BANDEKAR 1

Extended Inquiry Project: First Draft

Humans or Humanoids: How Will Technology Change What It Means to be Human?

AMOGH BANDEKAR

Professor Malcom Campbell

UNIVERSITY WRITING 1103 - HONORS

November 7, 2019
 BANDEKAR 1

The usage of technology in the lives of people, and the change it has had on the definition

of what it means to be human has been drastic. Movies have always shown the futuristic

directions humans will endeavor, but have been laughed off as unrealistic fantasies until now.

When I was nine, I watched Iron Man for the first time. Seeing Tony Stark in a fully automated

metallic red and yellow suit fight off super villains blew my mind. Watching laser beams

spurting out of his hand and heat seeking missiles being deployed out of his armor would appeal

to my overactive imagination. Jarvis, the automated assistant, gave Stark a seemingly infinite

knowledge on any topic. Stark’s super strength seem unmatched. As I was walking back from

the movies I started to wonder, could Iron Man be a reality?

With budding technologies like nanomedicine, organs synthesized in the lab, robotic

enhancements, etc. a “new form” of humans (like Tony Stark) seems likely to emerge. But to

understand how technology will further change what it means to be human, we must first

understand what it has meant to be human. In the Journal of ​Anthropology Psychology,​ being

human is defined as having “unique emotional mirroring, the sharing of experience, instruction

from others, and the opportunity to learn by observation.” Essentially, our cognitive conscious

processing and complexity of thinking has differentiated us from other species. But what

happens when we start enhancing these processes through technology?

In today’s society we have already enhanced everyday human processes, the Internet has

eased the access to information that would have required us to go to the library and do hours of

research to the click of a button. The sharing of experiences has been enhanced by augmented

reality headsets, and 4k monitors, immersing ourselves in any experience. In physical terms,
 BANDEKAR 1

surgeries and medicines have already prolonged the lifespan of a human. Metallic replacements

of joints have allowed those who would have died of natural selection a chance to keep living.

Similarly, medications have allowed individuals lacking the production of certain hormones to

be supplied with the hormone externally. But all of this is technology in the present, what does

the future hold for us?

One of the biggest advancements in technology and its implications for humans is gene

editing. Editing our genes would allow us to eradicate certain diseases, and increase immunity to

viruses and bacterial infections. In an NPR radio segment ​All Things Considered,​ Dietrich Egli, a

Columbia University biologist who studies stem cells stated, “understanding early human

embryonic development is of great importance, and gene-editing is a powerful tool to answer

questions that will ultimately improve human health." Just recently, doctors have been able to

take a gene editing technique, CRISPR, and apply it to fighting cancer. In a study being

conducted by the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, immune cells taken from patients’

bodies were altered using CRISPR to recognize and target cancerous cells more effectively. The

study having just started leaves the results unclear, but Dr. Edward Stadtmauer, lead researcher

in the study, believes, “This is proof that we can safely do gene editing of these cells.”

Ultimately, passing of experimental trials like these will lead to further gene editing trials for

other diseases, eventually improving human health as a whole.

Further applications of technology in the human body would be the use of

nanotechnology within the body, specifically nanobots. The National Institute of Health defines

nanotechnology as “the understanding and control of matter at dimensions of roughly 1 to 100

nanometers, a scale at which unique properties of materials emerge that can be used to develop
 BANDEKAR 1

novel technologies and products”. In other words, nanotechnology deals on the nano level

(10-9of a meter), these technologies are smaller than cells within the human body, allowing these

technologies to manipulate the cellular components of humans and influence the organism on a

systematic level. In an​ NBC​ news article, scientists from China’s National Center for

Nanoscience and Technology (NCNT) and Arizona State University developed robots a few

hundred nanometers across, nanobots, which when injected into the bloodstream of mice could

shrink tumors by blocking their blood supply. Technologies like these delve into more of the

nexus of where humans and technology starts to merge; this starts to relate to the humanoids seen

in film, where technology picks up where the human immune system lacks. Nanobots could

potentially be used for other applications as well, such as increasing our connectivity to the

internet, or increasing the recovery rate of muscle tears for athletes.

But what if technology picks up entirely in the physical component for humans, in other

words, do humans need a body at all? In the Journal ​Nature​, researchers at Yale University were

able to keep a pig’s brain alive outside of the body for up to 36 hours. “The technique restored

some crucial functions, such as the ability of cells to produce energy and remove waste, and

helped to maintain the brains’ internal structures.” Immortality has always been a pursuit of

mankind. Even though this study is not done on humans, the implications of this finding raise

questions about whether life could continue after the physical body is beyond function or repair.

Along with this, what would the brain do? Could it be transplanted into another body, or would it

be uploaded to a computer?

The other extreme of the balance between humans and robots would be if robots could

replace humans as a whole. In a ​Northeastern University​ news article, sociable robots are “used
 BANDEKAR 1

in settings involving nursing home residents who might be socially isolated or struggle with

cognitive and memory problems.”​ Sociable robots display emotional cues and sentiment,

simulating human companionship. Yet, are basic social traits all that it takes to be human? In an

article from the ​New Scientist​, Richardson refers to an MIT researchers opinion on the topic, “all

that is known are the external signals from a human, access to their internal thoughts are not.

With only external signs does it matter of where they come from?” In most situations, these basic

social traits would not suffice for human companionship. But with consideration to the

environment of nursing homes, where social isolation is predominant, these minute social

interactions and cues feed their need for companionship. Yet, this leads to the idea of robots

acting as a substitute for humans in terms of companionship.

With all of these innovative positive applications there are also unintended negative

impacts of technology becoming so intertwined within human lives. For example, genetic

engineering with all of its benefits in eradicating diseases and defects within the genome opens

up the possibility for “designer babies”, the creation of individuals with selected genetic traits.

