Lesson video

Hello and welcome to this RE lesson following our theme of Personhood: What Might Be the People of the Future?

In today's lesson, we're going to be looking at issues surrounding the future of being human.

And I'm really looking forward at getting into these today with you.

In today's lesson, you will be able to explain how rapid technological change is shaping the future of being human and how people with different worldviews might respond to this.

In our lesson, we're going to be using the key terms consciousness, human, and technology.

Consciousness is the state of being aware of and able to think about one's existence, thoughts, and surroundings.

Human is a conscious and sentient member of the species Homo sapiens, capable of language, culture, and complex social interaction.

And technology means tools, machines, or systems that humans create to solve problems or extend what they can do.

In our lesson, we're going to be looking at two threads, humans and technology and the future of being human.

So let's get started on humans and technology.

Imagine you took a time-machine and went back a hundred years.

What would it be like to be a human?

Discuss the following questions with a partner if you can.

How would you get information or news?

What jobs or tasks would take up your time?

What would you do for fun?

Who would you go to for advice?

How would you communicate with others?

So take some time to talk about these questions and imagine going back in time.

Come back when you're ready to move on.

Alex, Sofia, Lucas, Sam, and Aisha have been thinking about what it might have been like to be human a hundred years ago.

Alex says, "I would get news and information by reading the newspaper, listening to the radio, speaking to other people, and from what I see around me.

" Sofia says, "A lot of my time will be spent on chores such as washing, cooking, and cleaning.

Traveling would also take up more time as I might have to walk to school.

" Luca says, "I don't think I would have as much free time, but I would probably spend the time I had reading, socializing, or playing sport.

" Aisha says, "If I needed to make a difficult decision, I would ask family, neighbors, and friends for advice.

" Sam says, "I think most of my communication with others would be face-to-face, but I could also write letters.

" Think about being human today.

What would be different about your answers to those questions?

Take your time, pause the video again, turn and talk to someone nearby, and then come back when you're ready to move on.

Let's check your understanding.

Which of the following is a way in which life was different a hundred years ago?

A, most communication happened face-to-face or by letter, b, people checked social media for news, c, most chores were done using modern appliances, or d, people traveled quickly, using smartphones for directions.

Pause if you need to, jot down your answer, and then come back when you're ready to move on.

So well done if you put a, most communication would've happened face-to-face or by letter.

One way in which technology has made a difference to the lives of humans is in how we communicate.

A hundred years ago, we had the telephone, but it might have looked something like this.

Most homes did not have a telephone.

Phone boxes could be accessed in urban areas.

So if you lived in a village, it would be unlikely you had access to a phone.

Today we might have a phone that looks something like this, a smartphone.

In fact, most adults in the UK own a smartphone and carry it with them.

Sherry Turkle, a social scientist, argues that digital communication provides an illusion of connection.

She says you are connected but not truly engaged.

Digital communication means people edit and curate their true selves.

And that when we keep relationships at a safe, managed distance, we lose the depth and unpredictability that make real connection meaningful.

This actually creates loneliness rather than happiness.

Pope Francis, who died in 2025, wrote about digital relationships in the encyclical "Fratelli Tutti.

" He discusses the moral and spiritual consequences of digital relationships and says that digital relationships miss the cues we use to really understand each other, such as facial expressions, tone of voice, hand movements, and pauses.

As a consequence, he argues that aggression is amplified as people do not learn to live with their differences.

Alex's uncle is reflecting on how he uses his smartphone.

He says, "Having a smartphone makes my life easier because I can organize things, stay in touch, and talk to relatives in other countries.

Having said that, it can be a distraction, and although it helps me feel connected, quick messages aren't the same as real conversation or being with someone in person.

" So which parts of Alex's uncle's comment can you relate to?

If you are able to turn and talk to someone nearby, please do.

Pause the video and come back when you're ready to move on.

Let's check your understanding.

Is this statement true or false?

Sherry Turkle argues that digital communication can create an illusion of connection.

Take a moment, pause if you need to, and have a think also about why.

So well done if you put that it is true.

But why is this true?

Well, she says that digital communication keeps relationships at a distance, which means you might feel connected without being fully engaged.

Well done if you've got that reason correct too.

Another way in which technology has made a difference to the lives of humans is in how we find information and make decisions.

A hundred years ago, you might have accessed a library.

People would've used human experts, such as librarians, and the resources they could provide to help them find out what they needed to know.

Today we might instead use some form of AI.

And many people today use it as an assistant in their daily lives.

AI is a type of software that can learn, reason, and communicate.

It can be digital, running on computers and phones, or it can be embodied, placed inside a physical robot.

Aisha's mum is reflecting on how she uses AI.

She says, "AI saves me hours every week.

It's brilliant for getting things done fast.

I use it to find things out, draft emails, and even help my kids with their homework.

But when it can solve problems and express things so smoothly, it's hard to tell which parts of the job are mine and which parts I'm passing on.

I catch myself relying on it instead of doing the harder thinking myself or talking things through with someone.

" Have a think about Aisha's mother's comment.

