The Ethics of Cybernetics

Introduction:

A joke within the biotechnology industry is: “Apple needs to pick up the slack. At this rate, humans will be USB C compatible before the iPhone is.” After a few chuckling laughs, however, one can quickly see the underlying ethical implications this joke brings up: society is on the verge of a human-computer-interaction revolution. Are we as a society ready for this next? We have yet to tackle the question of where the boundary is that separates us from technology. Without this boundary, are we destined to become cyborgs? This paper aims to ethically analyze the implications of an increasingly cybernetic society.

Cybernetic Examples.

A cyborg is a person whose physical abilities are extended or aided by a mechanical or electronic device. This definition of cyborg closely resembles the current market of technological implants [9]. There is a major distinction between how researchers plan to ‘aid’ human bodies and how researchers plan to ‘enhance’ human bodies. The technologies and implications are so distinct in fact, analyzing the two under the same ‘ethical umbrella’ would be unjust. I instead propose to analyze these two technological categories individually before summarizing the implications, starting with human aid.

Embedded Human-Computer Interaction in the Medical Field:

There are many ways to describe how technology interacts with the human body. A simple approach to classifying these interactions with the body would be to label biomechanical devices as wearable, implantable, or ingestible devices [9]. Robert Sobot derived his own classification process by classifying all technology based on the distance from the human body. His method produced six categories: infinitely far away technology, external (shared) technology, external (personal) technology, internal (temporal) technologies, internal (permanent) technologies, and finally bio-mechanical integrated technology [9]. This classification process can be used to illustrate the trends of technology through time. As this trend continues, there is little evidence to refute the notion that technology will become one-with-us.

There is the common statement, ‘no one is perfect.’ That however has never stopped humanity from trying to achieve perfection. Reality is often cruel in the fact that common birth defects and traumatic injuries leave people permanently impaired. Modern technologies are continually trying to mitigate these impairments.

An example of this is in Ophthalmology, the study of eye disorders. To mitigate bad vision, glasses (external personal) advanced into contact-lens’ (internal temporal), which are now advancing into artificial eyes (biomechanical integrated technology) [9],[4]. These artificial eyes are now being used to cure blindness. Bernardeta Gomez was a 57-year-old blind woman. Gomez had been blind for more than a decade but was recently able to point out a large black line running across a white sheet of cardboard [4]. This was possible with a blacked-out pair of glasses with a tiny camera attached. This device was then hooked up to a computer that processes the video feed and then, “A cable suspended from the ceiling link[ed] the system to a port embedded in the back of Gomez’s skull that [was] wired to a 100-electrode implant in the visual cortex in the rear of her brain” [4]. The max resolution Gomez’s implant could render was 10 x 10 pixels. This achievement in vision was conducted by Eduardo Fernandez, a researcher at the University of Miguel Hernandez. His artificial eye connects directly to the brain rather than the retina [4].

Bernardeta Gomez

This operation was not Fernandez’s idea on his own. In 2002, William Dobelle had the same thought process as Fernandez but proved unsuccessful. 2 out of 13 of Dobelle’s patients confessed to having seizures during the experimentation [5]. Dobelle’s death in 2004 stopped his research from progressing. Although Gomez’s vision was significant, meaningful ‘vision’ will not be possible until 25 by 25 pixel images are made possible.

Another weakness the human body has that technology is attempting to improve is the immune system. Hematology (the study of blood) aims to use nanotechnology to make artificial cells. Hematologists are developing respirocytes, artificial red blood cells, and microbivores, artificial white blood cells. “The respirocyte is designed to carry 236 times more oxygen per unit of volume compared to red blood cells. Development and use of this technology could provide an effective and lower risk alternative to blood transfusions” [8]. The respirocyte is being designed to have the size of 1,000 nm [8]. Respirocytes are theorized to also improve the way oxygen is passed through the respiratory system and collect carbon dioxide from tissues. Microbivores are being researched in efforts to compete against the rise of antibacterial resistance: “Microbivores are theorized to be as much as 80 times more effective than our physiologic phagocytic capabilities” [8]. Current efforts in immune system care involve antibiotics. Microbivores provide society one more tool in fighting infection. A third use case for nanotechnology in humans is for monitoring health risks [8]. Aneurysms are deadly, “Ten percent of patients die before reaching the hospital, another 25% die within 24 hours of aneurysm rupture, and almost 50% die within 30 days” [8]. Nanorobots could prevent this issue by monitoring blood vessels for the build up of aneurysm causing enzymes (nitric oxide synthase proteins). Once detected, the nanorobots could “wirelessly communicate information about pertinent vascular changes to care providers” [8].

