THE ETHICS OF THE CYBORG by Steve Mizrach
Should there be a limit placed on the integration of humans and
computers and electronic technology?
THESIS
The computer, moreso than any other device in history, is
now making possible the augmentation of the human being. For the first
time, through electronic technology, human biology is no longer destiny.
Through bionic prostheses, bio-implants, and bio-chips, electronic
technology can be integrated into the human organism. Projects like the
Human Genome Initiative are made possible by the use of massive
supercomputers, allowing the operators of DNA sequencers to practice a
new form of positive eugenics previously unrealizable by any
propagandists for the master race[1.] New forms of human-computer
interfaces (teleoperation, "electronic telepathy," etc.) are making
possible human-machine interaction that rivals the most imaginative
descriptions from science fiction. The computer now offers the human race
the opportunity to transcend limitations of intellect, strength, and
longevity previously "programmed" into its DNA by eons of evolution. The
question is, is it ethical for human beings to be doing this, should
there be limitations on the integration of technology into human life,
and what will the social consequences from all this be? I will attempt to
argue in this paper that there will have to be limits on the integration
of the human and the computer (the biological and the technological), and
a new "cyborg bioethics" may be necessary.
INTRODUCTION
Though this technology seems science-fictional, it is no
different from the state of recombinant rDNA research in the 1960s. At
that point, the technology was only in its infancy, yet prescient social
critics like Jeremy Rifkin were already starting to question whether all
the possible dangers this technology would present were controlled for.
Bioelectronics is already a real and recognized bioengineering discipline
in Europe, and there are research laboratories already in place - the
International Society for Molecular Electronics and BioComputing (ISMEBC)
based in Hungary and the Electronics and Biotechnology Advanced
(E.L.B.A.) research park on the Mediterranean island of Elba. The ELBA
center aims to produce biochips and biocomputers within the next decade.
Syracuse's Center for Molecular Electronics has had some success in
utilizing bacterially generated rhodopsin for the formation of
optically-encoded Random Access Memory (RAM.) Other research centers have
recently announced breakthroughs in utilizing DNA as the substrate for a
massively accelerated supercomputing process, and replacing damaged optic
nerves in blind people with electronic technology that might restore
vision.
There have always been electronic medical devices available for
people ever since the Civil War. People are already benefiting from
pacemakers, artificial hearts, prosthetic limbs, hearing aids, and
hormone-producing implants such as Norplant. However, these recent
breakthroughs in bioelectronics mean new technologies that may interface
with the human nervous and other biological systems at a more basic
level; nanotechnology and nanomachines may be able to effect biological
changes at the intracellular level, causing changes in human biological
structure that might be unprecedented. During the debates over
recombinant DNA research, much of the public showed at the same time
enthusiasm for the possibility of gene therapy curing previously
unstoppable hereditary disorders, and also panic toward the
possibility that this might be used for eugenic purposes, either to
"cure" deficits in human attributes or perhaps "promote" improved ones.
Bioethicists began to raise a host of issues pertaining to this research,
ranging from the release of modified microorganisms into the environment
to the disappearance of human difference. This debate has only become
more confused with the addition of bioelectronics to the arsenal of
biotechnology.
It is disturbing, but perhaps at least acceptable, for people
to face the fact that they have a large degree of kinship with other
forms of life on the planet, and that their genes might be
interchangeable with all of its myriad species. However, bioelectronics
research suggests a kinship between humans and computers that is perhaps
even more troubling. While cognitive scientists and artificial life
researchers have alluded to this kinship in theoretical ways,
bioelectronics researchers are demonstrating it in a very practical way
in the laboratory. The integration of biological and electronic processes
suggests that they may be very similar in their mode of operation, and
only based on different physical constituents. For most people, this
touches on fundamental issues of what it means to be human. Most people
assume that they have attributes machines do not (free will, emotions, a
soul) but will these beliefs hold up as electronic technology becomes
'hardwired' into human organisms?
Numerous arguments for bioelectronics have been advanced, from
the mundane (simple medical benefits) to the grandiose (cosmic purpose).
Likewise, there have been critics of the nascent field of biocomputing,
whose critiques have ranged from the practical (how well will all this
work) to the fanciful (science-fiction scenarios.) In this paper, these
positive and negative arguments will be reviewed and weighed. Though this
is a novel arena for the applications of computing in modern society, it
is one which humanity has been weighing in its collective imagination for
a long time through literature and the arts. Ultimately, the paper aims
to convince the reader that despite all the potential benefits of this
new technology, there are real and substantive issues which go beyond its
purported advantages for humanity and suggest it should not proceed
without social concern and restraint.
