably, using leeches to bleed out the sickness from patients.

Thus, an attempt to extend his life would have been painful and unnecessary. Van Gogh was accomplished after selling a painting, and so he was able to die peacefully without interference.

Along a similar vein is the relatively easy death of the elderly Robert A.

Chesebough, the inventor of Vaseline, Chesebough lived a fairly simple life. His original intent had merely been to make enough profit to live comfortably without financial concerns. As such, after making a fortune, he retired to a secluded home with his family.

He sought solace from the cheering public and sold his business. Chesebough aged well, with no notable illnesses. He had minor concerns, such as memory loss and shortness of breath, but nothing requiring heavy medication. Still, his fortune would have enabled him to seek out highly lauded doctors to extend his life if he so wished. Despite the capability to do so, Chesebough had no interest in fighting for more living time than what he was allotted. The hit of death was merely a phase of life for him, and as he lived in his secluded family, home he avoided doctors. Away from the public eye and separated from all people outside of his immediate family, he passed away in peace and comfort.

In short, while it may ostensibly be more beneficial to fight for a longer life, in reality, death may bring comfort. While some accept it simply to make the final moments of life easier, others happily embrace it as an end to their suffering. Either way, as they acknowledge the inevitable nature of death, they free themselves from the pain of striving for a longer life. Thus, by “rolling” with “punch” of death, they make it easier on themselves and find peace in their final moments.

Ready Writing

6-A

To Dream of Electric Sheep

We live in a time when human life – or, at least, human usefulness – is actively going the way of the horse and buggy, or the print newspaper, or the slide rule, or the landline telephone, or any of a million other obsolete and outdated pieces of the past that have been replaced by their better-functioning, more efficient, and often cheaper counterparts. The idea of humanity as a whole being replaced by something newer, shinier, and objectively better is nothing new – just ask summer blockbusters and bestselling novels everywhere, from I, Robot to “Terminator.” But until very recently, the concept has been somewhat abstract, shrouded in dystopian cynicism and mid-century sci-fi optimism alike. The robot overlords – or servants, housekeepers, friendly helpers, but in the end it all amounts to the same thing – of the 20th century were just figments of the collective imagination, charming dreams or shivery nightmares that were too far off to be anything more than fiction. But in the 21st century, they’re not just conceivable – they’re already here.

It starts with the unappealing jobs. Very, very few children have ever actually grown up wanting to work in the sanitation industry. Of course, the posts of garbage collector and sewer plant operator get filled anyway, but it’s surely not because the people who fill them wouldn't prefer something else, some dream job or childhood fantasy at the very least. Given the choice, almost any rational person would choose almost any other job. And why shouldn't they? Why not let robots – which can’t get tired, can’t unionize, can’t smell the garbage or human waste or what-have-you day in and day out and get more and more tired of it – do the dirty work instead? Industries like agriculture and construction are already doing it; the newest, shiniest tractors and backhoes make the jobs of their operators quite a bit easier, which is to say quite a bit more automated, than they used to be. And the human cost of was is on its way out, too – the military has been on the front end of the automation curve for years. Drone strikes may kill civilians, but they don't kill drone operators; the different in the death toll for sitting in a booth remote-controlling a drone is much, much lower versus death toll for climbing in a F-16 and actually flying into combat airspace is astronomical. Of course, there are still those that do climb into the F-16 and do the flying, but they’re slowly being replaced. After all, it only makes sense, both ethically and economically: not only do drones save the lives of pilots, but they save the cost of having to train them, outfit them, and maintain them, too.

Once the disgusting or dangerous jobs are out of the way, it’s on to the mundane ones. Jobs that require pushing paper, or pushing buttons, or pushing oneself to stay awake while staring at same computer screen for eight hours at a time… The robots and programs and algorithms of today can do most of those, not to mention the robots and programs and algorithms of five, then or twenty years from now. Secretaries and administrative assistants become unnecessary if the phone can answer itself and take its own messages and the paperwork can analyze itself and then file itself by any given criteria. Research assistants become more and more obsolete the smarter Google gets.