These nanotechnologies possess great uses for the human body, but have challenges to overcome before being implemented. One of the greatest challenges currently facing the industry is finding a safe material that’s compatible with the human body. In 2009, two Chinese women died from continuous exposure to nano-scale silicon powder [1]. The women inhaled the particles over a period of months before a build up of the powder led to respiratory failure. Research conducted at Oxford University also backs up the notion that nanoparticles kill lung cells. Testing their theories on mice, “They found that introducing the toxic nanoparticles significantly increased lung inflammation and death rates in mice”[6]. These same researchers are also working on developing solutions to make nanoparticules safer; but implementation of this technology will have to be held off until a compatible material is found for use in our bodies.

There is also the challenge of ethics, for both nanotechnology, and artificial sight. The medical field envisions a future where inorganic devices can perform organic functions on a cellular level, and having electronic devices that can communicate directly to the brain. This technology attempts to make an ‘imperfect body’ perfect. Most of the ethical conversation around this technology is not based around a workable ethical theory. People tend to become nervous from an emotional or religious standpoint when talking about implants that link directly to the brain or nanorobots that could ‘live’ within us. To answer this question of ethics rationally, the workable ethical theory of kantianism can be employed. Kantianism will almost always side with medical professionals when justifying action. This is because the framework proposes that society should ‘desire to do the right thing’. The idea of helping people is an imperfect duty. Kantianism uses moral rules to dictate right or wrong, in this scenario the moral rule of: ‘If a potential technology will be used to aid people, it should be created’ could be adopted as a moral rule. This rule implies that any technology that has the purpose of helping others should be created. Using the first categorical imperative in the framework, people act only from moral rules, meaning that this technology is ethically acceptable to be researched and produced. I would also argue that it is a person’s negative right to fix their bodies, and that it would be up to that individual person to utilize these technologies.

For the people who benefit from these technologies, analyzing the ethics in an act utilitarianism framework before proceeding would be useful. This framework views consequences from the action by weighing pros and cons. With artificial eyes for example, there is the benefit of pixelated sight — at the cost of potential brain damage, potential long term side effects, and system glitches. It will be up to individuals to ultimately opt-in and use these advanced technologies.

The ethics of human cybernetics within the medical field can be tough to cope with. There are a lot of reasons to be ‘on-the-fence’ about the issue, however using workable ethical frameworks can allow a meaningful argument to be made. By using Kantianism, society has a moral duty to allow people to better themselves. This includes letting researchers invent new technologies that can potentially help people. By using act utilitarianism, people can then make the decision themselves whether or not to opt-in and use them. Therefore, human cybernetic advances with the purpose of aiding people are justified.

Embedded Human Computer Interactions in society:

Recall that technology has been closing the distance between itself and humanity. In section II, researchers conducted their work to artificially correct human imperfects. This section will focus on how technology has been developed to enhance a person’s ability. A relatable example could be the ‘Internet of Things’ devices: desktop, laptop, and smartphone. These new devices have become so powerful that economic mobility (rags to riches) is less likely to happen without these resources. New technology has created a ‘Use it or Lose it’ culture within society. “Roughly three-in-ten adults with household incomes below $30,000 a year (29%) don’t own a smartphone” compared to 15% of adults with household incomes between $30,000 — $99,999 [2]. With the cybernetic revolution coming up, this economic divide is only bound to increase.

Within the transhumanism movement, there exists a community of people known as “Grinders”. These grinders practice “techno-body modification; the embedding of computing technology into the body” [3]. The purpose of this practice is to improve body functionality. One company that is supplying grinders with embedded technology is GrinderTech.

Grinders

GrinderTech was founded in 2013 with the purpose of making embedded technology a reality. They are passionate about what they do: “it seems… unethical or immoral to… hold back the future of humanity” and believe their actions are bringing about the future [3]. As of the date of this journal Grindertech sells four products: Magnetica, BioRead, TransCrania, and SouthPole [3]. All these products are do-it-yourself kits. TransCrania in particular is a transcranial implant that stimulates the brain with direct current, raising or lowering the energy of stimulated neurons. This stimulation can be used to lower the effects of depression.

