What are humans without their humanity?

The matter is settled: There is absolutely no connection between the ancient Arab poet Dibil Al-Khuzai, on the one hand, and Elon Musk and Sam Altman, on the other. That is what logic says, and the evidence confirms it.
Al-Khuzai was an Arab poet who lived during the Abbasid era in Iraq, between 765 and 835 A.D. Musk is South African-Canadian-American and Altman is American, and they exist with us in our own present era. But perhaps, given their enormous wealth and businesses devoted to the advancement of technology, they will live on for many generations and centuries to come.
Poor Al-Khuzai once conveyed a profound existential loneliness when he wrote: “When I open my eyes, as I open them, I see many, but I see no one.”
Musk, meanwhile, believes that “the fundamental flaw of Western civilization is … empathy.” Yes, believe it or not, he believes that empathy, or kindness toward others, is the great flaw.
As for Altman, he was recently quoted, while speaking about extraordinary scientific and technological achievements, as saying that “there is no longer any need for humans” because every task now falls within the capabilities of artificial intelligence and robots, which will soon surpass the ability of humans to perform them.
Such talk of dispensing with humans has, in fact, become commonplace. Growing numbers of people seem no longer to be embarrassed to say they see no need for their fellow human beings.
No need, except as consumers, of course. Otherwise, why should they have to share the air, water, and earth with them? What need is there for millions or billions of hungry mouths to feed? Is it permissible to “put up with” shanty towns packed with humble inhabitants? Filthy, poor neighborhoods in impoverished cities that pollute the air of green countrysides and the pampered suburbs of the affluent world that benefits from Musk and Altman’s technological innovations? 

Growing numbers of people seem no longer to be embarrassed to say they see no need for their fellow human beings.

Eyad Abu Shakra

Some may say that ultimately, those innovations will not be the sole preserve of the wealthy. That might well be true; indeed, I hope it is. Especially since Musk just told us last week that the first vision-restoration devices will be implanted in human beings within 12 months, enabling the blind to see.
He went on to say that, in the long term, everyone’s vision will be enhanced. Indeed, he added, humans will acquire genuine “superhuman visual capabilities,” even allowing them to see both infrared and ultraviolet radiation, which the human eye cannot perceive.
More than that, several reports in recent months have indicated that numerous diseases and disabilities that affect the nervous system, some of them hereditary, might be on the way to being eliminated as a result of research by Neuralink and others, consigning them to the past.
I am personally very optimistic about this possibility. Many robotic and sensing technologies, along with practical applications of artificial intelligence, are now available in many parts of the world across a wide range of fields, from the emergence of driverless cars to robotic surgery without direct input from human surgeons, and journalism without journalists.
Yet the problem for someone like me is not the capacity for development and innovation but the ultimate practical outcome of all this. There is no doubt that scientific progress is a necessity of life, as long as there are living beings whose fundamental human right is to “live their humanity.”
Human beings do not live their lives merely to avoid the alternative, which is death. They live to be safe and organized beings in societies governed by values, principles, ethics, and positive emotions. These are distinctions we have read about and benefited from understanding throughout all stages of human history.
What we have learned is that the concept of the “right to live” evolved into an affirmation of the “right to a dignified life.” The concept of “shared living” developed into acceptance of differences and tolerance, and was subsequently codified in laws and constitutions. The concept of “well-being” rested on learning, knowledge and skills training, followed by the “refinement of knowledge” through the arts, personal taste and the enjoyment of pleasures that rise above the mere necessities of survival.
Today, even in the most advanced societies we unfortunately find applied scientific progress or advanced technology existing alongside a frightening decline in values, principles, ethics, and positive emotions.
Rampant racism is rearing its head in some of the world’s most advanced and “democratic” societies. Contempt for the law and the authority of the judiciary has become an accepted practice, justified by personal or partisan interests.
Even questioning the norms and international institutions that regulate relations between states has become a routine and acceptable matter, as education has fallen short in fulfilling its formative role, and the media increasingly fails to perform the watchdog function that earned it the title of “the fourth estate,” which is supposed to have a duty to safeguard democracy in free countries.
Scientific and technological progress is necessary for human development. But without humanity, there is no value in the human being.

• Eyad Abu Shakra is managing editor of Asharq Al-Awsat, where this article was originally published.
X: @eyad1949