The Ethical Conundrum Presented by the Science of Cyborgs

As the future lovechild of microelectronics and human biology, cyborg technology has the potential to not only aid in the processes of daily life for billions of people, but also to engineer a beast of unprecedented ability in nature. While the short term benefits of incorporating advanced computer systems into the human body ultimately justify the inconsequential concerns, it is inversely critical that the potential for crossing moral boundaries further down the road is understood. First, the concept of “repairing” damaged areas of an organism must be clearly distinguished from “upgrading” the organism itself. When that distinction is made, the “aid” aspect must be made available to all people, while the “add” aspect must be deployed in a controlled manner, so as not to rapidly create a world inherently segregated by computer-manipulated capability. This dilemma highlights an even larger, metaphysical issue: is it moral to alter life? When basic ethical frameworks are applied, the cyborgization of life will ultimately prove morally sound.

The term “Cyborg” refers to the hybridization of living organic material and computerized machinery and was coined by neurophysiologist and avid space geek Manfred Clynes in 1960. It was formed by concatenating the words “cybernetic”, referring to a system of communication and control processes, and “organism”, which encompasses all living things. According to some definitions, most modern humans are classified as cyborgs. While stricter criteria is often preferred, simple procedures such as vaccination and basic prosthesis are enough to qualify a person as a cyborg. The realization of this quirky technicality is crucial to the acceptance of cyborg technology in society. It is easy for the average, non-technical citizen to let their imagination tap into innate fears of “monsters”, further fueled by Hollywood’s habit of taking “creative liberties” that inevitably consist of evil robots hell-bent on taking over the world. When they are familiarized, however, with the possibility that they are already a cyborg and the world hasn’t succumbed to fire and brimstone; that in fact, it isn’t half bad, they’ll be more likely to think logically rather than emotionally.

Regardless of an individual’s personal opinion about the morality of technology-infused citizens, it is undeniable that a fair judgement can only be made when the issue is given a fair proposal. The question of whether enhancing humans with technology is acceptable or not has already been answered - rather uproariously - throughout history. From the discovery of fire to the industrial revolution, society has decided again and again to increase their limits for cognition, perception, communication, and transportation through the use of manufactured tools and technology. This cyborg technology fits into no other category than that of all major advancements in human history; the only difference is that it’s a little harder to visualize than an automobile or a cell phone. Luckily, there have been a few recent milestones in its development that can aid in this visualizing process.

With roots dating back a decade ago and sizable advancements in recent years, many incredible demonstrations of Cyborg technology can be found. In 1998, Kevin Warwick was implanted with a microchip that allowed him to flicker lights on and off simply by entering a room (NCSU). The chip in his forearm sent wireless signals to a computer that controlled the position of electrical switches. This may sound like a small feat, but it illustrates the very practical potential of connecting a human to a grid of electrical circuits (via the internet) to allow every person to be their own remote manipulators for any appliance. In June 2013, Backyard Brains developed and commercialized a kit that would allow consumers to attach electrodes onto a real cockroach and then control the roach’s movement via smartphone app (Rigg, J). Fortunately for them, not even PETA sympathizes with the robo-roaches; their own website details how to “humanely” exterminate these common pests. However, this reiterates the concern for messing with nature that was discussed earlier. Later that year in November, “biohacker” Tim Cannon implanted an assortment of sensors into his wrist that could track things like his body temperature and heart rate (Lanilla, M). Approaching fast is an era of personalized medical devices, a door swung open by wearable tech giants like Nike’s FuelBand (monitors heart rate, steps taken, blood pressure) and their innumerable clones.

But what that world - in which each example is extrapolated into its ultimate potential - even look like? Humans would have the power to move and manipulate objects without touching them, mind-control subordinate species, and treat themselves effectively at will. If one thing in this life is certain, it is that humans are not creatures of perfection. It would be foolish to assume that society would reap all the benefits of a new technology without also bringing along some unforeseen side-effect. The imprudent could be shocked to see both old and new problems evolve and adapt to a new environment, such as obesity caused by not having to get up and turn the lights on, personal insect armies wreaking havoc on demented users’ foes, and lawsuits spurred by misdiagnosis or mistreatment from endomedicine (dispersed from within the body).

Living during this era of “human-technology limbo” gives one a unique perspective on the consequences that could arrive in the near future, while simultaneously allowing one to analyze each option without much bias. Some participants in this social debate wish cyborg technology to be unregulated and uninhibited, with no legal body of oversight to determine who could use it or what it could be used for. A more centrist approach argues that a “cyborg equilibrium” must be reached by both funding research and development and carefully legislating its use. A final option would see cyborg technology banned altogether, from smart-prosthetics to personalized medical implants.

In any free market, there exists both convenience and weakness. The case of cyborgs in society is no exception. The creativity that unregulated cyborg science would encourage can be likened to the diversity of the free internet. Millions of contributors from around the globe would build their components of a cyborg web, each individual piece capable of being appended to a universally consistent chassis: the human body. While this sounds entirely appealing, one must remember that not everything housed on a framework of global interconnectivity is benevolent in nature. Without laws to discourage malpractice, sociopathic engineers would have no clear reason not to develop “viruses” for cyborg appendages. Nastier than a virus that could wipe out a computer hard drive, cyborg viruses could shut off limbs or wipe portions of a person’s brain.

