"What we are" is meant in the context of "To me, nothing defines humanity more than the constant improvement of our race, our reach, and our capabilities." which I outlined in my original comment. In that respect, the tools are just stepping stones to let us be us. Sure, we might have less specialized cells in the hippocampus because we aren't exercising a specific (conceptual) tool, but I don't see that as any different than peasants with muscles developed to make it easier to spend the day tilling the land, or a knight with muscles developed for fighting in armor, or a modern day basebal player, with eyes developed to track fast moving object and lots of high speed twitch muscle fiber.

These tools change our jobs and behavior, but they don't change our core physical being much in a way that persists (evolutionary aspects of course apply), much less change philosophically what makes us "human" (in the sense of our "humanity", not homo sapiens).

Another way to look at this, what is it to reduce someone's humanity?

Listen to that radiolab broadcast. I'm pretty sure that is the one that goes into detail about a man that grew up deaf (in El Salvador, I think) and without any access to sign language. The broadcast has a woman that went there as a grad student and, I think, ended up teaching the guy sign language. A translator for the guy describes when he finally 'got' language and from what I remember, it was life and soul changing for him. He mentions that his friends that were also without the tool of language would try to communicate through charades and it would take hours to 'talk'. I can't do this justice, but the tale is very powerful. I also can't verify that the linked broadcast is about what I just said fyi (in a coffee shop, no headphones, sorry)

Still, I disagree. The tools that we use shape our souls as much as our brains. It's that repetitive daily use that mostly does this. We come to see the world and then believe things in the way we experience it, and our tools heavily shape this view.

To reduce someone's humanity is an incredibly deep question and i don't have the space here, nor the access to beer, to do it justice. However, I like that you turned the question on it's head. Most of the time we ask what it would take to make something human. The way you pose this question: "what would it take to rob a person of their humanity?" is MUCH more interesting and very provocative.

> Listen to that radiolab broadcast.

I'll definitely do so. I don't recall off-hand if I've heard that one, but I've heard a lot of them (I've been an on-and-off listener for a decade).

> Still, I disagree. The tools that we use shape our souls as much as our brains. It's that repetitive daily use that mostly does this. We come to see the world and then believe things in the way we experience it, and our tools heavily shape this view.

I don't disagree with your assertion, I just do't think the way "see the world and then believe things in the way we experience it" is actually humanity.

> To reduce someone's humanity is an incredibly deep question and i don't have the space here, nor the access to beer, to do it justice.

It is, but my use here is fairly simplistic. Basically, I think most people use "humanity" as a stand in for the values of the day. Obviously, if something is so affected by the current culture and attitude, it's can't be the defining trait of our race, can it? Thus, most of my comments here have been along the lines of both calling out what I see as a bogus definition, and proposing my own one, base don what I see as defining traits of our race. Innovation, advancement, etc.

> "what would it take to rob a person of their humanity?"

It really is a big question, but this bit by Hannah Arendt in "The Origins of Totalitarianism" (a book I highly recommend, it's as timely as ever sadly) really struck me.. it's on page 667 in the German version, this is my crappy translation:

> Humans, in so far as they are more than a completion of functions able to react, whose lowest and therefore most central are the purely animal like reactions, are simply superfluous for totalitarian systems. Their goal is not to erect a despotic regime over humans, but a system by which humans are made superfluous. Total power can only be achieved and guaranteed when nothing else matters except the absolutely controllable willingness to react, marionettes robbed of all spontaneity. Humans, precisely because they are so powerful, can only be completely controlled when they have become examples of the animal like species human.

So I would say at least part of the answer might be: taking away the ability to act instead of just react, and the the ability to start a logical chain of thinking from new premises (which is also something she mentions, though of course in contrast with totalitarianism, which forces a certain flow of logic based on some premises set in stone; she's not writing about what it means to be human).

Great question, and I won't do it justice in this attempt. I think at the point where people are more or less extricated from decision-making, small they may be. When people are essentially just organs plugged into a network, like cows to a milking station.

All you have to do is be, you no longer have to think, slowly things are done for you and decided for you -- with best intentions, of course.

We're not there yet. But we're getting there.

See, I don't think we are. Some decisions are being automated, but that's not reducing our own choices, just freeing us to focus on other ones. It becomes less of "should I go and then what flower should I buy" and more just "should I go" and we've freed our time and attention for some other decision. Then again, there will always be those that go above and beyond for someone they care for. Maybe you remember that your mother particularly liked the flowers at the house you lived in when you were younger, so you track down the current owners and ask for a favor, whether you can have a few flowers from the front yard. Letting your mother know of the source might yield a distinctly different impression from the present. There's still room to provide attention where it matters, apps and reminders aren't taking that away.

If you look beyond reminder apps, I think things look a little different. There are good aspects to automation and some shortcomings as well.

I'm not saying people need to maintain survivalist skills. But I think there is a danger in relinquishing your will and control to data. How will people, in the future, be able to adjust to catastrophe? I have no pocket computer, what should I do? Can I eat now? What can I eat? It's so bewildering...

It's akin to an overly protective parents who one day has to face the world on their own, it can take years for them to recalibrate and readjust to their new reality.

I think that ignores that there is always a spectrum of people who want differing levels of control. Even if there apps to suggest all our actions, there will be people that use them sparingly or not at all, because they want to feel in control. This is acceptable and normal, and also leads to situations where some people do maintain survivalist skills. Our population is homogeneous in almost nothing, which is one of our strengths.

What happens in a catastrophe? People probably die. Depending on the scale, possibly a lot. Will everyone die? Probably not, but there are cases where it could happen. The ways to mitigate that have nothing to do with less automation of simple decisions in my mind, and possibly quite the opposite.

Well, like I said earlier it's not about automating simple tasks and giving us reminders, etc. --but rather, ultimately we'll take people out of the equation in most matters of import.

We'll be relegated to a state where there are a few "important people" and the rest are basically just vegged out (with a few pockets of 'natural people' here and there). People will not even notice this happen as they will slide into this state willingly and happily. Just as we slid in to a sugary diet without complaint.

It's hard to make the case for "inconvenience" in life, it's harder, it takes more energy, it's not efficient, and so on. But I think if we are to remain a useful species (not just a few useful people), we have to contrary to our inclination.

Thank God for teenagers then, little jerks will do whatever the 'wrong' thing is just to piss you off and for no other reason.

Our population is homogenous in many things, particularly in our adoption of tools.