Which parts do you relate to?

Pause the video, turn and talk to someone nearby if you can, and then come back when you're ready to move on.

People are increasingly using AI as a replacement for human connection.

Some people talk to AI when they feel lonely.

There's evidence that people use AI as a thinking partner quite regularly.

People use apps, specific apps that allow them to form emotional bonds with AI, so to have AI as a friend.

And people also use AI to practice their emotional and social skills.

Let's check your understanding.

What is the missing word?

There are apps designed to let users form, bonds with AI.

Pause the video, have a think about the missing word, and come back when you're ready to check.

So well done if you put emotional bonds.

For Part 1 of our task, I'd like you to work with a partner and discuss the positives and negatives of advances in technology.

Record your ideas in the table.

Once you've done this, for Part 2 of the task, I'd like you to be ready to report back with your thoughts on which positive and which negative seems most important and why.

So take your time, have a really good discussion about this, think about what we've been learning today, and then come back when you're ready to see what you might have come up with.

So let's compare your ideas with mine.

For my table, I had, on the positives, technology could help humans understand more about the world, humans could reflect on ideas more deeply using tools that support thinking, and technology could make it easier to communicate and understand others across distances.

On the negatives, I had relying on technology to interpret the world could mean we experience it less, it may become harder to distinguish personal thoughts from ideas influenced by technology, and using systems to understand others could make relationships feel less personal and reduce emotional connection.

So well done if you managed to get some similar-looking positives and negatives in your table.

Now for Part 2 of the task, you might have said something like this.

The most important positive is that technology could help humans understand more about the world.

This is because gaining knowledge allows us to solve problems, make better decisions, and improve our lives.

Tools that support thinking and communication are helpful too, but understanding the world is the foundation that makes everything else possible.

The most important negative is that relying on technology to interpret the world could mean we experience it less.

This is important because if we depend too much on technology, we might lose our own ability to notice, think, and reflect on the world directly.

Relationships and thinking could become less personal or less meaningful if we let technology do too much for us.

So well done if you managed to pick out one positive and one negative and also to explain their importance.

So let's move on to the second part of our lesson and think about the future of being human.

Imagine you took a time-machine, but this time you went forward a hundred years.

What would it be like to be a human?

Discuss the following questions, like we did before, with your partner.

How would you get information or news?

What jobs or tasks would take up your time?

What would you do for fun?

Who would you go to for advice?

And how would you communicate with others?

Take your time, pause the video, have a good discussion, and then come back when you're ready to move on.

Alex, Sofia Lucas, Sam, and Aisha have been thinking about what it might be like to be human in the future, in a hundred years time.

Alex says, "I might get news and information from an AI feed working through smart glasses, or maybe it will be through wall-displays at home and out and about.

" Sofia says, "I think a lot of my time will be spent managing and using technology for support around the home and with my education.

" Lucas says, "I think I'd have more options on how to spend my time.

I might play mixed-reality games or hang out with friends in AI-powered spaces.

" Aisha says, "If I needed to make a difficult decision, I might be able to ask AI to run a simulation of what might happen with each choice.

" Sam says, "I might talk to people through hologram chats and smart glasses that make us feel like we're in the same room.

" I would like you to think about being human in the future.

What do you think might be better or worse?

Pause the video, turn and talk to someone nearby if you can, and then come back when you're ready to move on.

For most of history, humans have believed that they're unique because they are conscious.

Consciousness can be defined as a state of being aware of and able to think about one's existence, thoughts, and surroundings.

Consciousness could include interpreting the world, reflecting on your thoughts, understanding others, and making decisions.

"Hamo Deus" means Man as God and is a book written by Yuval Noah Harari.

In the book, Harari explores a possible future where humans use technology to gain god-like powers.

Here we can see the illustration of a microchip with a heart line, as though it is potentially human.

Harari uses terms like non-organic life to describe intelligent systems that don't rely on biology at all.

In this, he includes algorithms, networks, and machines that can process information, act in the world, and evolve without being made of living cells.

"Homo Deus" asks the question: what happens when humans acquire god-like powers and are no longer the most intelligent beings on the planet?

Harari makes the point that humans may become useless.

If machines can do a better job than many people, some humans might struggle to find a clear role in society.

He also suggests that we may need to rethink intelligence.

If non-organic systems become more intelligent than us, then our old ideas about personhood and moral status may no longer make sense.

Let's check our understanding on this.

According to Harari in "Homo Deus," why might humans need to rethink ideas about being human in the future?

Is it a, because humans may choose to merge completely with machines, b, that non-organic systems could become more intelligent than humans, c, that technology will eliminate the need for all human relationships, or d, that humans will stop using technology altogether.

So take your time to think about your answer, pause if you need to, and come back when you're ready to check.

Well done if you chose b.

Harari makes the point that non-organic systems could become more intelligent than humans.

Reading or watching science fiction can be an interesting way to reflect on the future of being human.

In this picture, we can see an illustration of Klara from the book "Klara and the Sun.

" She waits in a shop window to be chosen as an artificial friend.

