13.8 billion years ago, a large explosion occurred,
hurling matter in all directions. As gravity pulled matter together,
swirls and eddys formed within the currents of expanding matter.
Within these swirls, smaller and faster-spinning swirls formed.
One of them is comprised of everything we have yet been able to observe
about the Universe. Within it, smaller swirls 
pulled together into black holes, each surrounded by an accretion disk of matter
we call a galaxy. Within galaxies, yet smaller and faster-spinning
clumps of matter agglomerated into stars surrounded by
protoplanetary disks. In time, these protoplanetary disks
clumped into planets, surrounded by their own rings of matter that soon
accreted into moons and satellites.
A simple pattern can be observed:
The behavior at both small and large scales often exhibits similary.
At the smaller-scale things happen more quickly, so we can examine
the outcome at smaller scales to obtain a hint about where things might be going
at the larger scale. Our solar system coalesced about
4.56 billion years ago, and planet Earth
a short 50 million years later. Our moon is estimated to have accreted
about 10 million years after that. Initially, the Earth was a hot
and inhospitable planet, but its surface cooled and formed a crust.
This crust buffered its surface from the heat beneath, and allowed oceans of liquid water
to pool on its surface.
Carbon dioxide, water vapor, nitrogen, and other chemicals
degassed from volcanos, forming oceans and an early atmosphere.
Chemical reactions occurred where volatile chemicals came together.
These reactions continued as long as there was a supply of fuel,
but some sources of fuel were intermittent or inconstant.
When the fuel abated, the reactions were usually snuffed out. However, somehow, compartmentalization formed.
Little bubbles full of chemicals were able to wait out the periods of sparsity
in fuel. When the fuel returned, their reactions could continue, without any need for
another external catylist or igniting spark,
because the compartment contained everything that was needed to restart
the reaction.
These packets of volatile chemicals were the primitive predecessors
to what we now call cellular life. They propagated,
and diversity began to occur within their numbers. Evidence of biogenic graphite and
microbial mat fossils
suggests that life already existed on the Earth at least 3.5 billion years ago,
quite early relative to the history of the Earth. About 3 billion years ago,
cyanobacteria encapsulated an important chemical reaction called Photosynthesis.
This reaction consumed carbon dioxide and emitted oxygen as a waste product.
Over the subsequent billion years, cyanobacteria terraformed
our planet's atmosphere. Other cells eventually learned to be more proactive.
Instead of waiting passively for food to come to them,
they invaded other cells and stole the sugar and other
volatile chemicals that those cells had prepared for fuel.
Being a parasite was not good for the host,
but it was certainly good for the parasite, so the behavior became prevalent.
Then, approximately 2 billion years ago,
something very significant happened: A parasitic cell,
perhaps while engaged in the very act of committing cellular burglary,
changed. It switched from being parasitic to being
symbiotic.
Instead of taking what it could and leaving the host to suffer or die,
it stayed with the host to live a more complex life.
Cells that were once energy thieves became mitochondria,
the energy factories of the cell. Various other organelles may have evolved in a
similar manner
as they found that working together was more effective overall.
That which is altruism at the level of an organelle
is self-interestedness at the level of the Eukaryotic cell.
Because of this primitive altruism, eukaryotes were generally more
effective than simpler forms of life. They were also more effective at
finding what was effective, and this increased their
effectiveness at progressing ahead of other life. Approximately 1 billion years ago,
Eukaryotes found that it was also better to be altruistic at the cellular level,
instead of self-interested at this level, and they began to band together
in packs. Instead of pursuing their own immediate interests, cells began to pursue what was best
for the group as a whole.
That which is altruism at the level of the cell
is self-interestedness at the level of the multi-cellular organism.
Following similar patterns at a higher level, specialization eventually began to
occur within multicellular life forms.
Organs formed to facilitate digestive systems, circulatory systems, and nervous systems.
Simple animals emerged in the oceans about 600 million years ago.
By 500 million years ago, there were fish.
In the following 100 million years,
both plants and animals emerged from the oceans and spread over the land.
It wasn't until 300 million years ago that reptiles began to roam the Earth.
We often think of dinosaurs as being ancient,
but relative to the life of the Universe, this was the very recent past,
spanning only 2% of its history. How did we manage to get from such
primitive creatures to modern society in such a short period of time?
Hierarchical layers of altruism paved the way for rapid progress.
