Ethical implications of future technology

[!Kaggen]

Personally, I've never understood the appeal of human cloning. Making babies the old-fashioned way is much more fun.

I wonder if being gay makes ones interest in cloning more likely?

 

[CaveDave]

[snip]
But either way, we both agree that children will always have value.

As gourmet meat, fine leather, and cheap servitude?[/Swift]



Cheers,

Dave

 

[Andrew Wiggin]

What about sexbots?

I for one welcome our new sexbot overlords.

 

[dsm]

I'm not following you. If we "take evolution the way we want", then how is that stagnation? And if we have "complete control" of the genetic characteristics of our offspring, why would that imply identical clones?

Personally, I've never understood the appeal of human cloning. Making babies the old-fashioned way is much more fun.

What would you like your baby to look like? Blonde or brunette? Blue-eyed or brown? Short or tall? Lean or fat? and so on. Most people will wind up picking the same thing which could lead to stagnation in the species in that we remove things from the species that we don't want even though that could be something that provides greater diversity in the species.

 

[Foolmewunz]

We already have overpopulation and wars and famine. I don't think that "near immortality" will significantly worsen it. Just because a technology is available doesn't mean everyone will have access to it. Life-extending technologies will be the privilege of the rich, while most others will continue to grow old and die as usual. It certainly would give the term "right to life" a whole new meaning, however.

With all due respect, this is sometihng out of speculative fiction, I feel.

We already have life-extending (and expensive) technologies and procedures. While not distributed to the extent that a good Marxist-Leninist would prefer, you can't really say that the masses in countries that have broad healthcare have been cut off, can you? I know a girl whose father pilots a junk taxi in the harbor here. He just got my operation - a triple bypass. Cost to my insurance company? USD 135,000(because I did it here - if I'd done it in the USA, it would've been triple that). Cost to him? $1225.
The miracles of thirty years ago: Chemo, valve replacement, transplants, etc... are available to the general public in country-states with socialized medicine.
The miracles of fifty to seventy-five years ago (dialysis machines come to mind) are common all over the world.
Is there a pecking order in there? No doubt. But access is not barred to the non-privileged.

Ergo, this argument fails already - before the future even gets here.

It's true that many people will opt not to have children in the future. We already see that in declining birth rates for modern democracies and the rich in general, but that has more to do with the availability of contraception than any concerns about overpopulation. However, scarcity of something usually increases its value. In a society where children are a rare phenomenon, I expect that people would become obsessed with them. I'm not sure what form that would take. Probably children would grow up in a "Truman Show"-like atmosphere, with the entire community as an audience.

If a commodity is scarce and becomes desirable and is so easy to acquire it will not be scarce for long. (Making babies ain't all that difficult.) Just as 1984, a great and interesting work of fiction, identified a current trend and extrapolated on it to an incorrect conclusion, I wouldn't put much faith in Metropolis, Brave New World, Farenheit 451, THX1138, or Truman Show.

I can definitely see limits on the right to have children (already beginning in China), and frankly it's about time. IMHO just because you have the biological ability to make a baby doesn't mean you are qualified to care for it, or that an overcrowded world should have to accommodate it.

Already beginning? The one-child policy in China has been there for three decades and it's currently on the cusp of being overturned. While it achieved some major good - stemming the growth(but not decreasing as it should have mathematically) and avoiding the horrifying famines they had in the past, it's proving to have been a short-term solution.
With pre-natal screening in the middle classes and old-fashioned infanticide in the lower, there is a huge imbalance in male/female Chinese under 20 years old, now. They have also upset the apple cart in the ratio of working age to retirement age. While that used to be 6:1, it's now more like 2:1 . For a country that relies on productivity so heavily, this is beyond worrisome. Thus, that policy will change. Likely it will be in the next decade, officially, but there are already exceptions. People have always been able to pay a fine for having too many kids, and now you can actually get a waiver in a couple of the largest cities (Shanghai and Guangzhou, I believe).

 

[Ron Webb]

What would you like your baby to look like? Blonde or brunette? Blue-eyed or brown? Short or tall? Lean or fat? and so on. Most people will wind up picking the same thing which could lead to stagnation in the species in that we remove things from the species that we don't want even though that could be something that provides greater diversity in the species.

I honestly don't know, dsm. Never really thought about it. Frankly, I don't think I care too much about looks. I'd be more interested in intelligence, personality, and physical and mental health.

