The Human Condition

I find myself frustrated with the meaning of being human. The previous, fictional perspectives are variable, and look at “being” in very different terms and from very different viewpoints, from primary oral culture through to post humanism. Normally, I would not look to Wikipedia for accurate information – after all, everyday people with no particular credentials write this information. But, on this particular topic, I thought that perhaps everyday, common humans might be the best resource. Or at least a good place to start. Part of the “written by actual humans “ passage for the Human Condition reads: “As mortal entities, there are a series of biologically determined events that are common to most human lives, and some that are inevitable for all. The ongoing way in which humans react to or cope with these events is the human condition” then “The term is also used in a metaphysical sense, to describe the joy, terror and other feelings or emotions associated with being and existence” (Wikipedia). Therefore, the human condition must be, at least partly, the way that humans react or cope with the biology of life. Fortunately, the biology of life is something with which I am comfortable. Biology is scientific. A human body is alive, or it is dead. Although, upon further analysis, I am not sure that is entirely true. In March of 2005, the country watched in horror at the private battle between the family members of Terri Schiavo over her life and death. The right to live vs. the right to die debate painfully taught us that not everyone agrees on whether the pure biology of being alive actually defines life, or defines the physical human condition. In the aforementioned event, I was of the opinion that Schiavo stopped being alive, that is having any quality of life, when her brain was irreversibly damaged. So, I suppose that consciousness defines the human condition. If I am conscious and coherent, and able to feel joy and terror, then I must be alive. Using this definition, however, I would not be alive if my brain were just a little damaged and left me in a temporary unconscious state. Using my consciousness theory, I would be dead for a while, then brought back to life after my brain healed sufficiently. I deduce then, that consciousness does not define the human condition for me either. Of course, the conclusion would be that there has to be a reasonable combination of both biology and consciousness. The human condition must include the ability to reevaluate and adjust. Clearly, without constant reevaluation and adjustment, human kind would be unable to advance and improve. I may not be certain of my own definition of the human condition; however, I am sure that people will always debate this age-old concern. In The Tablets, by Armand Schwerner, which are fictional, supposed “translations of the oldest stone glyphs ever discovered”, the author laments life, and presumably, its meaning from the perspective of an ancient culture; “clearly I’m the swimming animal, the light song or the dark song++++++++++[missing] simple…….[untranslatable] when it’s hot, I‘m wet” (Schwerner, XXV). To a human being whose main purpose is to survive, the simple fact of being hot, then sweating to stay cool becomes the meaning of life, at least at that moment. When basic human survival is our priority, the human condition becomes a moment-to-moment experience. In our modern, multifaceted world, the human condition becomes as complicated as our every day lives. The Future In his book Orality and Literacy, Walter Ong contrasts Plato’s views on writing as “an external, alien technology” (Ong 80) to how humans originally responded to computers in modern culture. He draws parallels to all of Plato’s concerns in moving from primary orality to literacy. Plato truly believed that humans would suffer as a result of this drastic change. They would become less scholarly, more isolated and less human as they became dependent on the written word. Ong points out, ironically, that “one of the weaknesses in Plato’s position was that, to make his objections effective, he put them into writing” (Ong 79). He had to become slightly less human in order to record his thoughts. It is clear that in any culture, there is resistance to change. A society where primary orality is the norm will quite naturally look for a multitude of reasons to reject the new technology of writing. Change is frightening, and painful. When I consider the technological changes that have taken place in the last forty years, and look ahead to the future of humankind, I have to admit that I feel extremely uncomfortable. One of the historical certainties that comfort me however, is that as painful as change may be, human beings will always find a way to adjust. This infallible human flexibility has been evident since the beginning of time. It may have been excruciating and time consuming, but primary oral culture eventually adjusted to literacy. Oral learners slowly became visual learners, as the written word took on new, more modern forms. For the first time in human history, information could be stored outside of the mind and retrieved for later use. As a result, memory became less important, and the human brain evolved to adjust and expand to new, extended functions. Minds were free and open to discover and invent new, modern technologies. Knowledge was storable, and could be retrieved decades later, if necessary. With the advent of computers, the written word took on new forms. Books turned into text on a screen, and humans adjusted to the change. The Internet brought a host of exciting and terrifying changes to everyday life. Humans found themselves able to communicate with others anywhere in the world, instantly. They found that communication via computer screen was accomplished anonymously, and discovered ways to use that to their own advantage. Humans developed new skills to sense and protect themselves from the multiple personalities that they could potentially encounter on-line. Humans evolve and adjust to new environments, new situations and new technologies. It is easy to look back at history and see the positive results of progress and technology. But it is frightening to look ahead at the unknown. Louis Gerstner, chairman of the board of IBM for nine years said “Computers are magnificent tools for the realization of our dreams, but no machine can replace the human spark of spirit, compassion, love, and understanding” (Quote). I agree with Gerstner. However advanced artificial intelligence and artificial life become, the human spirit cannot be programmed. The human personality and all that makes us who we are is a mystery that even the most intelligent, gifted scientists cannot duplicate. Rodney Brooks comments, in the movie Fast, Cheap and Out of Control, that even though his robots are designed with the future intention of duplicating human beings, they lack the consciousness and senses required to be human (Morris). Consciousness is an integral part of being human, and cannot be replicated. Katherine Hayles, in her book How We Became Posthuman, remarks about the reality of future humankind. “Becoming a post human means much more than having prosthetic devices grafted onto one’ body. If means envisioning humans as information-processing machines with fundamental similarities to other kinds of information-processing machines, especially intelligent computers” (Hayles 246). Humans may be information processing machines. We may be connected to our computers, and have cell phones attached to our ears and clothing. We may use hearing aids to help us communicate, and eyeglasses to improve our sight. Our bodies may be synthetically constructed using artificial joints, grafted skin, mechanical hearts, and prosthetic limbs. We may be completely machine-like in our embodiment, but I believe that human beings will still have one item that cannot be manufactured. I believe that post humans, if they are to be human at all, will still possess a soul. The random selection of real human editors on Wikipedia define the human soul as: “the self-aware essence unique to a particular living being...the soul is thought to incorporate the inner essence of each living being, and to be the true basis for sentience. It is believed in many cultures and religions that the soul is the unification of ones sense of identity. In distinction to spirit which may or may not be eternal, souls are usually considered to be immortal and to exist before their incarnation in flesh” (Wikipedia). While I can see artificial life as being a future addition to our society, and science able to clone and replicated human beings, I still believe that to be human, an entity must possess a soul. It is the single defining feature that will allow the post humans of the future to remain human.    Works Cited and Consulted

Back to Writing and Editing