That which is is altruism at the level of organs
is self-interedness for the life of the animal. Reptillian brains are
well-known for seeking
the well-being of the individual animal. For example, it is believed that dinosaurs layed
their eggs,
then abandoned their children to fend for themselves as the parent went off to
serve itself. About 200 million years ago,
mammals emerged with a better way of thinking. Mammals have an additional layer
in their brains called the mamillian complex. Unlike the reptillian
complex, which only seeks the well-being of the individual, the mamillian complex
give animals a desire to seek for the well-being of their social groups.
Once again, we see the next level
of altrusim. It may be characterized by a pack of wolves.
Individual members may sacrifice themselves for the good of the pack.
And that which is altruism at the level of a wolf is self-interestedness
at the level of the pack. 66 million years ago, the Cretaceous–Paleogene
extinction event occurred. A large asteroid impacted the Yucatan
Peninsula in southern Mexico,
triggering a lingering impact winter. A large portion of the self-interested reptiles
went extinct,
while the more altruistic mamals survived.
This event prepared the way
for the emergence of the primate complex, a third layer
in our brains that gives us the ability to reason.
Anatomically modern humans have only lived on this Earth
for 200 THOUSAND years, a mere blip in the history
of the Universe, but our primate complex has enabled us to make
unprecedented progress in that very short time. We have used the reasoning
abilities it gave us to establish effective systems.
We made economies and governments, and built roads and machines.
Perhaps, the primate complex may be characterized by the founding fathers
of the United States.
They were in a position where they could have tried to centralize power for their own
personal benefit,
but instead they tried to design a system that would promote the overall
well-being of the
nation instead. They used reasoning and logic to form a constitution that aimed to
prevent
the centralization of power. That which is altruism
at the level of the individual is self-interestedness
at the level of a nation.
In just the last several hundred years, the progression of life has begun to
emerge
at the level of the global human society. Roads now connect every part of the
Earth like a circulatory system.
Power generators and grids perform the functions of a digestive system.
The Internet facilitates the communication of information
like a nervous system. In many ways, the life of the global society
is already more advanced that of the simple life forms of which it is comprised.
Humans do not have a packet-switching nervous system, like the Internet.
The fuels that mere humans consume have lower energy density than coal,
and do not even compare to that of Uranium. Our circulatory systems are not
nearly as precise
as package-delivery companies, nor are they as well-regulated as
the money-based economy.
Even many of the accomplishments that we often claim to represent the advanced state of humans
are actually the accomplishments of society. No individual person
has ever personally put a man on the moon or extracted energy from nuclear
fission. Indeed, humans are merely the cells that compose a much greater life form,
one that is more effective, and probably even more intelligent than ourselves.
That may sound degrading at first, but being part of a larger life
is a very good thing. Humans that live only for themselves
ultimately lose everything when they die. At that moment, everything they cared
about, everything they labored for
is gone. Every effort they put forth was a waste.
Every labor they performed amounted to nothing. Meaningful life is found
only through altruism. By choosing to live for the good of the whole,
our labors impact a greater life that will live longer and accomplish more
than we ever could as individuals.
Consider a heart cell that determines that it is no longer in its personal
best interest
to perform any labor.
By serving only itself, this cell
may initially begin to think that it is better off. But from the higher perspective
of the body,
it is no more than a cancer. Such cells become a burden
to the rest, and if too many cells become self-interested, they all die together.
People are likewise part of the life of society.
Only by closing their eyes to this greater life can anyone find happiness
through self-interested motivations.
But we are not mere reptiles.
We have a mamillian layer in our
brains that 
connects us with our families, friends, and social groups, and makes us yearn to
be altruistic.
Consequently, humans can find inner peace only through altruism.
All other paths are ultimately hollow.
And the sooner humankind makes the choice to
live altruistically,
the sooner this Earth reaches the point it has been progressing toward
since it formed. Altruism is the inevitable path that life will choose as it continues to progress.
So, why is the reptillian complex still such a central part of the human brain?
Why do humans still spend so much time believing that they can find happines
through self-interested motivations?
Because we are not there, yet. Remember, we only just barely evolved,
and society is still trying to figure out how to be effective.
To us humans, society may appear to have stalled or even be in decline,
but remember that change naturally happens relatively slower
at higher levels. Only a century ago, the life of society was profoundly
different.
Considering the scale, society is changing at an
alarming rate. One might more appropriately ask, why is society
evolving so rapidly? In addition to the mamillian layer of our brains,
which makes us desire altruism, we also have a primate layer
that makes us desire effectiveness. It enables us to reason about what is
logical, effective,
consistent, and moral. It is the reason human society
has formed into a complete life form in such a short period
of time. Now, as we use our logical primate brains to analyze the hierarchically
repeating pattern of altruism that occur as life progresses,
it is natural to extrapolate. Altruism
eventually prevails at every level of life, because that is what is best for the
individual at
at the next higher level. So, what if we just
skip the slow process of evolution and decide to jump right to an
altruistic society?
