Ethics of Cyberization

Are We Already Living In the "Age of Cyborgs"?

Most people have something along the lines of this when they think of a cyborg:



















And with images like these, it's easy to understand why most people think that "cyberization" of any real sense is a far-off distant thing that is purely in the realm of science-fiction. You just can't blame them. But just what is a cyborg? Technically speaking, any person who has attached a mechanical device to themselves is one; someone wearing glasses, or the 18th century pirate wearing a peg-leg and a hook-hand -- both qualify. Of course, nobody with any sensibility would call them this. So why even bother commenting on it at all? Simple -- we are fast approaching a period where those with prosthetics will be seen as having an advantage over those without. For example, look at the current controversy over the Olympic aspirations of the double-amputee, Oscar Pistorius. Yet there are many whom would disqualify him ... because his prosthetic legs supposedly give him an edge over the competition.

In previous articles, the concept of BMI has been discussed. Now, none of that research is in the mind of anyone a negative thing; no one would reasonably argue that nobody who wants to see again ought not to have the opportunity. No one would argue that not being given the option to hear again, or walk again, if they were possible, would be the best way to go about things. Nobody would argue that being forced into dementia is better than having a microchip in your head. In the cochlear, retinal, thalamus, and spinal implants that are already in research, these are exactly the opportunities facing us in the years to come. And while this research is still in its infancy, the need for our culture to face these developments is relatively minimal: only those in the margins, like Oscar Pistorius, are truly faced with such things. In the realm of BMI, most all research being done there is entirely beneficial in nature right now. But again -- what happens when things like DARPA's prosthetics program, which is designed to produce artificial limbs with similar function & sensory capacity as "the real thing", reaches beyond "similar to" and starts entering into the realm of "better than"? What happens when people start wanting their limbs cut off and replaced with the latest & greatest model from Cyberkinetics, Inc? These are things that just aren't being addressed today.

There is a knee-jerk response, called bio-luddism or neo-luddism, which is found on both the "left" and the "right". Imagine, if you will, such fears as the "haves" of cyborgs forcing their modifications upon the hapless "have-nots" regardless of their moral objections to such modification. (Author's note: the very concept of a moral objection to an elective surgical procedure is fundamentally asinine; what is moral or immoral about lopping off your own leg and replacing it with a robotic one? Hell, what's immoral about lopping off your own leg in the first place?) The words "dead world" or "soulless mechanical monsters" is bantered about as though they in and of themselves are sufficient argument against such developments. (These same people rarely argue mainstream developments like curing Alzheimer's or prosthetic legs for amputees). To be fair, the concern of "wetware hacking" is very real, and as we integrate mechanisms into our biology, this will be something that will need addressing. (Author's note: Gives "Norton Personal Firewall" a whole new meaning, don't it?)

The very existence of neo-luddism, before the products "they" are worried about even exist, shows one fundamental fact, however: our society is nowhere near ready for what is coming.

Should anyone who wants the opportunity to become a computerized genius with superhuman strength, speed, and stamina be given the opportunity for it? Should the computerized genius part be publicly funded -- to give the "have nots" a chance at becoming "haves" themselves? What, then, of the religious implications -- for those whom believe their religion requires them to avoid such things; wouldn't that be requiring them to pay for something they don't believe in? Should the whole thing just be banned before it begins? But that doesn't seem to even be in the works; by the time such a ban comes about a working product will already exist -- and that is not the sort of thing you want in the hands of a black market only. (Or, for that matter, in the hands of only the government; imagine "riot control" squads who can run faster than you can drive your car, are basically bullet-proof, and can "hit you so hard your grandmother will wonder where the bruise on her shoulder came from"; really makes one feel hopeful for freedom of speech & the press, yes?)

Like it or not, believe it realistic or not, these things are coming. DARPA's prosthetic limbs are scheduled to reach a point of human-equivalency by 2009. Dr. Berger's neural prosthetic, barring any other advances in any other fields, will be commercially available in 15 years according to his own estimates. Ignoring arguments like Ray Kurzweil's Law of Accelerating Returns, there is no reason to believe that these problems won't be wide-spread in twenty years. The argument has been previously made that without something like BMI to rapidly accelerate the ubiquitousness of knowledge, there will be no way for we as a species to simply keep up with the breadth of information out there. Already, we are well past the limits of what any one person can learn & know; no one person can know the sum total of all scientific (let alone scholarly) knowledge of the human race. It would take a genius, really, to even be aware of the total breadth of that knowledge.

Can society handle such transformative events? Absolutely. Will it? In some way shape or form that seems almost absolutely certain. Will society be anything close to what we know today, in twenty-five years, fifty years, or an hundred? It doesn't take a "Magic Eight-ball" to realize the answer to that question.

Ladies and gentlemen; please fasten your seat-belts and enjoy the ride.