From invisibility to superhuman strength to telekinesis, a wave of emerging technologies promise to give people powers once reserved for comic-book characters.
Which raises an important question: If humans become superhuman, will we turn out to be superheroes – or supervillains?
You might think the answer would depend on each individuals moral compass. Batman uses human-enhancement technologies to fight crime because he loathes injustice, while the Joker uses them to wreak mayhem because hes a psychopath. In reality, though, most people possess the capacity for both good and evil. Which one wins out at any given time depends not only on our genes and our upbringing, but the circumstances in which we find ourselves.
For Peter Parker, a shy and neurotic kid, the transformation into Spider-Man brings out a deep sense of social responsibility. For Otto Octavius, once a respected scientist, becoming Dr. Octopus means becoming a vengeful megalomaniac. Comic books typically provide pop-psychological back stories to explain the choices each character makes in response to the pressure of being extraordinary. But what if it also turns out that some types of powers inherently lend themselves to altruism, while others make us more likely to lie, cheat, steal or kill?
Last year, Stanford researchers recruited 60 volunteers for an experiment on how virtual superpowers could influence moral decisions. In an immersive virtual-reality simulation, 30 of the subjects were granted the power of flight, like Superman, while the other 30 rode as passengers in a helicopter. Each volunteer had the same mission – to cruise over a city following an earthquake in search of a stranded child. The experiment was rigged so that everyone would find the boy in the same amount of time and save his life.
After the simulation, an experimenter sat down to debrief each subject. As they talked, the experimenter accidentally knocked over a canister full of pens, then waited five seconds before beginning to pick them up. The volunteers in the helicopter group took an average of six seconds to start helping clean up the spill, and some didnt pitch in at all. But those in the Superman group jumped right in, with most coming to the experimenters aid even before she started gathering the pens herself.
The findings suggest that acquiring a superpower can spark benevolent tendencies. Give someone Supermans abilities, and shell start to behave a little more like Superman.
Clinical psychologist Robin Rosenberg, who helped design the experiment, said its outcome supported her hypothesis that people might treat an extraordinary ability as a sort of gift that brings with it a responsibility to help others. Thats an encouraging finding, particularly in light of Lord Actons maxim that power corrupts.
But wait – what if the researchers had given their subjects a different superpower? Rosenbergs co-author, Stanford communications professor Jeremy Bailenson, explained that they chose the power of flight partly because it seemed like a classic do-gooder sort of ability. We thought about giving them X-ray vision, but that would have been a little creepy, he noted.
Soaring above the masses is a highly conspicuous activity, so it would behoove the flyer to be on his best behavior. X-ray vision is stealthier – you could use it for nefarious purposes without making a scene.
The ultimate stealth power, of course, is invisibility. Its promise is that of impunity – the ability to do things that would otherwise get you in trouble. In Platos Republic, Glaucon recounts the story of an otherwise decent shepherd who came into possession of an invisibility ring. Unable to resist temptation, he used it to seduce the queen, kill the king and claim the crown for himself.
In a classic episode of This American Life, John Hodgman went around asking people which superpower theyd prefer: flight or invisibility. Those who pondered invisibility couldnt resist premeditating a slew of illicit deeds. Powers that inherently violate other peoples autonomy, like mind control, would also seem to lend themselves to abuse. A utilitarian might be able to dream up some applications that redound to the public welfare, but the German philosopher Immanuel Kant would argue that mind control is immoral no matter how its used.
Mind-reading would be similarly invasive. A form of telepathy that required both parties active participation, on the other hand, might be stealthy, but it would be fundamentally social and consensual. That ups the odds that it would be used for virtuous ends. Other powers, like supreme intelligence, time travel and indestructibility, are morality-agnostic and could be employed equally for good or ill. Likewise incredible strength, which Bruce Banners Hulk uses mostly for good but which also bedevils him by amplifying the consequences of his rage.
That example suggests another way of looking at the risks and benefits of human-enhancement technologies. By definition, they enable people to transcend their natural limitations. That can obviously be a good thing, but it also carries heightened risks, because civil society and human morality have evolved against a background in which those constraints are taken for granted.
Its probably fortunate, then, that were nowhere near as close to the technological singularity as futurist Ray Kurzweil would have us believe. We have jet packs, but theyre grossly impractical. Headlines about real-life invisibility cloaks tend to be exaggerated.
Muscle suits so far are clunky enough that theyre only really useful for people with disabilities. Brain-computer interfaces let you move things with your mind, but only if youre willing to undergo brain surgery and practice for months just to feed yourself a bite of chocolate. Promises of immortality are premature.
That said, each of these human-enhancement technologies and several more are progressing at various rates along a path that could someday lead to real-world viability. Before they do, it might be wise to take a little time to think about whether each one is likely to make people better – or just more potent.