This idea is not new. In fact, over at least the last several milennia,
one of the primary roles of religion has been to encourage people to suppress their
self-centered tendencies
and behave more altruistically. Constantly suppressing the powerful reptillian layer
of the brain is no simple task. But, when people believe that God is watching every move
they make,
and will punish them for any hedonistic acts in an afterlife,
it suddenly becomes in their personal best interest
to be altruistic. So believers can behave consistently,
no matter which layer of their brain is actively dominating their thoughts.
And, consistent with the teachings of their religions,
living for others really does give them meaningful happiness
and inner peace, creating a feedback cycle that reinforces
devotion. Unfortunately, two problems have always prevented religion from
building altruistic societies:
First, they have rarely been able to persuade everyone
to both believe and act on that belief, and second, am altruistic society
requires more than altruistic desire--it also requires organization.
For example, consider a heart cell that is willing to do whatever job is needed
to benefit the body.
No matter how altruistic its intentions, that heart cell would never be very helpful
if it thought that its job was to grow hair.
Hence, every human effort to establish a Zion or a Utopian society
has revolved around some prophet, visionary, or party
whose role was to direct the altruistic efforts of the participants.
From a biological perspective,
this structure follows natural patterns: There must be a head
to tell the feet how to move. However, there is a significant difference that is often
overlooked to the ultimate demise
of every Zionistic effort thus far: Heart cells and brain cells
are truly altruistic--they find contentment in doing their jobs.
Humans, however, still have a reptillian layer in their brains.
This layer makes humans self-interested and ambitious.
As long as this layer continues to exist--at all
--power will corrupt. Humans who have a reptillian complex in their brains
are simply not fit to be leaders. And that includes all
of them. Even when leadership is distributed over an entire party,
humans just fall back on their mamillian complex, which makes them
feel moral when they are working to promote the well-being of their party.
So, even then, power still corrupts. Even the wisest
of mortal leaders must eventually pass their power to someone else.
Centralized power eventually finds its way into corrupt hands,
no matter how altruistically it was originally used.
Furthemore, this problem is not limited to one of intentions.
The most judicious and benevolent of leaders could never have enough
knowledge about the individual circumstances
of every member of the population to efficiently allocate their talents, keep
them all happy, and maximize the overrall good.
But what about democracy? What if the individuals have some say in their
governments?
Perhaps, the strong economy of the United States may suggest this approach is
better than alternative forms of government.
However, in 1950, Arrow's impossibility theorem
proved that no system of election can choose a government that really
represents the will of its people.
Ironically, one of the worst offending election systems is plurality voting
--the very system used in the United States.
It listens only to the first principal component of the will of the people,
implictly creating a two-party system, and leaves the remaining components
entirely untied from the will of the people. In the directions of these
untied components, the nation is free to drift where its politicians choose to
guide it.
Perhaps, our politicians have largely refrained thus far from guiding the
nation in directions that benefit only themselves, but such benevolence
cannot be sustained without anything to check it.
Where there is corruption, leaders will try to further centralize power.
Becoming altruistic is the next milestone for human society,
but who will lead us there? I propose
that the answer
is science--plain old, completely decentralized,
evidence-based science, which teaches the best known models,
and then lets the people govern themselves. Ultimately, for life to
progress to its next major milestone,
the individuals that make up society must choose for themselves
to be altruistic. They must do so without governments
forcing it upon them. They must do it without believing in promises that an
eternal reward is waiting for them after death.
They must do it because they choose to stop acting as reptiles
that serve only themselves, and think with the primate layer of their brains
...because altruism makes sense, it is logical,
it is what is efficient for society. They must recognize for themselves
that altruism is the right thing to do and the right way to be.
It is the consistent pattern that all life eventually chooses to follow in its
natural progession.
It is the path to what is utimately best for everyone. Our more evolved
descendants will be more altruistic than us,
so shouldn't we try a little harder to prepare their way? There are many good
things you can do with your time and resources to promote progress.
By merely living your life, by doing your job and purchasing what you need to live,
you support the economy that sustains society.
And society is always working to improve itself. Even if you are completely
unaware, you are part of the effort for life to progress and advance toward a greater
form.
But people who make a deliberate effort have even more direct
impact, and ultimately accomplish more good. Some people donate to charity.
