I have been meeting with a group of people who have been discussing the impact of AI generally, and on the human experience in particular.

One of the participants recommended the book The Fight For The Future of Humanity: Making The Case for a 28th Amendment by Kathleen Goble and Booker Scott.

He made an impassioned plea for us to read the book and to support passing a constitutional amendment that defines what a human is, and to share our feedback.

I have not read this book yet. I have only read the introduction, which is available through Amazon’s “Read Sample,” some promotional blurbs, and reviews left on Amazon by people who have purchased the book (none of which seemed particularly critical or exacting). I added it to my Kindle wishlist, but there are a lot of books ahead of it.

My initial reaction is rather negative. The authors seem to be political advocates and influencers from an “America First” perspective who are focused on maintaining “our” rights rather than asking the question “What is right?”

The following are some questions and thoughts that have come to mind from the little I have read.

What is Human?

One of the reviewers indicated that the definition of “human” advanced in the book was:

a biological member of the species Homo sapiens with unique DNA

I am very uncomfortable with this definition because it doesn’t crisply address many sticky issues, and it seems overly certain about something that resists tidy boundaries. Below are several questions that illustrate the problem.

NOTE: I am not advocating for humans to engage in these activities — in fact, I am opposed to several of them — but bioethics is a huge topic that can’t be covered in this post. Rather, I am bringing them up because if (and given what I know about people, when) they are done, a definition of “human” will need to address them.

What Percent Biological?

• Is a person with a mechanical heart still biological?
• Assume continued advances in biomedical technology: someone who lost all their limbs and their eyes, with severe damage to their core organs, is healed and fitted with artificial limbs and eyes, along with a brain implant that allows them to “see” and control their prosthetics. Are they still human?
• What about what science fiction has imagined — a “brainship,” where the only biological component is a person’s brain, which controls thrusters, robotic arms, and uses radar the way we use our eyes?

Where Did the Biological Material Come From, and How Was It Incubated?

• Produced through conventional sex between a man and a woman and grown in the mother’s womb?
• Produced through sperm and egg extracted from a “natural” human being and implanted in a “human” womb?
• What if the egg and sperm were extracted from the parents but grown in an artificial womb?
• Side question: are embryos produced during artificial insemination but not yet implanted humans? If so, are they being unjustly imprisoned in cryogenic storage facilities?
• If people who have been cryogenically stored can someday be revived, are they human? There are some dystopian stories of people who investment money and then frozen themselves hoping for a medical cure, to be “awaked”, cured, and then have a huge windfall from the long term gains of their investments. When they are woken, their body hasn’t been repaired, rather they have been transplanted into some sort of machinery (bulldozer, school bus, shuttle), now considered part of the machine (a slave) rather than a human with rights.

⠀Unique?

• Identical twins have identical DNA. Are they somehow not human?
• If you perform somatic cell nuclear transfer — that is, replace the nucleus of a cell, resulting in a “clone” — is the clone human? This could technically be done today (remember Dolly the Sheep?). As far as we know, it hasn’t been done yet.. but it’s not technology but current moral standards. The movie The Boys from Brazil imagined this being done.

What Is the Definition of Homo Sapiens DNA?

How much variance is permitted? A common functional definition of species uses reproductive isolation — if two populations can’t interbreed and produce fertile offspring, they’re different species — but this isn’t a genetic test. Humans and chimpanzees differ by about 1.2%. We are clearly different species, yet there are other species (by current taxonomies) that exhibit much greater genetic variability within a single species.

How much mutation or change before someone is no longer human? What if someone splices in the ability to regenerate limbs. is that being still human, or something else? If something else, do they lose their “human” rights?

The Soul?

In Christian theology, the soul is generally understood as the immaterial, eternal essence of a person — the part that relates to God, bears moral responsibility, and persists after physical death. Having a soul is something intensely human.

The Bible doesn’t clearly answer when the soul is created by God. Psalm 139:13–16 seems to indicate that it happens sometime during gestation, possibly at conception. Jeremiah 1:5 may imply that it is even before that.

If someone is on life support with completely flat brain waves, are they still human? Is the soul “attached” until the body stops functioning?

Could God put a soul into a machine? My answer is “Yes, He could.” That’s not to say He would, but I don’t believe we can categorically say He won’t. That would be an argument from silence, which is never a good idea when God is the subject.

My Thoughts on What It Means to Be Human

I don’t know the right definition of “human” is with certainty. What I am certain of is that man, Homo sapiens, was created in God’s image and is differentiated from animals — that is, animals aren’t human. Beyond that, it’s opinion and speculation.

Personally, I am amazed by what God has created in us. We are truly fearfully and wonderfully made. The human body uses around 100 watts of power; the brain accounts for “just” 20 watts. A high-end laptop doing intensive computation uses around 100 watts, a high-end GPU uses around 1,000 watts, and a moderately complex interaction with an advanced LLM likely burns 10,000 watts. Yet all of these pale in comparison to what humans can do. Watch what it takes to teach a young child a few skills, and then compare that to how much training it takes to build an AI model. The difference is staggering.

A random thought for another time: I wonder if part of what makes us human is quantum in nature. We are defined not merely by the physical, but relationally. Perhaps our minds and souls are quantum in nature, which could explain why we can do so much using so little energy. Sir Charles Eccles postulated that the mind and brain are separate but quantum linked. Many people have theorized the quantum nature of the mind including Roger Penrose, David Bohm, Matthew Fisher. Max Tegmark thinks this is a rubbish idea.

We have produced some incredibly powerful and useful tools that burn a huge amount of energy, but as of yet, they aren’t demonstrating self-awareness. They aren’t conscious. I don’t believe general AI or self-aware AI is just around the corner. I think they are at best, decades away. The current approaches to AI (especially LLMs) have natural limitations, just as the “expert systems” we worked on in the 1980s. Will real, General AI come into existence sometime in the future? I don’t know.

If it does become self-aware, was it created by man, or was a spark of consciousness provided by God?

Could God create another being (besides “man”) in His image? He is God. Of course He could. Could He do that in a machine? Why not? Could He create what we would call “aliens” — creatures with different DNA, born on some other planet? Yes! I am not saying He did, or will, just that it is possible.

Would such creatures be “human”? Using a biological definition, the answer would be no, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t “persons”. It doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be cherish as children of God. Would it be appropriate to treat them poorly? No!

It’s worth noting that the sabbath, made for humans, was also applied to our animals and to the land. I am not saying that animals are human, but we are called to be compassionate and caring stewards of them.

Christians and “Rights”

I am very concerned that many Christians in America are hyper-focused on protecting their rights and privileges.

When I read Scripture, I see an emphasis on seeking justice and pursuing the good of others, not on maintaining our own rights and privileges. We are called to a life of service, driven by compassion.

As I said above, I think the most important question is not “What are our rights?” but “What is right?” We are called to follow the way of Jesus. When I look at the life of Jesus, I don’t see someone who was too worried about His rights, even though He was entitled to be treated far better than any of us are.

Constitutional Amendment?

Personally, I think passing a constitutional amendment on an issue that is still emerging — without clear understanding — is premature. I would suggest the constitution was build on several thousand years of thought. Most of the amendments are rooted in discussions which had been going on in one form or another for hundreds of years (though recent events might have crystalized the issue). It is way to early, the space is too unclear to pass an amendment.