Cybernetics

[DevilSolution]

As we are now on the brink of creating advanced biotechnology, I think some of the ethical issues surrounding the topic need clarification and also laws and regulations creating prematurely preventing any potential side effects from arising.

 

This is what biotech has the potential to do:

 

Keep track of bodily functions and ensure the user is healthy by repairing the function as required.

Enhance the users physical capabilities allowing "iron man" style abilities.

Infinitely improve cognition allowing us to store every bit of information indefinitely and automating mathematical and lingual problems.

 

 

Okay so the main 3 issues which essentially give way to all others are:

 

Can the biotech be created as 100% safe? So that internal IC's or nanotech cant be hacked or modified.

 

How do we ensure that any physical improvements are for the benefit of mankind and not a single nation, avoiding much death.

 

If we modify our cognition and have the full scope of human knowledge installed, how human are we? how far do we push it? how can we predict its effects on society and the mind?

 

 

Ive come up with a few of my own solutions but i just wanted to open a debate and get people thinking, not preach. These issues will need to be dealt with within the next 10-20 years because if they're not and this technology becomes available without restriction, its effects could be catastrophic.

Edited March 25, 2013 by DevilSolution

[OSHMUNNIES]

Can the biotech be created as 100% safe? So that internal IC's or nanotech cant be hacked or modified.

 

How do we ensure that any physical improvements are for the benefit of mankind and not a single nation, avoiding much death.

 

If we modify our cognition and have the full scope of human knowledge installed, how human are we? how far do we push it? how can we predict its effects on society and the mind?

 

I can't speak to the nanotech saftey issues, but the concepts of physical enhancement and the Sigularity are both very intriguing to me.

 

It seems that access to these hypothetical physical enhancement procedures is analogous to present-day access to health care. If we continue to perpetuate a global capitalistic economy, then only the wealthy will have access to the most advanced improvements. This opens a whole economics can-of-worms that I'm not sure is appropriate for this thread (or is it?), but the only path to equal access (for anything, be it healthcare, food, modern technology, etc.) that I see is through adopting a global-resource-based economy. Such an economy depends on countless technological, ecological, and political advancements, however.

An extremely important catalyst for achieving global equality, I think, is the free and open internet. Put simply, information empowers people, and if we protect the internet from restriction and censorship, we open all sorts of doors for ourselves.

 

As for the advancement of cognition and the limits of "humanity." I don't think we should get too hung up on "what it means to be human." Does the "human" factor approach zero as technological advancement approaches infinity? Maybe, but that doesn't bother me. What bothers me is suffering, and the only reliable alleviator of suffering is technology. I'd like to think that in the future every human will have the choice of where he or she wants to be along the biotechnological continuum. If you want to live in a hut in the jungle, you can do so. If you want to live only with the amenities available in the year 2013, have at it. If you choose to upload your consciousness into the global brain that emerges at the point of the "Singularity" and explore any realm of reality that you can imagine, more power to you.

 

Will any of this actually happen? Will we wipe ourselves out first? I've no f@#king clue.

[SomethingToPonder]

Wow good post, I think it really needs to be addressed as well.
Well, my thoughts are that as soon as it gets to the stage where they can produce specific results time and time again, maybe not as far down the line as where they will be readily available though, It will still be countries fighting for supremacy; people still dont get that We are all human, for example if aliens came to earth they wouldn't see Americans, British, chinese, russians they would see Humans. so 9it will all be about money.

I saw in the paper yesterday there is a young man who got a bionic arm, And has an App that he can use to control it, I mean seriously? Surely that must be easy to hack. That would be fatal for people and governments, If they decide to use them to advance human capabilities especially if it was in the military sector, and they make it possible to hack then hacker groups would no longer be running Ddos and SQL injection's among other things it would be all about building your own private army's through controlling the nano bytes or bionics. Scary stuff.

 

though we dont create many things that are 100% safe , Do we? Sure we should learn from previous mistakes such as nuclear power but seriously once it's created how do we limit the flow of knowledge? You cant so it will be available to everyone if it's available to some.

[krash661]

hmm.. cybernetics,

at what point in humanity does it become terminator,
just like the movie.

[DevilSolution]

I met a lecturer at a philosophy festival this time last year that has an IC chip in his arm that able to read specific data from his blood. It can read levels of chemicals that reveal his mood aswell as excitability and fear. This chip was linked wirelessly to a router and then through the internet and eventually to his wifes necklace which in turns has a set of LED's that glow different colours giving her live reading of his mood. It was an interesting talk on cybernetics and i believe hes a leader in his field, some the things he spoke of make the "iron man" image quite realistic in the foreseeable future.