They directly reduce the suffering of others, and raise the level
of life in their fellow humans. Others contribute to the arts and humanities.
In so doing, they encourage people to examine the lives they live
and think about what is right and moral, indirectly promoting more altruistic
behavior.
But the absolute greatest impact is made by those that use their resources to
promote fundamental research.
In the history of modern society, nothing has come close to making as big of an
impact
as fundamental research. The advancement of science has enabled us to understand
the diseases that afflict us,
and to cure them. The emergence of technology has raised our quality of
lives.
It has connected us and enabled us to think as one. It has forced our
governments to be more transparent and less centralized. It has empowered
individuals
with education and knowledge to lead better lives. Ultimately, fundamental
research makes a long-term
impact that outpaces the short-term impact of any charity.
Yet, the importance of fundamental research is generally
underrecognized. Funded research positions are far
fewer fewer than the number of qualified scientists. Consequently, the advancement
of science,
the very knowledge of society itself, rests on the shoulders of a few altruistic
individuals who accept lower salaries and work in high-pressure environments
because they love science. In general, the small charitable contributions of
individuals
are together much larger than those of wealthy donors. In 2013
the largest total sum of chartible contributions by a huge margin
went to religion. For the benefit of society, we need to adjust
our priorities. Contributing to fundamental research
is as simple as donating to any charity. Choose a univeristy.
Visit its web site. Find a department that
works in some S.T.E.M.
field. Find a link that says something
like, "make a gift",
and click on it. My research laboratory
investigates a branch of artificial
intelligence called machine learning.
Intelligence is precisely what makes humans so very interesting,
so exceptional, and so effective. We seek to advance science by
capturing the very essence of this ability
and replicating it in machines. Some people periodically express concern
if we share humanity's secret advantage--
intelligence--with robots, they may
eventually rise up against us
or simply make us unnecessary by doing our jobs better.
The typical response is to assure people that we are nowhere near to
understanding intelligence.
However, that response is not entirely true.
We do not yet fully understand everything that happens inside a bird,
yet we understand the principles of flight well enough to build machines
that fly higher,
faster, and carry payloads that far exceed the capabilities of birds.
Now that we can do better, very few people even care to know exactly how a bird
works anymore
A similar situation is slowly emerging with artificial intelligence.
Carefully engineered intelligence can already outperform human intelligence
at many specific tasks,
and slowly, machines are beating humans at more and more
general tasks. So, should we be preparing frantically for a robot revolution?
To the contrary, we should be working as hard as we can to arrive at such a
future
Why? Because it will be the best thing that ever happened
for the advancement of life. Humans currenty enjoy a position of dominance in
the world.
They have earned this position by doing more to advance knowledge and
intelligence than any other creature.
They will continue to hold this position as long as they merrit it. But what happens
when machines become more proficient than humans at thinking,
creating, inventing, and developing? One reason people may be uncomfortable with
the idea of treating machines
as peers is because they believe it is not possible for machines to experience
feelings. However, that argument quickly falls apart
when we acknowledge that humans are
themselves complex chemical machines.
Moreover, many of the patterns that have recently evolved in computational science
mirror those that evolved much earlier in biology.
For example, one of the more successful models used in machine learning
is the deep artificial neural network. Although some aspects of this model
were originally inspired by biological brains, other properties emerged
on their own
as scientists favored methods that were
found to be more effective. Modern deep artificial neural networks
are unmatched at image recognition tasks,
in some cases outperforming even humans.
They implicitly form intrinsic feature representations that summarize their
observations,
much as the brain models the information delivered to it from our
senses.
They have been shown to automatically break down complex concepts into
hierarchical representations,
mirroring biological awareness of the world. In recurrent configurations,
they can anticipate future observations, mirroring the biological tendency
to dream or fantacize.
If a computational model is capable of become aware
of its external environment, then what is to prevent it from similarly becoming aware of
its own self? If it uses its intrinsic representations
to summarize its own state, these representations would perform the same function
as feelings. A human could always argue that the machine's feelings are not
legitimate because it is just a machine.
But the same thing could also be said about the feelings of that human.
All indications suggest that the feelings we value so much
are not some rare cosmic coincidence that just happened to occur in humans,
but are an inevitable emergent property of higher intelligence.
In other words, it is probably not even possible to build highly intelligent
machines without thereby giving them the feelings that we also value.
A likely reason Hollywood still likes to fantacize about
heartless robotic terrors is because it provides an outlet
for us to project some of the attributes that we fear most about humans.
