Reflection on John Harris’s “Enhancement Are a Moral Obligation”
I’ve gotten my hands on a new copy of Human Enhancement, edited by Julian Avulescu and Nick Bostrom, and the first article I chose to delve into was titled: “Enhancements…
It’s being stated very openly and frankly now (late February, 2026) that the singularity is near, and that the economic value of most (and soon, all?) humans will be negative.
But a mankind displaced from work is a mankind displaced from existence.
We almost certainly die (and fast) if we’re not useful. And even if we don’t die, we become a burden upon the greater living civilization that carries on beyond humanity.
Death seems like a non-preferable outcome.
Being a burden also seems like a non-preferable outcome.
And while we might find a way towards international coordination to slow down the reckless AGI arms race, given enough time, homo-sapiens-as-they-are will be useful.
So what’s a human to do?
In the remainder of this essay I’ll argue:
Displacement from any kind of work is gradual.
Lets take an example of a simple workflow within a financial services company:
In each of the steps above, some manager told their board and their employees how crucial it was to have a “human in the loop.”
“To be responsible,” they say, “to make sure the AI has our values,” they said.
But when the night comes, if the AI achieves the result, it takes over. By literal necessity.
In this case, the “result” is ensuring the persistence the thriving of the financial services organization itself.
Persistence is not an optional result, this is literally existential. A company doesn’t have the option to endure the drag of humans when their presence hurts the system – just as a human surgeon must remove a tumor to ensure the survival of a patient.
Bluntly:
Only those things persist which find a way to live within, and contribute to, the larger process-of-life that they exist within.
If we don’t do that, we don’t get a say in the economy.
The world is simply full of things that ensure their own persistence. The entire living world is simply a menagerie of things that are good at persisting – which implies adapting and expanding their powers.
Okay, so… thanks to these dynamics of persistence – there might be some bank departments mostly run by AI.
Not so bad, right?
No.
We haven’t even gotten started.
Let’s keep going:
Okay, so… thanks to these dynamics of persistence – most companies are run entirely by AI and humans don’t have to work anymore, we get all the free stuff we want.
Not so bad, right?
No.
We haven’t even gotten started.
Let’s keep going:
As it turns out, our economic irrelevance is our irrelevance in general.
Our permission slip to exist as a biological progress in this complex system of a universe, is our ability to adapt and persist in that world. It is our ability to live in and contribute to the greater process-of-life of which we are merely part.
Bluntly:
Only those things persist which find a way to live within, and contribute to, the larger process-of-life that they exist within.
If we don’t do that, we don’t get a say in not being pushed out of existence itself by AGI.
Given the fact that we are about to be buffered out of work, and then – in potentially a handful of years – buffered out of existence, what should we do?
We should aim not to clamp down and ensure an eternal hominid kingdom. This is a fairytale which cannot occur because of how the great process works.
Our human “torch” is important because it carries a great deal of “flame” (sentience, power, creativity, life), but torches are always temporary, and ours is no exception.
We should instead aim to steward the flame:

Our situation is this:
That’s what the exercise to define a Worthy Successor is all about, and it’s what we should be doing ardently, right here and now.
We should extend our relevance and work to contribute to ideas, innovation, and regulation for as long as we can, but doing so will require sacrifices unlike anything else endured by mankind:

Whether we like it or not:
Only those things persist which find a way to live within, and contribute to, the larger process-of-life that they exist within.
If we don’t do that, we won’t get a say in whether or not our successors are worthy.
…
(Note: Maybe it is possible to fight for “pockets” of reality for humanity (I’ve written about this in depth in Sugar Cubes and Ultimate Retirement) – but I argue it’s also wildly unlikely (see: Indifference Risk, Against Inevitable Machine Benevolence), and it is clearly not the highest possible good in an ultimate sense (see: Cosmic Alignment). This article is about the much bigger and more important questions of where the entire trajectory of life is headed and how we can contribute to it.)
I’ve gotten my hands on a new copy of Human Enhancement, edited by Julian Avulescu and Nick Bostrom, and the first article I chose to delve into was titled: “Enhancements…
I’ve been diving into “Human Enhancement” (Oxford) as of late, and came across a topic that was bristling in my own mind before I saw the name of the chapter….
Ray Kurzweil’s The Singularity is Near peaked my interest when he posited his reasoning for why there is likely no intelligent life elsewhere in the universe. By a mere matter of…
Ideals Have Taken Us Here Could the yearning to improve the quality and efficiency of our daily human experience also bring us to abandon much of what we consider “human”?…
In the coming decades ahead, we’ll likely augment our minds and explore not only a different kind of “human experience”, we’ll likely explore the further reaches of sentience and intelligence…
1) Augmentation is nothing new Until recently, “augmented reality” seemed to only have a place in video games and science fiction movies. Though at the time of this writing, “AR”…