According to the Journal of ​Clinical Chemistry,​ “​the potential harms include off-target changes

(as might happen with the inactivation of essential genes), the inappropriate activation of

cancer-causing genes, and the rearrangement of chromosomes. Additionally, there are the risks

of on-target changes with unintended consequences, the creation of mosaics of altered and

unaltered cells, and the introduction of changes that generate an immune response.” In other

words, this novel technology may invite chronic diseases or cause an inflammatory response due

to genetically altered cells not being recognized as a part of the body. This would lead to the

body’s immune cells attacking those altered cells. In addition to these potential medical harms,
 BANDEKAR 1

there are also potential social harms. The creation of individuals with traits that are more

“valuable” than others would create a distinct separation within our society between those who

have those selected traits and those who do not. In a ​CNN​ article, the executive director of the

Center for Genetics and Society Richard Hayes stated, “The[se] technologies are going to be

accessible to affluent couples and would be used in ways that could increase inequality. This

designing aspect would also lead to an objectification of children as commodities." In a radio

segment on NPR Marcy Darnovsky, head of the center for Genetics and Society stated, "We

don't want to add ideas that some people are biologically better and some people are biologically

inferior to others. That is an idea that has led to horrific abuses throughout history."

Negative impacts of nanotechnology are also apparent. The ​Nanoethics Group​, an

organization based in California Polytechnic Institute stated, “as products shrink in size,

eavesdropping devices too can become invisible to the naked eye and more mobile, making it

easier to invade our privacy.” By having a deeper relationship with technology, we surrender our

privacy, and accept the idea that we will always have a technological presence. Along with this,

health impacts of nanomaterials and the materials that make up nanotechnology have been

recorded. In a study published in the Journal of ​American Chemical Society,​ researchers tested

the toxicity of nanoparticles in the absence of any drug and found that the nanoparticles

themselves possessed the ability to induce cell death in certain types of cells (Wang et al., 2010).

The use of sociable robots also raises reservations within society. The integration of

robots who are very similar to humans opens up to the idea of robots replacing humans all

together. In a ​Huffington Post​ article “The researchers found that approximately half of current

occupations (47 percent) are at risk of going the way of the telephone operator within just a
 BANDEKAR 1

decade or two.” Without a defining task or purpose the question then becomes what will humans

do? If humans lose the very thing that drives most people's lives, a career, what will society be

like and will it even be worth being a human?

In the end, a clear conclusion on how technology will change what it means to be human

is not apparent. Advancements in technology will allow us to continue to push limitations on our

human bodies, and brains, but they can also create unintended consequences that may regress our

society to times we fought so hard to get out of, or dystopian societies we try to push away from.

At some point limitations on how and what types of technologies should be explored must be

made. If not human curiosity untamed may deprive us of the very things that make us human.
 BANDEKAR 1

Works Cited

Baylis, Françoise. "​Counterpoint: The Potential Harms of Human Gene Editing Using

CRISPR-Cas9.​" ​Clinical Chemistry​, Vol. 64, March 2018,

http://clinchem.aaccjnls.org/content/64/3/489​. Accessed 20 October 2019.

Gent, Edd. ​“​These tiny robots could be disease-fighting machines inside the body.” ​NBC News,​

30 Mar. 2018,

https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/these-tiny-robots-could-be-disease-fighting-mac

hines-inside-body-ncna861451​. Accessed 26 October 2019.

Reardon, Sara. ​“​Pig brains kept alive outside body for hours after death.​” ​Nature​, 17 Apr. 2019,

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01216-4​. Accessed 26 October 2019.

Richardson, Kathleen. "Mechanical people: will robots ever serve as substitutes for human

companions? On the 85th anniversary of their invention, Kathleen Richardson looks at

how far they have come. The real effect of robotics is not in technology, she says, but in

our changing conception of what it means to be human." ​New Scientist​, Vol. 190, P. 56,

24 June 2006,

https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA147928551&v=2.1&u=char69915&it=r&p=

SCIC&sw=w​. Accessed 20 October 2019.

Rochat, Phillipee. "What does it mean to be human?"​ Journal of Anthropological Psychology​,

Vol. 17, P. 50, 2006,

https://psy.au.dk/fileadmin/Psykologi/Forskning/Forskningsenheder/Journal_of_Anthrop

ological_Psychology/Volume_17/philippe_rochat.pdf​. Accessed 20 October 2019.

 BANDEKAR 1

Sarawari, Khali​da. “How robots can help veterans, or patients with dementia.” ​Nature​, 17 Apr.

2019,

https://news.northeastern.edu/2019/09/26/northeastern-university-researcher-studies-the-

use-of-social-robots-in-mental-health-and-well-being-research/​. Accessed 26 October

2019.

Steere, Mike. ​“​Designer babies: Creating the perfect child​.” ​CNN​, 30 Oct. 2008,

https://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/10/30/designer.babies/index.html​. Accessed

26 October 2019.

Stein, Rob et al. “Editing Embryo DNA Yields Clues About Early Human Development.” ​All

Things Considered,​ hosted by Ari Shapiro, NPR, 20 Sep 2017.

https://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=551779921​. Accessed 18

October 2019.

“The bad.” ​The Nanoethics Group​, The Nanoethics Group,

http://ethics.calpoly.edu/nanoethics/bad.html​. Accessed 20 October 2019.

Wang, J., S. Tian, R. A. Petros, M. E. Napier, and J. M. DeSimone. “The complex role of

multivalency in nanoparticles targeting the transferrin receptor for cancer therapies.”

Journal of the American Chemical Society​ Vol. 132 P.32, 27 July 2010,

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/ja1043177​ Accessed 20 October 2019.

BANDEKAR 1