Cyborgs, embeddables, and androids, oh my.
Never has the question, “what does it mean to be human?” been more
relevant than right now. Granted in five or ten years, that question will
surround an even more thought-provoking, conflicted world, however, for the
time being, it forces us to confront the reality of our evolving technology and
potentially devolving humanity.
The wearables movement hit business and society with the promise of
heralding a change in the very way we live and while it yet may, wearables are
really nothing new; they are more intricate and complex extensions of the
technologies we as a species have been wearing for thousands of years. VR
headset, running shoe, knife – a seemingly unrelated list, yet taken in the
same breath, we can view them all as temporarily ‘worn’ tools that help to
augment and expand the limits of the human body.
One could argue that the embeddables movement accomplishes the same
thing: the ability to augment and expand the limits of the human body. However,
one stark difference stands between wearables and embeddables: permanence. This implicates not a temporary boost in human
capability, but a fixed, unnatural evolution in our body’s design. In short,
there’s no guarantee of being able to hit Ctrl-Z. By contrast to wearables,
which we can view as external tools, embeddables have the potential to be seen
not as independent objects, but as integrated extensions of ourselves.
If we build off of this loose definition, an argument could easily be
made that society has a long history of embeddables as well. The cardiac
pacemaker was first conceptualized in the 20s and first implanted into a human
subject in the 50s. Though if we look beyond active embeddables, we can view a
long history of passive attachments to our bodies such as fake eyes, prosthetic
limbs, intramedullary rods, and dentures dating back hundreds if not thousands
of years.
Still, something is different about the emerging generation of body
modifications. We are teetering on the edge of a time when embeddables and
bodily integrated technologies are being viewed not simply as restorative, but
augmentative and enhancing. We are no longer simply thinking about how to
replace a lost limb, faulty organ, or broken body part, but instead are now
asking the question of how we can improve upon nature’s design. And while this isn’t
necessarily a bad thing, we need to
at least acknowledge the implications of cracking ourselves open and tinkering
with the fleshy bits. We need to realize that elective surgeries and hacks to
ourselves will have consequences, both immediate and long-term, personal, and
societal.
The potential for bodily harm is an obvious risk and one that will be
taken at varying degrees by a range of people who opt to roll the dice on more
unproven procedures all the way to the rigorously routine. And while a few
people will undoubtedly die on the operating table, or a cardboard mat in a
dark back alley, I view a much more frightening risk about the decade-plus
implications of a population of people stuffing themselves with servos and
circuits with no long-term testing. These could alter our physiology and cause
massive issues with chronic pain or disablement. The use of chemicals or
electromagnetic communication could lead to mutations and bring on new forms of
cancer variants. The potential for harm is literally as diverse as the spectrum
of things we choose to shove inside of ourselves.
From a societal perspective, there are some pretty scary thought
exercises to mull as well. While the augmentation of human ability will
potentially do wonders for our efficiency as humans and push the limits of
human achievement, outside of a socialist utopia, only a select group of
individuals will benefit from these breakthroughs. The class divide will be as
present within the embeddable movement as it is within any other facet of our
world, however, unlike other aspects of our lives, this divide will manifest as
literally making certain people better human beings than others. You won’t
simply have more money, more things, and greater access, you will literally
have a stronger body, smarter brain, and longer lifespan.
At an extreme, this divide could become less about classism and even
start to be viewed as a specist. While other “isms” may fade with time, concern
over the colour of your skin, sexual orientation, or faith could simply be
replaced by judgment of the electromechanical contents of your body. Yet far
from the organic-purist view often portrayed in popular science fiction of
judging cybernetically-enhanced individuals as some form of digital-junkie, the
reality is far more likely that it will be the enhanced who have the funds to
augment themselves and who will hold power, and judgment, over technologically
“lesser” individuals. This is a frightening world for both sides, as history
has more than its fair share of examples of the downtrodden rising up against
extreme discrepancies of quality of life and redistributing the wealth of power
–rather gruesome imagery in the case of body implants.
And while my last point raises an alarming issue on a societal level,
the same considerations must be brought down to the reality of the individual.
Modifications to the body of such an extreme nature bring into focus the
existential questions raised at the start of this article. Are androids and
cyborgs human, or some other species entirely and if so, where do we make that
divide? Regardless, what are the implications of turning our historically
sacred biological beings into commoditized vessels with swappable parts and
quarterly upgrade modules?
Well beyond phantom limb syndrome, the human brain may not be capable of
adapting to such massive bodily modifications and even if it is at a functional
level, what of mental health? As we spiral further into this physical loss of
self, how will we emotionally cope with the reality of not recognizing our own
flesh and bone when it becomes silicone and steel? With our current
hyperactive, digital existence already contributing to a host of issues around
depression, identity crisis, and social isolation, it is easy to imagine how
the further integration of technology, not only into our lives but our very
beings, will only exacerbate these issues. We will mourn limbs actively chosen
to be replaced or augmented. We will yearn to silence the digital voices
actively being streamed into our minds. We will feel uncomfortable within our
own skin, sensing the ticks, tocks, and buzzes of something unnatural
underneath. In short, we could reject what we have become, even if it is of our
own making.
While anyone who reads my articles would likely agree that I am far from
being considered a sobering voice in the field of technoethics, we’re remiss
not to ask the moral and ethical questions at hand. I could care less about
playing god, however, I do understand that for millennia we have held
technology as a collection of tools to support and enhance our lives, and all
of that is about to change. The looming singularity does not simply change the
nature of technology or our relationship to it, but the very essence of what it
means to be human. Who among us is ready or worthy to shoulder that burden of
responsibility?
Cyborgs Among Us
Far from being the stuff of freaky science fiction, countless examples
exist of embeddable technology that people have stuffed inside of themselves in
order to become more human than human.
·
Artificially ‘Enhanced’
While in many cases, artificially grown ears, heart valves, bladders,
and other organs can be life-altering or lifesaving procedures, recent work
being done by an institute in North Caroline has shown promise for growing
artificial penises and vaginas. Though the work is presently being promoted for
individuals with congenital abnormalities or post-trauma, it doesn’t take much
to envision another, much more lucrative elective application for such a
breakthrough.
·
Night Vision Eyes
A team in California recently enhanced a man’s eyeballs with Chlorin e6,
a substance found in deep-sea fish, in order to allow him to have more
sensitive vision to better recognize objects in low-light. Though temporary,
this type of experiment highlights our ability to alter our own body’s
chemistry to enhance our senses.
·
Blade Runners
Popularized by Oscar Pistorius’ inspiring victories (and later tragic
arrest), many amputees are still able to compete athletically through the use
of engineered carbon-fibre prosthetics, or blades, that enhance sprinting.
However, Pistorius’ success within able-bodied competition raised criticism
over having a technologically unfair advantage that one would assume will be a
source of even more contention as the technology improves and biological legs
are viewed as inferior.
·
Wet Ware
Though envisioned by William Gibson’s short story, Johnny Mneumonic, cybernetic neural implants may not be simply
science fiction as DARPA has been developing a neuromodulatory device called ElectRX.
As our understanding of the brain continues to progress, such devices use small
electrical stimulations throughout the nervous system to achieve a variety of
desired outcomes from removing joint pain to promoting healing.
·
Ear Speakers
A Nevada-based bodyhacker had small magnets implanted in his tragus
(cartilage just outside the ear) in 2013 to act as small, in-ear speakers
activated by a magnetic coil worn around his neck. While initially crude, this
type of experiment paves the way for humans to have a discreet, permanent audio
link to others and the web for anytime access.
