Elon Musk's company called Neuralink, launched in 2016, aims to implant a piece of technology in people's brains that will allow them to control a computer or phone by thoughts alone. This is also known as a brain-computer interface.
After years of experimenting on animals, Neuralink recently announced the implantation of one of their devices into a person's brain.
Yet "neurotechnology," of which this is one form, holds the promise of alleviating human suffering and enabling people with disabilities to regain lost capabilities.
And it raises even more questions. Would people without disabilities also embrace technology that is directly connected to their brain and nervous system? What would happen in the future if people could connect themselves to devices, infrastructure, and even the brains of others in a kind of brain-computer Internet?
Now is the time to think about those questions. Medical conditions such as lock-in syndrome prevent people from communicating or moving their limbs. Neuralink's device is initially intended to restore the abilities of people with such conditions by controlling a computer cursor to communicate, or using a robotic arm to power itself.
However, the company's longer-term ambitions, as expressed by Musk, include the ability to summon a self-driving vehicle through thoughts alone. These ambitions suggest that neurotechnology could connect people to a wide variety of technological systems currently used on a daily basis.
Read more: The brain is the most complicated object in the universe. This is the story of scientists' quest to decode it - and read people's mindsWhat are brain-computer interfaces?
Brain-computer interfaces (BCI) detect the electrical activity in the brain associated with a person's intentions. For example, if someone wants the cursor to move to the right, they can imagine waving their hand. This brain activity is decoded and converted into a command for a cursor.
This approach can work with a robotic arm, the lights in a smart home, a video game or even a drone or robot. A BCI can be thought of as a 'universal controller', or as eminent neuroscientist Professor Rafael Yuste has described it: an iPhone for the brain.
The story continues
Neurotechnology can be implanted invasively into the brain or nervous system, or in the form of wearable technology, such as headphones or earbuds. Air traffic controllers with external headsets can have their brains monitored to alert them when their attention level decreases.
Children in Chinese high schools have already had their brains monitored by teachers. The company Brainwave Science even offers security services and police a product that can monitor the brains of suspects during interrogations.
However, it could go even further as forms of direct brain-to-brain communication are tested. Instead of calling or texting your friend, one day you could communicate telepathically. Rudimentary forms of direct brain-brain communication between humans (and even between humans and various animals) have already been achieved.
Military applications
Several militaries are also interested in the potential of 'super soldiers' enhanced with neurotechnology, as they could operate more effectively in challenging environments, such as urban environments.
This would include weapons systems that sense and monitor the human brains of military personnel in a distributed system of battlefield control. A particularly striking example of this approach comes in the form of the thought-controlled robot dogs recently demonstrated by the Australian military.
This is reminiscent of the fictional Borg civilization from Star Trek, which is a similar mix of biology and machine parts. The alien Borg are individuals connected by neurotechnology and operate together as one entity. The implications of an interconnected system of people and machines, made possible by neurotechnology, is something we need to think about, along with the values society might have.
We can imagine all kinds of scenarios. In the future, it is possible that those who operate critical infrastructure in cities could have their brains monitored to prevent accidents. People with mobility issues can increasingly interact with devices in their homes, turning lights on and off and controlling household robots through their brain-computer interfaces.
Wider acceptance?
At some point, people without disabilities might also decide to move away from handheld remote controls in favor of controlling devices with their brains. Prisoners and offenders in the community could be monitored in real time to assess their mental state.
Over time, these separate applications could begin to connect with each other for greater efficiency, commercial opportunity, and social control. Neurotech could emerge as an essential infrastructure that becomes the main interface of human relationships with technological systems.
What comes out of all this? Consideration and action have been taken regarding the human rights and wider legal implications of neurotechnology. But much of the debate is rather individualistic in nature and ignores the broader societal implications of changing human relationships with technological systems.
Therefore, we need a discussion about the broader purpose of neurotechnology, its uses and implications. This requires input from various groups, such as infrastructure specialists, designers, architects, human-computer interaction specialists and community groups.
Neurotechnology is likely to have a wide range of impacts across society: at home, in the workplace, in the criminal justice system and in infrastructure networks.
By uncovering the emerging issues in these different sectors, we should be able to anticipate the harms and benefits of neurotechnology. This will allow us to shape its development in support of people and the environment.
To paraphrase the Borg, resistance may not be futile after all.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