If cyborgization was allowed under established legislature, people could experience the benefits of integrated technology in a moderately safe environment. With proper registration and background checks, everyone who wanted to aid or upgrade themselves could do so, while the government kept a record of each piece of tech sold and who it was sold to. In this manner, people would be protected from fraudulent or cheap materials that could potentially wound or kill their users. Undoubtedly, the advent of cyborg culture would spark criticism from conservatives and environmentalists alike. In a time of debilitating partisan warfare, the appearance of citizens modified with machined parts would serve as yet another point of debate. More likely than not, according to a trend in American news networks of diminishing integrity, it would be pointless bickering rather than productive arguing.

If an outright ban was placed on cyborg tech, the dangers of altering nature’s creations would be avoided. So too, would the ability to restore functionality to disabled people everywhere. Money and effort by research groups could be spent on alternative solutions, but of course not all cyborg-hopefuls would abide by the law. It is very possible that the prohibition of cyborgs would spark a backlash as severe as that of the alcohol prohibition in the previous century. Bootlegged cyborg machinery would likely prove as detrimental to society as the deadly “moonshine” created by the alcohol criminal underworld. However, the difference in societal value may be accounted for by avoiding the dilemma of human and cyborg equality.

Since a decision will have to be made in the coming years, it is best to determine the choice that will yield the highest benefit and the lowest detriment for the population. I propose that this option is allowing cyborg technology under cautionary legislature. According to utilitarianism, an action is moral if it provides more positive change than negative change (SIUE). Seeing as how the widespread adoption of this technology will allow humans to artificially adapt from the natural path of evolution into beasts of near-flawless design, it is hard to argue that the few drawbacks would force exclusion from utilitarian rule. Cyborg medicine would redefine illness and even disease as temporary annoyances. By equipping every person at birth with nanobots, healthy cells will be maintained and protected from viruses while damaged or infected cells will be eliminated. Disabled people will regain full use of their limbs and even their brains. Workers will be capable of lifting thousand-pound materials, rendering many expensive and bulky machines obsolete. The world will shrink once more as it did with the arrival of the automobile and later the internet, without polluting the atmosphere with carbon emissions; humans will be capable of running hundreds of miles without strain. Perhaps the most unimaginable feat of cyborg technology will be the advancements in cognitive ability. It is theorized that the average human uses only a fraction of their brain potential. By forcibly coding the human brain to think with a larger percent of itself, the leaps in understanding and invention could be greater than everything we as a species have learned so far. This is all assuming, of course, that noble, ethical scientists are able to harness the potential of cyborg technology before corporate greed creates the largest and most lucrative business in the history of civilization; one that thrives on drastic gaps between upper and lower classes and further splits society into “haves” and “have-nots”. The regulated cyborg industry is favored by curious scientists and hopeful citizens alike. Who wouldn’t want the option of living a longer and better life? Truthfully, this decision will allow for a few less than desirable side-effects. Those with a refined knowledge of computer coding and a strong tendency of rebellion could hack into cyborg parts. The severity of a potential evil “biohacker” can be understood by even the least technical audience. Arms, legs, hearts, and even brains would be at the mercy of an anonymous criminal.

Despite the possibility that the technology will be too far advanced for a politically primitive society, faith in human ability must not be lost. Throughout the last century alone, humans have learned to coexist with their own creations including but not limited to the dangerous combustion engine, nature-defying jet airplane, and the humbling atomic bomb. It is logical to expect that the introduction of cyborgs will not exceed the ability of humanity to accept new technology. After all, adaptation has been the driving force of human survival since the first cavemen (and women) stood upright. Participants in the upcoming global cyborg debate must use principles of logic and ethic in order to help produce a prosperous society. Personal opinions must be meshed together under unified groups that can educate the populace about the miracles as well as the caveats. Through this honest education only will a justified decision be reached. Proponents of cyborg technology must refrain whole-heartedly from using scare tactics and lies in order to convert their adversaries. In order to truly effect change on the world, one must remain kind and true. Greed and temptation may be more initially enticing and spread faster than honest, benevolent ideas, but they will never travel as steadily and surely through the hearts of humans.

So, the initial metaphysical dilemma persists: is it moral to alter life? Specifically, is the modification of human life through integrated cyborg technology morally acceptable when analyzed with utilitarian theory? That answer is undeniably, yes. However, many other methods of reasoning and proving morality exist. Therefore, it is entirely possible that one argues completely the opposite point and is no more correct than this provided answer. It is strongly suggested that the points made here are not ignored, however. Argumentatively and ethically sound, all the statements previously made have led to the major discovery that cyborgization is both immensely beneficial and moral. Whether one chooses to participate in or ignore the issue of cyborgs in society has no effect on the fact that a decision is coming, and it approaches exponentially faster every day. As long as enough honest people present their opinions appropriately and effectively, cyborg technology will give all humans the choice of living to fuller potentials than previously imagined. If they do not, a postponement rather than abolition of this fantastical technology is far more likely.

References

i. Lallanilla, M. (2013). ‘Biohacker’ implants chip in arm. Fox News Tech. Retrieved April 29 from https://www.foxnews.com/tech/2013/11/04/biohacker-implants-chip-in-arm/

ii. Madrigal, A. (2010). The man who first said ‘cyborg,’ 50 years later. The Atlantic. Retrieved May 11 from https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2010/09/the-man-who-first-said-cyborg-50-years-later/63821/

iii. North Carolina State University. (n.d.). Cyborgs Study Guide. NCSU Ethics. Retrieved April 29 from https://ethics.csc.ncsu.edu/risks/ai/cyborgs/study.php

iv. Southern Illinois University Edwardsville. (n.d.). Utilitarianism: John Stuart Mill. SIUE.edu. Retrieved May 16 from https://www.siue.edu/~evailat/i-mill.html

Image courtesy of [cooldesign] at FreeDigitalPhotos.net