Accountants disappear because not only can computers do math, but they can do it smarter and faster and with fewer errors than their human counterparts. Certainly most of the world will want real, flesh-and-blood humans supervising robotic or computerized workers doing many of these activities, at least at first – imagine the panic if the computer at the doctor’s office misfiles a patient’s paperwork and no one catches it. But that trial period wont last forever; once the bugs are fixed and the machines don't make errors and don’t make errors and don’t make errors, even a human supervisor will seem like too much investment in meat – especially if they’re more likely to mess up than their artificial charges.

From there, it's a relatively simple leap from jobs to “professions.” After all, most of the time doctors and lawyers aren’t doing anything more exciting than your average 9- to-5 paper pusher, and if that part of their jobs can be automated – if we can eliminate the paperwork, and the prescriptions, and the research, and the endless hours of tracking down case histories and legal minutiae – then why not the rest? No person, no matter how brilliant, can rival an entire medical database, and one computer can potentially do the job of a whole team of lawyers. For that matter, people make the errors in architecture and engineering and design that cost people their time, their money, and sometimes even their lives. Computers are far, far less likely to mess up the conversion from meters to feet that will send a multibillion-dollar piece of NASA technology hurtling into the surface of Mars rather than coming to a gentle landing and then cruising around sending back important data. If human error can be eliminated – if we can have smarter doctors, fairer lawyers, more flawless engineers – then surely it should. People will lose their jobs, but the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few; if lives can be saved by replacing people with computers, the weighing of pros to cons seems obvious.

So it goes that human beings are swiftly becoming outdated, and replacing ourselves with a newer model is something that is surely well-intentioned. If it can make our lives safer, smoother, easier – give us more time to spend with our loved ones, reduce the threats of war and famine and disease, eliminate, to some degree, pain and suffering – then of course we should do it. Of course it’s the right choice. It’s so tempting, and so much like just another repetition of our past: when we invented the car, we retired the horse. And horses haven’t disappeared, by any means; certainly their population is far less than what it once was, but if anything, that's good. They aren’t overgrazing anymore; their numbers are sustainable, but pleasantly low, far from overpopulation. Perhaps the same could be said for humans. Perhaps the reduced need for fleshy workers will also reduce the rapidly skyrocketing numbers of people being shoved into increasingly cramped conditions. Not only that, but if robots run the world, maybe people can’t destroy it. If protecting the environment is a logical investment in the future, and human greed is the only thing stopping us from seeing it, then the problem is solved, because for all that they can do, robots can’t experience greed.

Of course, they can’t experience compassion, either. Or morality. Or fear, sorrow, or joy. A computer can understand, interpret, and respond to stimuli: if a child is crying, she is upset, possibly injured, tired, or hungry, and therefore I should attempt to treat her injury, put her to sleep, or feed her. But it can’t possess empathy: that child is crying, and that makes me feel bad, so I should figure out what’s wrong and help her. For all of the things that we’ve been able to teach robots and computers to do – for all of the things that make them superior – there’s one thing that remains just out of reach: true consciousness.

It’s been commonly referred to as “artificial intelligence,” though that’s something of a misnomer. We can make intelligent machines, machines that think and learn and make their own decisions. We’ve been able ot do that for a while now, and we’re only getting better. The trick is making machines that can feel. It can certainly be done; what is the human brain, after all, but a feeling computer? But whatever God or nature or pure luck managed, human beings have yet to recreate. Without some degree of sentience, can we ever really trust them to operate with our best interests at heart? Without some form of heart or soul, can we trust our entire lives to something so different from us, and yet so much the same?

Pure logic is no basis for an entire worldview, and certainly not when combined with power and superior intelligence. Of course, a lack of emotionality can avert disaster; it can also incite it. If the human mind is about to be replaced by the newest edition – and it is, or, in many cases, it already has been – then we as a species have a duty to ensure that the human heart is replaced too. Should we fail to do so, we may see more of the

“robot overlord” nightmare and less of the “friendly helper” dream in our future. The

Wizard of Oz was certainly right about at least this one thing: our tin men need hearts.

And we emotional, reckless, illogical human beings are the only ones who can provide them.