DISCUSSION OF RESEARCH
History of the Cyborg Constellation
It is clear that some of the earliest pioneers in personal
computing had an agenda for the micro PC. Researchers like Alan Kay,
Douglas Engelbart, and Ted Nelson saw the computer as an Augmentation
Machine. Early applications in word-processing, electronic conferencing,
and hypertext all revolved around the idea of the computer as a device
for the augmentation, rather than the supplanting, of human
intellect[.2] This involved more than just giving the individual
access to information or the knowledge of their peers, as is often
mentioned in connection with the "Infobahn." Rather, the computer
'counterculture' saw the personal computer as a tool for personal
liberation, and for actually amplifying the speed, flexibility, and
creativity of human thought. While AIs could do the thinking for human
beings in some limited, specialized expert areas, what was even more
important was that the proper computer interface could stimulate and
improve human problem-solving itself. Computer scientists like Seymour
Papert felt that utilizing tools like LOGO would help children attain the
'mindstorms' that would literally fuse new synaptic pathways, and in the
future enable them to deal with even greater conceptual hurdles down the
road in logic, mathematics, engineering, and science.
Interest in technologizing the human body did not begin with the
invention of the computer, however. The concern with control and mastery
over human performance began in the military (which invented standardized
intelligence testing) and only later spilled over into economic
production, with the introduction of 'scientific Taylorism' and its
time-motion studies onto the factory floor. Originally, various ideas
concerning the functioning of machines (cybernetics) made their way into
the human sciences primarily as heuristic devices, spawning all sorts of
conceptual innovations ranging from biofeedback theory to the double-bind
theory of schizophrenia and mental illness. Information theory began to
be applied to vexing problems in linguistics, sociology, psychology, and
education. But the military and the captains of industry wanted more than
just heuristics for explaining human activity. Where autonomous robots
and AIs would not do (and unfortunately this turned out to be the case in
a lot of areas), it became essential to "upgrade" the performance,
efficiency, and utility of human beings in carrying out directives.
Science fiction clearly has been fascinated about the integration
of the organic and the technological for a long time. One of the first
incarnations of the artificial human was the robot or android, which
first made its appearance in the movie Metropolis in the
1920s. But such robots were often simply purely electronic devices molded
into a humanoid form; there was no organic component. However, by the
1960s, science fiction writers had turned to a more interesting
imaginative construct: the cyborg. This being was a sort of
hybrid, a mesh of flesh and steel, neurons and wires, blood and circuits.
It was a human being partially transformed into a machine. From the
Six Million Dollar Man to Robocop , the
question posed by all these depictions of the cyborg was, how much of a
human being could you replace and still preserve its essential humanity?
While some of this technology remains the domain of science fiction, some
of it is appearing here and now today, in the form of exoskeletons,
artificial limbs and prostheses, biological implants (like Norplant), and
electronic devices for restoring vision to the blind.
The history of eugenics, or human improvement, goes
back centuries. Prior to the 20th century, most eugenic techniques
involved discouraging unfavorable traits by preventing people with those
traits from breeding (negative eugenics - sterilization and so forth),
and encouraging improvement of favorable traits through ensuring those
with those traits bred together (positive eugenics.) In the late 19th
century, eugenicists like Francis Galton increasingly tried to define the
'science' of heredity, looking for ways to eliminate criminality, mental
retardation ('feeblemindedness'), and sociopathy from the germline. But
20th century eugenics became discredited largely due to its associations
with the German Nazi party and its master-race theories. However, with
the formation of the neo-Darwinian synthesis (made possible by the
discovery of DNA), it became possible to isolate and manipulate the
techniques of biological change (the units of heredity which control the
makeup of organisms) outside of the control of sexual reproduction.
Sociobiological theories seeking to explain human behavior in
evolutionary, hereditary terms began to reappear in the 1970s, but
eugenics remained a taboo topic until the discover of recombinant DNA
splicing techniques in that same decade.
Today in the 1990s these four constructs, eugenics,
technologizing the body, the cyborg, and the augmentation machine, are
reaching an unprecedented unification in the debates over biotechnology.
People today are openly speaking about post-biological man. The
technological and the organic are colliding in mysterious ways. Silicon
neural networks are being modeled on the human brain and artificial life
algorithms are simulating in microseconds the millennium-long processes
of evolution and natural selection, while designers contemplate a new
generation of computers based on or integrated with DNA to increase their
rate of computation and replication as well as a host of devices to place
biological activity (nervous system response time, hormone production,
circadian rhythms) under technological control. Unfortunately, while the
debates about genetic research have begun (even hailing back to the
Asilomar Conference of 1974), fewer people are looking at or arguing over
the more invisible and silent 'cyborgization' of the human being.
Positive Arguments
Certainly, there have been a number of positive responses to
this 'cyborg' phenomenon. There have been a number of AI researchers like
Hans Moravec who have unabashedly declared that it may be time for
carbon-based biological life to yield control of the planet to its 'mind
children,' silicon-based life. They claim that the phenomenon, seen from
a grand evolutionary perspective, can be seen as part of the grand design
of evolution. The human cyborg represents a 'transitional species' of
sorts, before the human enters total post-biological obsolescence. If
evolution is theorized from an abstract perspective as an attempt to
increase the information-processing power latent in matter, in the
struggle against entropy, it is clear that hardware (artificial life)
will eventually win out against wetware (organic life) since it is more
durable and more efficient. These 'extropians' see this as perhaps bad
news for the human race (although in the interim a lucky few may be able
to 'download' their minds into better robot bodies or cyberspace), but in
the long-term at least good news for the planet and apparently the
universe[3...]