The origins of this transhumanism movement with cybernetics can be traced back to Kevin Warwick. Warwick is a professor at the University of Reading, UK. In 1998, he became the first person to implant a Radio Frequency Identification Device (RFID) [11]. “The RFID implant allowed [Warwick] to control lights, open doors, and get a welcome “Hello” when he entered Reading University. Such an implant could be used in humans for a variety of identity purposes — e.g. as a credit card, as a car key or a passport” [11]. The use of RFIDs has indeed become more popular in culture since 1998, “The trend has even caught on within the United States. Three Square Market, a Wisconsin based vending-solutions company, surgically implanted [RFID chips] into more than 50 volunteers employed at the company in 2017” [10]. Biox International, a Swedish firm, has capitalized on this trend by selling RFID implants for human use. The main attraction to this technology is convenience. The Biox International RFID is designed to reduce the time it takes users to perform specific daily routines by simply swiping their hands against a digital reader. Event tickets, key fobs, and emergency contact information can be stored on these devices. This is exactly how Warwick predicted this technology would be used back in 1998.

Xray of RFID inserted into Kevin Warwick

As convenient RFID chips were, Warwick was not impressed for very long. Warwick became interested in increasing the human sensory capacity. According to Warwick, humans are only able to pick up 5% of the senses around them. Warwick began conducting experiments with magnet implants to replicate the ‘bat-like’ echolocation sense [11]. He accomplished by implanting magnets into the fingertips of his subjects. Then, by wrapping a copper coil around the finger and attaching an ultrasonic sensor to it, the magnets would increase/decrease vibration force as an object approached the implanted subject. The results of this experiment proved that adding a new artificial sense to a human was possible and could be felt in real-time.

Warwick's implant experiments didn’t stop there either. His most impressive research in the domain of human computer interaction involves the bidirectional flow of information between the human nervous system and electronic devices [11]. Warwick himself was the participant in this experiment. It began by having a Utah Array (a type of microelectrode array) implanted directly into his nerve fibers. “A stimulation current directly into the nervous system allowed information to be sent to the user, while control signals were decoded from neural activity in the region of the electrodes” [11]. This bidirectional flow of information allowed Warwick to control a robotic hand over the internet. Warwick not only controlled the hand but felt the neural stimulation of force being applied to an object [11]. A number of other experiments were conducted with this bidirectional flow of data, but the implications of this technology are unlike anything before. As a cyborg, your brain and your body do not have to be in the same place.

Warwick’s bidirectional Arm controller

For all the advances Kevin Warwick made there is an equal amount of risk associated with it. RFID is a passive technology, meaning that the card transmits information automatically in the presence of a card-reader. The threat of this is evident in the design of special wallets that protect against RFID readers. A method for safely protecting this RFID data would need to be constructed before mass use. If that is accomplished, there are still questions about privacy and the ‘use it or lose it’ culture, “Green states that in a world where retailers, credit card companies, and employers require mandatory implants, the country can become a ‘surveillance state.’ … individuals who decline microchip implants risk being marginalized and walled off from modern conveniences” [10]. With bidirectional data flow over from the human nervous system to the internet, ransomware could become deadly. Ransomware is a type of malicious software or malware, designed to refute access to a device until a ransom is paid [7]. In our situation, an attacker could send harmful neural stimulation to the body until a ransom was paid. After discussing both the benefits and risks of human embodied systems, is it ethical for people to enhance their bodies with this technology?

Technologic Divide

The implications of this technology have the potential to give an advantage to those that can afford it and have access to it. Recall that there is already a technological divide between economic classes and that this technology can expand that divide. Therefore, I propose we look at this situation through an ethical lense that includes the best interest for society rather than individuals. Rule utilitarianism attempts to adopt a moral rule, which if followed by everyone will lead to the greatest increase in total happiness. The moral rule I propose is: “One shall not sell cyborg implants or implant kits that enhance the ability of an individual unless the accessibility of such implant is available for all”. If this rule were to go into effect, it would act to protect economic mobility by only allowing the sale of implants if commonly available. The rule still will allow enthusiasts to implant themselves if they have the knowledge. This is a high price to pay by decreasing funding in human implants and stub scientific research in the field of biotechnology. People that would benefit from this rule would be: people of lower income, people of middle income, and cyborg enthusiasts with the knowledge to implant themselves. This rule could potentially hurt: researchers in biotechnology, higher income people that would invest in these implants, and humanity as a whole with slower technological development. It’s hard to distinctly quantify the amount of happiness gained and lost from these groups. I ultimately value the happiness of the lower and middle income people over the latter, because of the vast size of population. Therefore, the proposed moral rule “One shall not sell cyborg implants or implant kits that enhance the ability of an individual, unless the accessibility of such implant is available for all” should be adopted.