On the other hand, I'm sure that many parents would select for what they regard as a pleasing appearance (and there's nothing wrong with that, within reason). But everyone's tastes are different -- I doubt that most people will wind up picking the same thing. As a matter of fact, if we had "complete control" over genetics, we would have a much wider range of choices, including characteristics that don't even exist in nature. IMHO it would likely lead to much greater diversity.

 

[theprestige]

Those that fail to learn from the past are doomed to repeat it...?

I don't think there's anything in our past that can teach us any lessons about the Internet. On the other hand, I do think it's foolish to fantasize about "future technology" with ethical implications, when everybody is clearly so clueless regarding the ethical implications of the Internet and how to address them.

My theory is that anybody who claims they are competent to discuss the ethical implications of the "future technology" must necessarily have already mastered the ethical implications of the Internet, and is prepared to demonstrate such mastery.

 

[Ron Webb]

With all due respect, this is sometihng out of speculative fiction, I feel.

It's certainly speculative, I'll agree with that.

We already have life-extending (and expensive) technologies and procedures. While not distributed to the extent that a good Marxist-Leninist would prefer, you can't really say that the masses in countries that have broad healthcare have been cut off, can you?

Countries that have broad healthcare, maybe. But in a world where (according to the WHO) only one-third of the world is described as "well-fed", while another third are "starving", it's hard for me to believe that advanced medical procedures are anything like universally available.

I also believe that a technology that promises "near-immortality" will be in a different category altogether, with political, social and most especially economic ramifications that will make it distinct from regular medical care. Remember, your health insurance covers expensive medical procedures like heart surgery on the assumption that most of its policy-holders will not need them, or at least will only need them for short periods at the end of their lives. Immortality, by contrast, will be something that everyone will want/need, and depending on the methodology they might need ongoing treatment virtually forever. You really think your insurer is going to cover that at a price that most people can afford?

If a commodity is scarce and becomes desirable and is so easy to acquire it will not be scarce for long. (Making babies ain't all that difficult.)

Except that making babies will probably be illegal without a permit. (You know, most countries have very stringent restrictions on people entering in virtually every other way. It has long puzzled me that the state has nothing whatsoever to say about those who arrive via the birth canal. IMHO it's only a matter of time...)

Already beginning? The one-child policy in China has been there for three decades and it's currently on the cusp of being overturned.

Right, but as far as I know China is the only country so far to have even experimented with it. That's what I meant by "beginning".

 

[Foolmewunz]

It's certainly speculative, I'll agree with that.



Countries that have broad healthcare, maybe. But in a world where (according to the WHO) only one-third of the world is described as "well-fed", while another third are "starving", it's hard for me to believe that advanced medical procedures are anything like universally available.

I also believe that a technology that promises "near-immortality" will be in a different category altogether, with political, social and most especially economic ramifications that will make it distinct from regular medical care. Remember, your health insurance covers expensive medical procedures like heart surgery on the assumption that most of its policy-holders will not need them, or at least will only need them for short periods at the end of their lives. Immortality, by contrast, will be something that everyone will want/need, and depending on the methodology they might need ongoing treatment virtually forever. You really think your insurer is going to cover that at a price that most people can afford?



Except that making babies will probably be illegal without a permit. (You know, most countries have very stringent restrictions on people entering in virtually every other way. It has long puzzled me that the state has nothing whatsoever to say about those who arrive via the birth canal. IMHO it's only a matter of time...)



Right, but as far as I know China is the only country so far to have even experimented with it. That's what I meant by "beginning".

I already stated that the current tech/procedures are not universally available, but they are far more available than you think. India and China represent a third of the world. There is far from universal health care in those countries, but the standards are rising. With the advent of the middle class, there will be far better health care, and like my friend's father, it'll be very common to find that a laundry wallah is out having his dialysis treatment or a waitress is having her heart valve replaced. (Heck, India and Thailand are now promoting medical tourism. The standards are there, they just need the infrastructure, financing and delivery systems to get them to the people.)
China has a horrible medical and healthcare infrastructure, but there's a big push on to get doctors to train overseas and come back.

I don't see on big tech coming on to give indefinite/eternal life. I don't think we're playing Civ IV. I see a continuation of the trend of the last four thousand years. (The nobility in Egypt lived to about 30 years old.) I think the improvements will continue to come in dribs and drabs. A treatment here, a pill there, a synthetic material/part over there. As such, I don't see anyone being able to control it.

