Home  |  Sarah  |  Services  |  Blog  Contact

Saturday, 05 Sep , 2015

Homo Sapiens Effectus…Perhaps

Share this article

One of my occasional bits of non-InfoSec musing. This time prompted by a discussion about evolution. The thought that refuses to get booted out of my head: Why does the next iteration of the species have to come about via biological reproduction? I’m not talking about ex-utero conception, cloning, or even the kind of offspring popping action […]


One of my occasional bits of non-InfoSec musing. This time prompted by a discussion about evolution. The thought that refuses to get booted out of my head: Why does the next iteration of the species have to come about via biological reproduction?
I’m not talking about ex-utero conception, cloning, or even the kind of offspring popping action provoked by pouring water on your Mogwai. I’m talking about bits, bytes, and machines. If you take the study of biological evolution back to its creationist-infuriating basics, it’s defined as researching the processes that produced diverse life on Earth. To date resulting evolutionary steps have been made exclusively via chaos, error, or environmentally provoked upgrades embedded through genetic inheritance.
Genetic engineering challenges that with potential to tweak inheritable genes. Taking bolt-cutters, or a welding iron to the multi-millenia long chain linking individuals to their earliest ancestors. Of course natural reproduction also phases out, skips, and messes with amino-acidy ingredients, but very, very rarely within a single generation.
Along the continuum there are fundamental forks in the road: We now know some dinosaurs, previously believed to be thoroughly extinct, evolved into birds. In the same way, earlier hominid ancestors produced different genetic branches, eventually either dying out or continuing to produce the human diversity we see today; Homo sapiens idaltuHomo sapiens neanderthalensisHomo sapiens rhodesiensis, and Homo sapiens sapiens (to name a few). The latter deemed to precisely represent modern humans, the earliest of whom (based on current research) emerged about 200,000 years ago.
So why (based on the basic tenants of evolution), shouldn’t enhanced humans, created by all the skill gifted to us by our genetic recipe, be considered a new ‘us’? This isn’t about an AI escaping the bounds of it’s creator’s control and wiping us out, it’s about a synergy between humankind and technology. Steps – over decades rather than millennia – creating a multiplicity of genetically engineered, 3D printed, nano-repair-bot hosting, neurally enhanced, and otherwise souped up folk. Beta tested for efficiency and environmental fitness for purpose, then distilled by human selection to represent a few recognisably distinct and optimised possibilities for ‘us’ 2.0. Eventually maybe producing a ‘subspecies’ that could nudge Homo sapiens sapiens to side of our forking family tree. A subspecies better equipped to handle the environmental, economic, and healthcare challenges we will indisputably face. Homo sapiens effectus…perhaps.
Not a good thing, or a bad thing, just a potentially inevitable thing. The natural next step for a species risen to dominance through curiosity, adaptability, and relentless pursuit of progress through innovation.


Not an entirely, or even mainly, original thought (GATACA etc, etc, etc), but perhaps fodder for an after dinner debate when next someone predicts a technology driven Terminator-esque end of days scenario.
Also, in InfoSec day job terms, kinda knocks the current furore about the IoT off the top of the ‘how the @!$# do we control and secure this!’ list.
 

Opinion: Paying to play with our personal data – is it ok?

We’ve migrated from ‘Hot or Not?’ to being held virtually hostage by many of the digital platforms we rely on today. In the midst of that a new processing paradigm has emerged. Myriad startups want to pay to play with your personal data. Can this tackle on-going...

In AI we will blindly trust…

...and the architects, designers, data scientists, and developers will think we are nuts I've been driven back to the blog to talk about one very specific aspect of privacy, data protection and Artificial Intelligence (exchange for Machine Learning or Algorithms as...

Data Protection, Security, and the GDPR: Myths and misconceptions #2

Welcome back! This is a shamefully delayed sequel to my first instalment of security themed GDPR thoughts: Data Protection, Security, and the GDPR: A fraught and fuzzy relationship. Here I look back again over my pre-privacy IT and InfoSec career to spot things likely...

Where and to whom does the GDPR apply?

Yeah, I doubted my sanity going at this one too, but here I am, because working out whether or not the GDPR would apply in different practical and geographical circumstances is proving harder than it really should...for everyone. This regulation has been my almost...

GDPR – You’ve analysed the gaps, but can you close them?

  There is a critical gap for most firms: An inability to interpret and leverage gap analysis, data discovery, and mapping output to actually implement technical data processing change. This article is about the challenges most large firms are facing when trying...

GDPR – The Compliance Conundrum

There is one question related to the General Data Protection Regulation that will arguably cause more ulcers than any other: How much is enough? In some portions of the GDPR 'good' is straightforward. In many others we are asked to respect principles of fairness and...

Opinion: The role of automated data discovery in a GDPR programme

Do you have any online profiles or posts featuring those 4 magic characters: G D P R? If so, whether you are a business decision maker, IT body, security body, charity boss, employed data protection pro, or job seeking data protection pro (less and less likely), you...

When Business Culture Eats Cybersecurity For Breakfast – Part One

A four-part story of budget cuts, blamestorming, breaches and massive bumps in the road to mature security. Wild Speculation & IT Transformation Do you remember Nick Leeson? On February 23rd 1995 he sent a fax telling bosses at Barings Bank he was ill and wanted...

Cyber Insurers Dictating Cybersecurity Standards?

A run down of the key challenges with choosing and using cyber insurance called out in the last few months. It looks entirely possible you will have 'adequate' security dictated by your insurers, so it is your job to understand the risk based yardstick they're using...

There Is No Such Thing As Information Security Risk

Having worked in IT and Information Security for 13 years, I've come to the conclusion that there is no such thing as information security risk. There are just business risks that have one or more security or IT related causes. There is a fundamental and persistent...