Conclusion:

All in all, this paper aimed to ethically analyze human computer interaction in the scope of cybernetic implants. Using Robot Sobot’s distance classification model, a trend was discovered that technology is growing closer towards a biomechanical state. A distinction was made between cybernetic implants that attempted to ‘aid’ humans and ‘enhance’ humans.

Implants in Ophthalmology and Hematology were focused on analyzing cybernetic implants that ‘aided’ humans. A Kantian framework created the moral rule “If a potential technology will be used to aid people, it should be created” promoting the development and use of this technology. The implications and risks are controversial when using these cybernetic implants. Therefore, an act utilitarianism framework was recommended to allow individuals to opt-in on using the technology.

Lastly, a transhumanism movement and Kevin Warwick were focused on when analyzing cybernetic implants that ‘enhanced’ human function. This technology sought to increase convenience, human sensing capabilities, and become an extension of oneself. It was ruled that this technology could become too powerful for the few that use it and the moral rule, “One shall not sell cyborg implants or implant kits that enhance the ability of an individual, unless the accessibility of such implant is available for all” was adopted under a rule utilitarian framework.

Society is getting closer to a cybernetic revolution each day. This revolution will ultimately change the way society functions. By drawing an ethical boundary separating us from technology, society can continue as is. There will eventually come a day when cybernetics are used to enhance bodies. Research should continue to monitor the effects of economic mobility, class divide, and human-compatible-material within the field of embedded cybernetics before becoming a reality.

References

1. Adams, P. 2019. China Reports the First Human Nano-Fatalities. (March 2019). Retrieved February 12, 2020 from https://www.popsci.com/environment/article/2009-08/china-reports-first-human-nano-fatalities/
2. Anderson, M and Kumar, M. 2019. Digital divide persists even as lower-income Americans make gains in tech adoption. (May 2019). Retrieved February 26, 2020 from https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/05/07/digital-divide-persists-even-as-lower-income-americans-make-gains-in-tech-adoption/
3. Britton, L.M. and Semaan, B. 2017. Manifesting the Cyborg through Techno-Body Modification: From Human-Computer Interaction to Integration. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’17). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2499–2510. DOI:https://doi-org.libproxy.clemson.edu/10.1145/3025453.3025629
4. Juskalian, R . 2020. A new implant for blind people jacks directly into the brain. (February 2020). Retrieved February 12, 2020 from https://www.technologyreview.com/s/615148/a-new-implant-for-blind-people-jacks-directly-into-the-brain/
5. Naik, G. and Regalado, A. 2003. An Inventor Struggles To Restore Sight. (August 2003). Retrieved February 26, 2020 from https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB106193407375734800
6. Oxford University Press. 2009. Health Risks Of Nanotechnology: How Nanoparticles Can Cause Lung Damage, And How The Damage Can Be Blocked. (June 2009). Retrieved February 26, 2020 from https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090610192431.htm
7. Ransomware. Ransomware. Department of Homeland Security Retrieved February 26, 2020 from https://www.us-cert.gov/Ransomware
8. Saadeh, Y. and Vyas, D. 2014. Nanorobotic Applications in Medicine: Current Proposals and Designs. (June 2014). Retrieved March 1, 2020 from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4562685/
9. Sobot, Robert. 2019. Implantable Technology. (January 2019). Retrieved February 12, 2020 from https://technologyandsociety.org/implantable-technology/
10. The Future of Microchip Implants in Humans. (August 2019). Retrieved February 12, 2020 from https://www.thomasnet.com/insights/the-future-of-microchip-implants-in-humans/
11. Warwick, Kevin. 2011. Experiments into biology-technology interaction. In XXIII International Symposium on Information, Communication and Automation Technologies (Sarajevo, 2011) pp. 1–5, Retrieved February 27, 2020 from IEEE Digital Database: 10.1109/ICAT.2011.6102126