It's been at least 40,000 years since modern humans--Homo sapiens sapiens--became the only form of sapient life on Earth. We built our civilization without competition from other kinds of minds. The last non-modern human intelligent species, our cousins the Neanderthals, went from being dominant in Europe to extinct as modern humans moved in. Anthropologists once believed that Neanderthals were simply absorbed into the human family through cross-breeding. Now, the evidence argues strongly that they were out-competed by modern humans, and possibly even killed. Since that point, we've become accustomed to being alone.
That isolation won't last much longer. We have begun to engage in active intelligence augmentation: the process of boosting the speed and breadth of cognition, using both biotechnology and digital tools. Although the focus of such work tends to be on the potential for innovation and novel scientific breakthroughs, it may turn out that the biggest disruption arising from this process is in our perception of who we are.
YOU+:
AUGMENTING THE HUMAN MIND
Biology and cybernetics are on a collision course with our brains. We already deploy a variety of technologies intended to enhance certain cognitive functions--and they're so commonplace that we may not even recognize the changes underway. Nearly all of us use a vast array of digital technologies that "off-load" brain activities, such as memory and pattern recognition, as a way of both managing information overload and gaining competitive advantage. Less visible, but increasingly commonplace, is the use of pharmacological interventions intended to confront specific medical problems (such as attention-deficit disorder or narcolepsy) as enhancements for people without such conditions.
Such technologies are either temporary or external to the body (or both). That's likely to change quickly. Bioscientists are identifying a growing number of parts of the brain related to particular forms of cognition. In the near future, as genetic therapies become reliable and safe, efforts to improve the working of those regions seem likely. And digital tools will have increasingly sophisticated ways of learning our behaviors and needs. While they'll likely remain outside of the body (if only because of the rapid pace of upgrades), they will become so intimate with our minds that many of us will see them as extensions of ourselves.
The question is, however: How will they change us?
IT STANDS TO REASON:
UPLIFTING ANIMAL MINDS
It's highly likely that efforts to reengineer the human brain directly will begin with experiments on animal brains. The safety questions surrounding cognitive technologies are enormous, and will only be resolved with abundant evidence of reliability. But enhancing the mind is a qualitatively different process than (say) treating cancer; if a cancer treatment works perfectly on an animal subject, it's simply back to its previous healthy state. But what happens when experimental methods to boost intelligence work? You have animals that are functionally smarter than before.
Science fiction writers have long used the term "uplift" to describe the process of enhancing the intelligence of non-human animals. In fiction, uplift usually results in animals that are more-or-less at a human level of intelligence, and is often accompanied by enhancements that allow the uplifted animal to talk. Neither of these is likely, at least not in the first wave of enhanced animal minds. Instead, what we would have is a population of experimental animals with measurable improvements in certain cognitive functions. Some of these uplifted animals may even demonstrate narrow human-like thinking. Many people will argue for giving these uplifted animals legal and ethical rights that have largely been given only to humans.
Largely, but not entirely. In 2002, an organization called the Great Ape Project began working to secure expanded rights for non-human higher primates, specifically chimpanzees, bonobos, orangutans, and gorillas. Its effort goes beyond basic animal rights, and is based on the close genetic and behavioral similarities between humans and other hominids. In 2008, the Great Ape Project had its first major success: the government of Spain agreed to extend basic legal rights to higher primates.
AS WE MAY THINK:
REDEFINING "WE"
A common reaction to the concept of human enhancement technologies is concern that such advances would not be available evenly, and that the people and societies already in advantageous positions would have first access (thereby increasing their advantages). Some of the more vocal opponents of these technologies have gone so far as to suggest that they will lead to a bifurcation of the species into normal Homo sapiens and Homo superior. Although the language may come straight from comic books, the underlying concern is real: in a polity based on the concept that "all men are created equal," what happens when this is demonstrably no longer true?
It's possible that the work of organizations such as the Great Apes Project--sometimes dismissed by human rights groups as a distraction from the work of ensuring that all humans have human rights--may end up being the basis for making sure that we don't see a fundamental split between the "haves" and the "have mores." If we expand the definition of "person" (with the ethical mandates that implies) beyond "humans just like me," we may preemptively embrace a more diverse set of human characteristics. The alternative may be the fate of the Neanderthals.