[Genecks]

...

 

 

Okay so the main 3 issues which essentially give way to all others are:

 

Can the biotech be created as 100% safe? So that internal IC's or nanotech cant be hacked or modified.

 

How do we ensure that any physical improvements are for the benefit of mankind and not a single nation, avoiding much death.

 

If we modify our cognition and have the full scope of human knowledge installed, how human are we? how far do we push it? how can we predict its effects on society and the mind?

 

 

...

 

First off, it's only safe to the point that it will not defect on its own. Otherwise, there would be outside tampering. If someone were to set-off an EMP bomb near a group of cybernetic humans, the cybernetic humans could defect. However, that would be considered a form of battery, which may lead to an attempted murder charge if not a murder charge. Simply the act of bringing an EMP bomb next to a cybernetic human could be considered a form of assault.

 

If a person were hacked by someone else, there would be legal implications. Otherwise, if a company made bad parts for people, there could be a negligence lawsuit.

 

In medical practice, tampering with a part of the body that an individual is not supposed to is considered battery when there has not been consent to touch that individual's part of the body. However, for a person to tamper with a chip in an individual's body, such as a GPS chip, it would be a form of battery were there no consent.

 

So, can they be made 100% safe?

No.

 

Even if defects could be controlled for, there is the possibility of outside tampering. As such, various laws that involve punishment for violence would be involved. However, if people were given all of human knowledge, there is the possibility that significant fewer people would be so willing to conduct physical violence against another, as they would understand the potential legal implications and punishments involved (excluding any discussion of ignorance is no excuse for the law; as in this case, individuals cannot be ignorant). As such, there would be heightened potential for increased punishment to prevent re-offense.

 

If such wetware had wireless networking capabilities, then there is the possibility that an individual tampers with the data stored for another cybernetic person. However, this might leave behind forensic evidence. As such, one might argue that if individuals were to be given cybernetic capabilities, then there would be a level of regulation so that evidence can exist and be left behind so that crimes can be prosecuted. If there was no regulation, then there would be a level of anarchy without the ability to punish others. So, I state something similar to MAC addresses and IP addresses, or things physically configured in the hardware that cannot be changed without an individual skilled in the medical technology to change such, would be used as a way of allowing evidence to be left behind.

 

However, this becomes extremely problematic if some terrorists begins to start persuading people to kill themselves, thus preventing evidence from being left behind. However, such fringe things would require advanced control of an individual's motor cortex, thus safeguards may be created ahead of time to prevent control over another individual's motor cortex.

 

I think the human race is quite some time away from developing such technologies without the addition of large masses of individuals into the field. Even then, there would be heightened competition for resources to develop such technologies. There appears to be no seriously large need for the cybernetic technology at the moment. However, various bioengineered parts are useful for individuals who have developed loss of a physical part of their bodies.

Edited May 12, 2013 by Genecks

[EdEarl]

Making laws that precede events, including scientific discoveries, is problematic. Some things we can predict with good accuracy, for example the growth of computer power and cost reduction. But, some things are complete surprises, for example the accelerated expansion of the Universe. Most things fall between good accuracy and complete surprise, which often means some people predict a thing will occur but fail to grasp when the discovery will occur and its consequences.

 

A discovery may lead to development of many things. For example, the integrated circuit revolutionized electronics and gives us things like the cell phone (similar to Dick Tracy's wrist watch communicator), plus GPS and WWW that no one predicted very far in advance of their development.

 

Moreover, laws are subject to political infighting that may go on for decades (abortion in the USA), are sometimes irrational (not allowing women and blacks the right to vote), change over time (allowing women and blacks to vote), and often are the result of court cases (case law).

 

We appear to be in an era when the law cannot keep pace with changes in science, technology, economics, society, and ecology. I cannot predict what this means.

[DevilSolution]

Well my primary concern, other than the overall security of any cybernetic system would be its use: Such that a developed nation such as the US would invest in cybernetics soley for war, it seems inevitable that the creation of such technology would be government funded for its purpose as any consumer alternatives will not be cost productive or required. Im talking in terms of physical advancement, "iron man", "robo cop" style.

 

However the other direction wouldnt have any great need for purely physical improvement, we dont need to run faster to catch food or get to work, thats all provided. So from a commercial perspective the only real market would be increased brain functionality, such as cognition and memory. If the system is completely electrical based (transistors, capacitors, magnetic disks etc) then certain regulations would need to be put in place. However i quit like to think that some organic alternative could be made.