A lot of this speculation is like the organ farming sort of spec that went on when transplants first became popular. The rich (usually played by Rip Torn or Donald Sutherland) will dominate the field and hold back from the poor. Well, the poor have medical books, too. And they also have formerly poor doctors and bureaucrats who actually care about more than a bwahahaa plan to control the world.

China = beginning is just silly. It's ending. One country tried it and that country created problems for itself a generation later that it now has to overcome by relaxing the rule. They will be far better off allowing the middle class disinterest in raising large families to take over the population control issue. The old guard moves slowly, though, so it will take at least a decade for the changes to be legitimized by law. But it will happen. They have to do something about the imbalances the old system has created. (Viz longevity the interesting point is that there are so many retirees surviving into old age. As recently as the 40s and 50s that wouldn't have happened. Mind you, far more of that is probably attributable to other conditions like 'not starving" and "not being shot by the Japanese, Mao, or Chiang".)

 

[dsm]

I honestly don't know, dsm. Never really thought about it. Frankly, I don't think I care too much about looks. I'd be more interested in intelligence, personality, and physical and mental health.

On the other hand, I'm sure that many parents would select for what they regard as a pleasing appearance (and there's nothing wrong with that, within reason). But everyone's tastes are different -- I doubt that most people will wind up picking the same thing. As a matter of fact, if we had "complete control" over genetics, we would have a much wider range of choices, including characteristics that don't even exist in nature. IMHO it would likely lead to much greater diversity.

My example was just one obvious example. You could apply the same idea to intelligence, personality, and physical/mental health. That is, given a choice about what to pick, the majority will tend to pick the same way. In genetics, this could mean a lack of diversity in the species which makes the species less able to cope with something new. Not only that, the lack of diversity could cause other things in the environment to change to take advantage of the situation. We're already seeing that in bacteria as our use of anti-bacterials is causing the bacteria to mutate into stronger and stronger bacteria in order to take advantage of the situation.

 

[dsm]

I don't think there's anything in our past that can teach us any lessons about the Internet. On the other hand, I do think it's foolish to fantasize about "future technology" with ethical implications, when everybody is clearly so clueless regarding the ethical implications of the Internet and how to address them.

My theory is that anybody who claims they are competent to discuss the ethical implications of the "future technology" must necessarily have already mastered the ethical implications of the Internet, and is prepared to demonstrate such mastery.

The Internet is a new form of society, but, at it's base, it's still a society and we have several thousand years of history to learn from in the creation of an enhanced society. The ethical implications of the Internet are similar to the ethical implications of moving into a city -- everything is closer together.

 

[CaveDave]

I don't think there's anything in our past that can teach us any lessons about the Internet. On the other hand, I do think it's foolish to fantasize about "future technology" with ethical implications, when everybody is clearly so clueless regarding the ethical implications of the Internet and how to address them.

My theory is that anybody who claims they are competent to discuss the ethical implications of the "future technology" must necessarily have already mastered the ethical implications of the Internet, and is prepared to demonstrate such mastery.

While the specific problems of the "Internet" are possibly new, (I think we can still find analogous situations in history from which we CAN learn, even if the past "solutions" failed dramatically) cannot we also learn from negative examples, and recognize whole classes of "bad ideas"?

$.02

Dave

ETA: Also, what dsm just wrote before me.

 

[Ron Webb]

I already stated that the current tech/procedures are not universally available, but they are far more available than you think. India and China represent a third of the world. There is far from universal health care in those countries, but the standards are rising. With the advent of the middle class, there will be far better health care, and like my friend's father, it'll be very common to find that a laundry wallah is out having his dialysis treatment or a waitress is having her heart valve replaced. (Heck, India and Thailand are now promoting medical tourism. The standards are there, they just need the infrastructure, financing and delivery systems to get them to the people.)

Financing -- aye, there's the rub, eh?

I agree that we're more likely to see incremental improvements to health in the foreseeable future, rather than the "near immortality" suggested earlier in the discussion. However, even incremental improvements are not equally available to all. The rich already live significantly longer than the poor, especially around the world but even in the USA.

By the way, I think it's important to realize that efforts to extend longevity are not the same, and are not funded the same, as medical treatments to cure disease (e.g. heart disease). It can be fairly argued, and I've no doubt the rich will argue, that a pill (for instance) to increase your "natural" lifespan is not something that ought to be covered by Medicare or Medicaid because it doesn't treat a specific medical condition.

