Elon Musk’s company, Neuralink, founded in 2016, aims to place a piece of technology in people’s brains that will allow them to control a computer or phone just by thinking. This is otherwise known as brain-computer interface.
Neuralink, which has been experimenting on animals for years, recently announced that one of its devices was implanted into a person’s brain.
But one form of it, “neurotechnology,” holds the promise of alleviating human suffering and allowing disabled people to regain lost capacities.
And it raises other questions. Would non-disabled people also adopt technology that connects directly to their brains and nervous systems? What would the future be like if humans could connect themselves to devices, infrastructure, and even other people’s brains through a kind of brain-computer internet?
Now is the time to start thinking about these questions. Medical conditions such as locked-in syndrome prevent people from communicating or moving their limbs. Neuralink’s device initially aims to restore the capacity of people with such disorders to communicate by controlling a computer cursor or using a robotic arm to feed themselves.
However, as Musk stated, the company’s long-term goals include the capacity to produce a driverless vehicle through thought alone. These aspirations suggest that neurotechnology could connect humans to a wide range of technological systems currently in daily use.
Read more: The brain is the most complex object in the universe. This is the story of scientists’ quest to crack the code and read people’s minds
What are brain-computer interfaces?
Brain-computer interfaces (BCI) detect electrical activity in the brain related to a person’s intention. For example, if a person 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 the cursor.
This approach could work with a robotic arm, lights in a smart home, a video game, or even a drone or robot. BCI can be thought of as a “universal controller” or, as renowned neuroscientist Professor Rafael Yuste describes it, an iPhone for the brain.
Neurotechnology can be invasively implanted into the brain or nervous system, or can come in the form of wearable technology such as headsets or headsets. Air traffic controllers with external headsets can have their brains monitored to alert them when their attention levels are low.
The brains of children in Chinese high schools are already being monitored by teachers. The company Brainwave Science even offers security services and police a product that can monitor the brains of suspects during interrogation.
But things could go even further as direct forms of brain-to-brain communication are tested. Instead of calling or texting your friend, you might one day communicate telepathically. Primitive forms of direct brain-to-brain communication between humans (and even between humans and various animals) have already been achieved.
military uses
Various militaries are also interested in the potential for neurotechnology-enhanced “super soldiers” because they could operate more effectively in harsh environments such as urban environments.
This would include weapons systems that sense and monitor the human brains of military personnel in a distributed battlefield control system. A particularly striking example of this approach is the thought-controlled robotic dogs recently demonstrated by the Australian Army.
This brings to mind the fictional Borg civilization from Star Trek, a similar mix of biology and machine parts. The alien Borg are individuals connected by neurotechnology, working together as one entity. The implications of an interconnected system of humans and machines enabled by neurotechnology is something we need to start thinking about, along with what values society might hold.
We can foresee any scenario. In the future, it is possible that the brains of those who operate critical infrastructure in cities can be monitored to prevent accidents. People with mobility issues can increasingly interact with devices in their homes, turning lights on and off and controlling home robots through brain-computer interfaces.
A broader acquisition?
At some point, people without disabilities may also decide to give up handheld remote control devices in favor of controlling the devices with their brains. Prisoners and criminals in the community will be monitored in real time to assess their mental state.
Over time, these separate practices may begin to interconnect with each other in the service of greater efficiency, commercial interest, and social control. Neurotechnology may emerge as an important infrastructure that becomes the fundamental interface of human relations with technological systems.
What comes of all this? There has been some thought and action regarding human rights and the broader legal implications of neurotechnology. However, most debates are highly individualistic in orientation and ignore the broader social consequences of changing human relations with technological systems.
Ultimately, we need a discussion about the larger purpose, use, and implications of neurotechnology. This requires contributions from various groups such as infrastructure experts, designers, architects, human-computer interaction experts and community groups.
Neurotechnology is likely to have a variety of impacts on society: at home, in the workplace, in the criminal justice system and infrastructural networks.
Uncovering the issues that arise in these different sectors should enable us to anticipate the harms and benefits of neurotechnology. This will allow us to shape its development in a way that supports 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.
Allan McCay is a member of Standards Australia’s Brain-computer interface committee.
Simon Marvin does not work for, consult, own shares in, or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond his academic duties.