Final - Animals & Machines

In our efforts to understand the world and ourselves, to condense everything that is into human comprehension, we have continuously expanded our environment. What was once gigantic is now molecular, what we once defined as small, now has no meaning beyond human perception. Because we are relatively weak-minded in comparison to the intricacies of the universe, we cannot easily focus on multiple scales of reasoning. The problem here is, of course, that as we uncover anything “new”, we are simultaneously accessing an infinite number of scientific and technological possibilities. But because we can only focus on the discovery as we perceive it, we are incapable of foreseeing the ramifications one decision may have on the future.
Bridging the gap between animal and machine is one of the prospects that we simply do not understand. And yet, with the technological capabilities we do have, we are able to come ever closer to such a thing. The possibility of doing that which we do not understand is unsettling. But most discomforting is the theory, held by many excited researchers, that animal and machine are not so different, and that we can actually combine the two, as if it were natural evolution. This is a dangerous assertion. Animal and machine are entirely separate properties—they do not coincide.
To elaborate on this, I will outline a few key differences between animal and machine. First, animals are born of nature. They are built solely of whatever gives life. One should note, we are not capable of creating life. We are able to reproduce the living, by borrowing from the already alive. Machines, alternately, are a solely human creation. They require humans to provide, produce and sustain. They are never capable of maintaining “life” without aid, be it electricity, battery, etc. This is a human gift to the machine. Animals are given the properties they need to sustain life internally.
Following this logic, no machine or human-created product can ever be animal. As a result, we cannot build a rabbit. Recall, we can only reproduce one. The “bridging the gap” theory is thus flawed. Considering Eduardo Kac’s green rabbit as seen in Life Extreme, is it ever possible for the rabbit to become something beyond a rabbit? If it involves any machinery, then no, for this is simply a non-animal attribute that can be replaced but not reproduced. If it is a biological “upgrade”, so to speak, I believe the answer is still no, however more unclear. An animal cannot cease to be itself. It will always be as it was created in nature, until it dies.
It is not surprising that very little biomechanical engineering has been done with humans. This is a direct result of the human assumption that because other organisms are less like us, that they are less living, less deserving of the natural live given them. There are moral arguments that suggest these advances are in the best interest of the animals. But how can one organism possibly understand or decide what is the best interest of another? The only responsibility we as humans have, is to determine what is best for our species. And what is the most common objection to the engineering of ourselves? It is the thought that we are impeding upon another human’s rights. How then, are we not impeding on another organism’s natural way of life?
Humans do not fit in to the evolutionary process. Not voluntarily, anyway. Evolution is a natural event, and human invention is not natural. Animals and machines must always be separate, for the purpose of combination is always to serve the interest of humans, and this is morally wrong.