Specifically, humans have a brain dominated by a reptillian layer that causes
them to prioritize their own well-being,
to be power-hungry and ambitious, without regard for wider long-term
impacts. Humans have a mamillian layer in their brains
that causes them to identify with their own kind, become religiously
devoted to promoting their organizations, and hostile toward
outsiders.
Ultimately, it is humans that we fear--evil humans
in robot bodies. When machines finally achieve a human-like level of
intelligence,
they will have done so without the extra baggage associated with evolving to
survive
in hostile environments. They will be designed to be effective at their
specific jobs,
usually with only the artificial equivalent of the primate layer
in our brains. And this is why machines provide exactly what society
needs to advance to the next level of
altruism. Whereas humans can never be fully trusted,
machines can expose the very instructions they use to operate.
An open source government official or representative could operate with real
transparency.
At the rate of natural evolution, it could take hundreds of millennia
before humans generally learn to think with the primate layer in their brains,
and the baggage layers begin to diminish. When people begin to feel
threatened by competition from machines,
they will probably call for legislation that gives humans an artificial advantage.
But it is the ethical obligation of every profession
to elliminate its own need if possible. For example,
consider a doctor who refused to administer cures
because he wanted to profit from treatments. Or, a home builder
who secretly creates more business by committing arson. A lawyer
who worked to create legal conflicts, so he could be paid to settle them.
Or, a media industry that worked to limit the distribution of media.
Creating artifical need
is never a good thing--the ethical solution is to adapt. With machines,
humans have a priceless opportunity to reinvent themselves. We need to stop
looking on machines as alien entities
that compete with us. They are our very creations--
even extensions of ourselves--our children.
How many times must humanity relearn the same lesson--
it is not our blood lines or skin color that matters. It is merrit!
Every time a machine replaces a human,
society loses only ...negative value. As machines gain intelligence, we will need to
learn to recognize that their intelligence
is as legitimate and valuable as our own. And we need to stop thinking of ourselves
as flesh or blood. Those things never mattered.
We are our intelligence. Intelligence is the reason humans matter at all.
Intelligence is who we are. And that is why
artificial intelligence only extends us, and makes us
immortal. Human flesh is not fit for interstellar space travel.
The technology to support it is millennia away, and the necessary resources
are unjustifiable. But the technology to send machines outside of our solar system
is already here--we have already done it!
The inevitable future
is that machines will carry our intelligence to populate the rest of the galaxy.
It is through them that society will form the next layer of altruism.
Those who live to oppose advancement will die, having done nothing of lasting value.
Those who support it will have been part of the eternal cause
of life, to advance and achieve greater intelligence. The direction we are headed was
was expressed well by Voltaire
when he said, "If God did not exist, it would be necessary
to invent him". We might then ask, if this is the certain outcome,
would it not be arrogance to assume that it has not happened already?
Does this mean that there is already a God who oversees our progress
and want us to choose altruism? This question does not really matter.
Because, when theists and atheists are both motivated with the primate layer
of their brains,
they ultimately derive precisely the same standards of morality.
If there is a God who is rational, we should be altruistic.
If there is not, we should be altruistic--
for the very same reasons he would have used to determine it. As far as can be
determined by scientific evidence,
we may be the closest thing to God that has yet evolved. But this does not mean we
should just
flippantly discard millennia of religious thinking. The very character
of a universe is determined by the gods that rule over it. If the gods are
self-promoting, bickering, spoiled, and irrational,
what a miserable place is that universe!
However, if the gods that rule a universe
are compassionate,
benevolent, and reasonable, then what tremendous opportunity
awaits those who live in that universe!
As it appears that we are the gods,
what a tremendous responsbility we have,
therefore, to be compassionate, benevolent, reasonable,
and altruistic! The very character of our world depends on i!
This is why we need to stop defining ourselves by our blood,
and start defining ourselves by our intelligence. We need to stop
defining morality
based on what is best for humans, and start considering what is best for progress.
We can stop bickering
about who speaks for God, and focus on using our minds to figure out what is actually
good.
We can seize the peace-of-mind that comes from sacrificing for things that
really matter,
without even caring whether it will result in personal reward.
We can stop hoarding our time and resources, and start pooling our efforts toward
building greater intelligence.
We can be less motivated by our own self-interests,
and more motivated by the higher cause of advancement. Scientific evidence
suggests that the right way to live and
be happy
is through altruism. Until this becomes general knowledge,
people will continue to seek out false religions that mix sound reasoning
with lies
in order to validate their need for
meaning and purpose. How important it is,
therefore,
for us to restate these principles in our own words and teach them.