In "Klara and the Sun" by Kazuo Ishiguro, Klara is an artificial friend.

She acts in human ways and humans form emotional bonds with her.

This raises the question, is there anything special about being human?

So pause the video.

Take your time to have a real think about that question.

If you can talk to someone nearby, please do.

And then come back when you're ready to move on.

Followers of religious traditions often argue that humans are worthy of special moral consideration because they were created by God and are in some way unique.

Being created specially by God means that humans have consciousness: they can think, feel, and reflect.

Uniqueness.

That means they have inherent or built in value.

Moral status.

They deserve ethical consideration.

And spiritual connection.

They can relate to the divine or to God.

Now, developments in technology may blur what it means to be human by challenging the idea that our origins as creations of God are what makes us human.

Consciousness.

For example, AI might have conscious awareness.

Would that make it human?

Does that blur the distinction between us and AI?

What about uniqueness?

Well, actually, human traits can be replicated.

So does this mean we are not unique?

Moral status.

If a machine can mimic human characteristic, does this mean that a machine should have rights?

Spiritual connection.

If technology can copy human abilities, could it also connect with God?

Faye is a sentientist and she's also an atheist.

She has a non-religious worldview.

She has been asked to reflect on the future of humans.

Faye says, "I think advancing technology pushes us towards recognizing that moral worth comes from something other than being human.

As our systems grow more capable, we might create non-biological beings that can think, learn, and maybe even feel.

As a sentientist, I believe that if that happens, we should extend moral concern to any being that can suffer or flourish.

" Faye doesn't see humans as unique.

What about you?

Do advances in technology influence your view on this?

Take your time to talk to someone nearby, or you can pause and talk to me if you like.

Come back to the lesson when you're ready to move on.

Danielle is a Roman Catholic Christian.

She's also been asked to reflect on the future of humans.

Danielle says, "I think the future of being human rests on the belief that every person has God given dignity that no technology can replace.

New forms of intelligence may change how we live, but they cannot change that humans are made in the image of God.

Whatever advances come, our task is to use them wisely while remembering that our value comes from God, who gives each human life its purpose and its worth.

" Danielle thinks humans are unique.

I wonder how close this is to your view?

Again, pause the video, take your time to talk to someone nearby if you can, and then come back when you're ready to move on.

Dom is a Zen Buddhist, and he has also been asked to reflect on the future of humans.

Dom says, "I think it will become even more clear in the future that the self is not a fixed thing we can cling to or define by our abilities or our sense of uniqueness.

When technology challenges what we thought made us special, it simply shows how fragile those ideas always were.

Whatever changes come, I think we can embrace them with steadiness, but remember that nothing replaces the simple freedom of being present and awake to life.

" Dom suggests that we can welcome change if we stay rooted in the present.

I wonder what you think?

How far do you agree with him?

So pause the video again, and talk to someone nearby, and then come back when you're ready to move on.

Let's check your understanding.

Which statement best reflects a Christian understanding of the future of being human?

Is it a, that human worth depends on our abilities, so technological advances challenge our understanding of our worth?

Is it b, no technology can replace or diminish the dignity given to humans by God?

Is it c, human identity is not solid, so technological change simply reveals the illusion of a fixed self?

Or is it d, human moral status is based on sentience, so technology may eventually share equal moral worth with us?

Pause the video, take a moment, and come back when you're ready to check your answer.

Well done if you put b.

For Christians, technology cannot replace or diminish the dignity given to humans by God.

For Part 1 of our task, I'd like you to think about what there is to be excited about in regard to being human in the future and what there is to be concerned about.

For Part 2 of the task, once you have some ideas, turn and talk to another person about them, then write them up in the table, under the headings what there is to be excited about and what there is to be concerned about.

So pause the video.

Take your time to think about your take on questions about the future of being human.

Have a good discussion and come back when you're ready to see what you might have written and to compare your ideas with mine.

For 1 and 2, you could have said, in regard to what there is to be excited about, that in the future, technology may extend and amplify human skills, making us more capable of overcoming our limitations, and that humans might be able to actively shape who we become, using new forms of intelligence to rethink what makes us unique and redefine what it means to be human.

However, in regard to what there is to be concerned about, you might have said that human life may become less valuable if non-organic intelligence becomes more capable than us.

And also, if intelligence becomes non-organic and self-improving, humans may no longer be the central decision-makers.

Well done if you managed to put down a couple of ideas in each column and have a think about how similar or different they are from mine.

In today's lesson, we've thought about the big question of the future of being human.

We've considered how humans interpret the world, think and make decisions, and how this has changed over time and may keep changing with new technologies.

We've considered how technology can support thinking and communication, but may also reduce direct experience and personal connection.

We've considered how AI challenges traditional ideas about what makes humans unique, including intelligence, creativity, and consciousness.

We've also taken into account how different worldviews might offer reasons why humans might deserve special moral consideration, from divine creation to the capacity to feel.

And finally, we've considered that future technologies raise questions about identity, dignity, and what it means to be human.

Thank you so much for working with me today and for tackling some of these really challenging philosophical questions.