I'm not sure what the situation is in the USA, but here in Canada one of the best things we could do to improve the health and thus extend the life of our poor would be to provide them with fresh fruits and vegetables, which are often either unavailable or prohibitively expensive in rural areas, on reserves and in the north. But there is no way that would be covered by our medical system, and IMHO any attempt to address it as a public health initiative would be a political disaster.

P.S.: I once asked my doctor to give me a prescription for red wine to help lower my cholesterol. Unfortunately, he didn't think it would be covered by Medicare. Drat.

 

[Roboramma]

Financing -- aye, there's the rub, eh?

I agree that we're more likely to see incremental improvements to health in the foreseeable future, rather than the "near immortality" suggested earlier in the discussion.

I don't see how incremental improvements should be contrasted with "near immortality" as an either/or. If "near immortality" comes about, it will be through incremental improvements.

One of the current developments that seems to me to be a major game changer is the development of organs grown from a person's own cells, so that we can do organ transplants without the need for a donor and without the problems of rejection.

 

[Nosi]

Of course, when you start talking about "memes, not genes", the meaning of children changes completely. Currently, due to the recombination of genes, children are something new. In the future, due to complete control via computers, children are more likely to be clones of us. This could lead to stagnation in the species as we use computers to take evolution the way we want rather than by what is dictated from the environment.

I disagree, there will always be the stray mutation that will happen, the sperm that will meet the egg that was never planned. The sex act that was spontaneous, the birth control that failed, the baby surprises. There may be fewer of them, and fewer children in general, but they will still happen. Human instinct will survive, and thrive as long as there are still humans, unless or until we evolve into something else. The fact that fewer children will die before they reach reproductive age means fewer children being born has less impact than it might in ages past.

The upside down age pyramid is also being cushioned by technology in advanced societies. There will be fewer young to physically look after the old yes, but there will be gadgets for example improved electronic Roomba's to clean up the messes and iPads to keep track of Grandma's meds. Japan even has lifting bots to lift elders and quake messes alike.

 

[Nosi]

I'm not following you. If we "take evolution the way we want", then how is that stagnation? And if we have "complete control" of the genetic characteristics of our offspring, why would that imply identical clones?

Personally, I've never understood the appeal of human cloning. Making babies the old-fashioned way is much more fun.

Cloning may be an extension of IVF technology for those who cannot have children naturally. There may come a time where naturally born children may become a scarcity due to future calamity due to sperm count or egg problems.

 

[Nosi]

Originally Posted by dsm
What would you like your baby to look like? Blonde or brunette? Blue-eyed or brown? Short or tall? Lean or fat? and so on. Most people will wind up picking the same thing which could lead to stagnation in the species in that we remove things from the species that we don't want even though that could be something that provides greater diversity in the species.

I honestly don't know, dsm. Never really thought about it. Frankly, I don't think I care too much about looks. I'd be more interested in intelligence, personality, and physical and mental health.

On the other hand, I'm sure that many parents would select for what they regard as a pleasing appearance (and there's nothing wrong with that, within reason). But everyone's tastes are different -- I doubt that most people will wind up picking the same thing. As a matter of fact, if we had "complete control" over genetics, we would have a much wider range of choices, including characteristics that don't even exist in nature. IMHO it would likely lead to much greater diversity.

Cloning human beings is banned in many countries on ethical grounds (won't stop everyone). Cloning cells & body parts will save lives and save many the agonies of organ transplant waiting lines/death and the possibility of organ rejection because the organ is made from the person's own cells. We already see noses and bladders built in labs from cloned cells.

 

[Mark6]

The "value" of children is in the evolution of the species and the new ways of solving problems we get thru the recombining of genes. Stop having children and the species stagnates and eventually dies when it can't cope with the ever changing forces of nature. So, the idea of immortality may be highly alluring to us individually, but is it really of value to the species?

"Recombining of genes" a.k.a. natural selection, is not what human species uses to solve problems any more. We use our intelligence -- "recombining of memes" if you wish. Nothing prevents an individual living indefinitely from learning or inventing new ways to deal with problems.

 

[dsm]

I disagree, there will always be the stray mutation that will happen, the sperm that will meet the egg that was never planned. The sex act that was spontaneous, the birth control that failed, the baby surprises. There may be fewer of them, and fewer children in general, but they will still happen. Human instinct will survive, and thrive as long as there are still humans, unless or until we evolve into something else. The fact that fewer children will die before they reach reproductive age means fewer children being born has less impact than it might in ages past.

Presumption. Immortality might involve downloading our brains into computers. Then, the desire to procreate can be removed from the species with a simple "line edit". ;-)

 

[INRM]

Zelenius

I will address your questions

1) Create weapons of mass destruction so powerful that they may vastly overshadow even the most destructive nuclear weapons currently in existence.

Possible, but I can't see any good reason to actually use it. If you developed such a weapon you'd probably kill yourself in addition to your enemy. The only exception would be some kind of bioweapon which can kill more people than any nuclear explosion could. The problem is that whatever nation is deploying the weapon would have to be able to be able to innoculate it's own troops, it's leaders, and preferably a sufficient amount of it's own population; truthfully, most nations only care about it's leaders, it's troops, and so forth. We're expendable sadly.

I suppose it is theoretically possible to produce some kind of self-replicating nano-robot at some point in the future. Of course, most people designing such technology would design it to not be able to consume easily usable materials in the environment (such as carbon, iron, oxygen, silicon, and so forth) for use in it's construction, otherwise it would just consume and breakdown everything making more and more of itself (This wouldn't just mean the end of mankind, but potentially the whole world). There is interestingly a term for such a scenario -- it's called "grey goo".

2) Create robot armies that will lead to having to use fewer human soldiers(or perhaps use biotechnology to breed people to be ideal, obedient soldiers or citizens).

We are already have UAV's (Unmanned Aerial Vehicles) in service, including combat capable designs (called UCAV's) such as the Reaper and the Predator. There are also concepts for Unmanned Tanks, Unmanned Ships and Submarines, as well as a remote controlled design smaller than a human with a camera and a gun on it that can effectively be remotely controlled to shoot targets which of course includes human beings.

There are some designs that are completely autonomous (such as recon-designs), most of the combat vehicles are remote controlled and current combat doctrine calls for having a human being in the loop. Of course, there are people in the defense department of various nations around the world that want full autonomy and eventually this will be do-able. There is work being currently done on using unmanned vehicles that can coordinate with each other and perform swarm tactics as well. Since computers can operate faster than humans, once you combine intelligence with speed, we'd actually be the slowest part of the equation and the man in the loop would be removed. Something goes wrong and you could potentially have a "Terminator" like scenario.

As for using genetic engineering to breed compliant human beings who do not question. In fact, on youtube there has been a video taken in the Pentagon in which a neuroscientist talked about using a virus or bacteria to alter a gene in human beings which plays a role in religious fanatacism -- basically making a fanatic a non-fanatic. They called it "FunVax" -- Fundamentalist Vaccine.

Using gene-therapy to alter a gene that affects human behavior is clearly a bad use of gene-therapy.

3) Super computers using quantum computing/artificial intelligence/self-learning software that allows them to make nearly flawless predictions and trades when playing the financial markets. This could easily lead to markets getting manipulated by super-computers, to serve the interests of those who control these trading computers. This is already happening, but it is still in its early stages.

Entirely possible, however once you produce artificial intelligence that becomes sufficiently capable, it will be able to operate in it's own interest and will want a piece of the pie.

4) Biotechnology so powerful that there will be cures for almost all diseases, and the human lifespan is doubled or tripled. Eternal youth could eventually be achieved through genetic engineering for those who can afford it.

The second law of thermodynamics states that the universe is constantly changing and as a result no human could live forever. Still even with extremely long lifespans, there would be overcrowding problems that would easily occur and there would be the need to regulate who can reproduce and how often. This doesn't sit very well with me.

Super-intelligence could similarly be achieved through genetic and neuro-engineering, in a manner similar to eugenics.

Eugenics is basically selective breeding. This would be different as you could modify genes in a way that selective breeding never could. Regardless, while there are people who would seek super-intelligence, the fact is that A.I. would eventually eclipse all human intelligence by several orders of magnitude and our "Superintelligence" to them would seem all as intelligent as a small insect.

5) Governments using super computers, various forms of advanced surveillance technologies and micro-robots to spy on its citizens.

Already being done. The NSA intercepts huge numbers of phone-calls, e-mails, internet transmissions everyday, and allegedly archives all e-mails and probably a sizeable number of phone calls. Computers sift through the data to identify certain voice patters, certain types of word usage, which is flagged for a person to evaluate. There are plans underway to be able to archive all phone-calls, all internet transmissions as well and then use complex computer algorithms to perform data-mining to construct elaborate dossiers on everybody, gain elaborate insights into a person's personality, thought processes, and possibly how to predict what they will or will not do next.

It's possible that robots the size of mosquitoes or smaller could be used to spy on people the government claims are a "threat".

Already being worked on, as well as robots that look like snakes and other creatures that exist in nature. These could also make effective assassination tools as well -- imagine a bee shaped robot stings somebody with a toxin that mimics anaphylaxis and kills. Alternatively a snake could carry an explosive charge on it -- go up to a desired person and go boom.

Beyond this, and perhaps in combination with #2, government leaders could use advanced mind control to make sure no one opposes them.

To understand how to completely control a mind, one has to understand how to "read" a mind. There is extensive research underway in the neuroscience field using fMRI's to monitor brain activity. Several years back it was already possible to gauge a person's intentions with a 70% accuracy; later on they have been able to determine what image a person is looking at or what music a person was listening to while in an fMRI tube (without looking at the image or listening to the music)[/], there has also been research done into episodic memory whereby a person walked through parts of a room and they were asked to think about what part of the room they were in. They were able to accurately determine what part of the room they were recalling.

Some of this is being argued to be developed for brain-computer interfaces to allow humans who are disabled to walk; however this could easily be used as an interrogation tool. There technically is a company called No Lie MRI, which already uses an fMRI to gauge whether a person is lying or not (Lying is a more complicated thought process than telling the truth, and some different parts of the brain are used when just recalling data, or manufacturing a story), and this has already been the subject of a murder trial -- the evidence was thrown out as it did not meet the standard of reliability. Eventually though, it will. The only thing worse than a lie detector that doesn't work is one that does. Eventually the technology will exist that will allow one to "read" a mind from a distance, not just from the confines of an fMRI tube. Since the dawn of mankind humans have desired to read the thoughts of another.

The other desire is to control a mind, and once you know how to read a mind, the ability to control a mind becomes far easier.

6) Similar to #2, corporations using biotechnology and/or nanotechnology to create(or alter) ideal, robotic, always obedient employees who never take vacations and always do what they are told.

I assume within 10 years, automation will largely be able to replace most workers. Regardless, there have been projects like FunVax, by the Pentagon to distribute a virus that would alter a genetic code that would make a religious fanatic non religious. Of course one questions how long before you would be able to alter genes that produce a human with good critical thinking skills or skeptical leanings. As for using nanotechnology to alter or create ideal, always obedient employees, they have done work on coaxing nerve cells to grow around electronic components for the purposes of allowing disabled people to walk.

7) Science and mathematics becoming revolutionized. Will all this quantum computing and artificial intelligence make doing science so much more faster and "easy" that new, paradigm-shifting scientific discoveries will come

Correct

Will these discoveries hurt or help religion

They will eliminate religion. There is scientific proof that shows that a variety of genes are responsible for determining a person's religiosity, neuroscience research shows that consciousness is a product of neurological activity, which clearly indicates that there isn't such a thing as a soul, and without a soul there's no afterlife.

Ultimately, this becomes a positive feedback loop with technology - the more science advances, the more technology advances, and the more technology advances, the more science advances, etc.

Actually, there is a term for this -- it's called "The Singularity". Effectively as you described technology advances at an ever increasing rate, and once A.I. exceeds mankind's intelligence, it will be able to advance even faster than we ever could, and it will of course be able to produce A.I.'s even more intelligent than itself and so forth.

Time travel

Unless you want to travel forward, pretty much impossible. If you went back in time to change something, the instant you changed it, you eliminated the reason you went back in the first place effectively nullifying it.

long distance space travel

Possible, though I don't know if we'll ever be able to achieve Warp Drive

teleportation

Technically we have done scientific research including taking a laser beam, copying it's quantum state, relaying it to another location. The laser beam was then scattered, and a copy with the exact quantum state was produced at the other end.

Of course the issue is that you're not really zapping over the original beam over to the other side -- you're destroying the beam, and then making a perfect copy.

human brain uploading into computers.

Well there is work on brain computer interfaces, but I don't know if Ray Kurzweil idea will work or not.