There are others who foresee perhaps a more peaceable
coexistence for human beings and electronic 'life,' however. One recent
theory that has been bantered about lately is that the human race may
have reached the saturation point for economic growth, but this is
fortunate since it has arrived in time for it to work on 'human growth,'
i.e. the re-engineering of the human species[4.] We can 'graduate'
from being victims of natural selection to masters of self-selection. It
seems hard to argue against increasing human longevity, intelligence, or
strength, since human beings seem to live too short a span, to make too
many mistakes in reasoning, and to lack the physical endurance necessary
to make great accomplishments. Indeed, there are those who feel that
without technological modification, the human being might be simply too
"shortchanged" from an evolutionary standpoint to accomplish the race's
greatest dreams, such as peaceful coexistence, environmental
sustainability, and space exploration[5.] The search for human
perfectibility is one of the oldest of utopian dreams.
Some more sanguine realists feel that human biotechnology will
be an inevitable necessity in light of coming changes. Human genetic
structure may be irreversibly altered for the worse as levels of
radiation, chemical pollution, and so on continue to increase. Global
climate is likely to change drastically due to global warming and ozone
depletion. People may be forced by overpopulation and overcrowding into
parts of the world previously hostile to human settlement, whether in
deserts, underground, under the sea, or perhaps even other planets. And
then there are always the periodic extinctions on our planet, which many
scientists now think may be due to regular collisions with asteroids or
the reversal of the magnetic field. Pessimists who suspect many of these
global changes may be irreversible sometimes have taken the position that
the only way for the human race to avoid perishing as a species is to
make some rapid technological changes in its biological
adaptability[6].
Other scientists have argued that the sort of
"hyperintelligence" made possible by bioelectronics may be necessary to
save the human race from itself. Just as many genetic engineers held out
the possibility that human beings might soon be able to 'splice' out the
genes for aggression, antisocial behavior, and criminality in the 70s,
today bioelectronics researchers suggest that augmented human beings may
be able to cooperate with technology in unprecedented ways to reassert
rational management of the planet and its resources, and stave off the
irrational impulses of xenophobia and paranoia that might lead to its
nuclear destruction. Ever since Comte (or Plato), people have argued that
the best governance of the human race might be by an autocratic elite who
possesses the wisdom, long-term vision, and breadth of perspective that
the common man does not. Of course, to others, this danger of technocracy
is a Damoclean sword hanging over the human future, and must be avoided
at all costs.
Lastly, there are the postmodern theorists, normally noted for
their antitechnological stance, who have taken a favorable position on
the coming of the cyborg. The "cyborg anthropologists" have followed the
line of Donna Haraway, who declared that she would rather be a cyborg
than a goddess any day, in a sort of cynical repudiation of ecofeminism
and the fetishizing of nature[7.] Haraway, a researcher interested
in the links between humans, primates, and computers, feels that the
cyborg is an important metaphorical identity for human beings in the 21st
century, in that it resists essentialism (and thus racism, sexism,
chauvinism, et al.) and helps to display the fluidness, hybridization,
and boundary-transgression of postmodern identities. For Haraway, the
cyborg is one way of the human race finally freeing itself from the
culture/nature split/trap in which we have found ourselves.
Negative Consequences
The critics of bioelectronics and biocomputing foresee numerous
potential negative social consequences from the technology. One is that
the human race will divide along the lines of biological haves and
have-nots. People with enough money will be able to augment their
personal attributes as they see fit (which is what they already do with
techniques such as spas, plastic surgery, etc.) as well as to utilize
cloning, organ replacement, etc. to stave off death for as long as they
wish, while the majority of humanity will continue to suffer from plague,
hunger, 'bad genes,' and infirmity. It's hard not to see the biological
'haves' advocating separation and/or extinction inevitably for their
unmodified peers. Certainly, at a minimum, the two 'strains' of humanity
will diverge in tremendous ways, perhaps as drastically as did Cro-Magnon
and Neanderthal man in the prehistoric past, to the point where there may
not be a single human species anymore. While neo-Darwinian theory
suggests that such somatic adaptations are not inherited, at the level of
monkeying with DNA, all bets are off. The germline is no longer behind
the unbreachable 'Weismann barrier.'
It's inevitable that there will be those who see the potential of
a sort of master race from this technology. Certainly, the military has
already considered the possibility of the super-soldier, augmented by
technology so that he has faster reflexes, deadlier accuracy, greater
resistance to fatigue, integrated weaponry, and most importantly, lesser
inclinations toward fear or doubt in combat.[8] Such soldiers
could be created through combinations of biochemicals, bioelectronics,
and DNA manipulation. They might have available arsenals of new
biological warfare components, synthetically generated within their own
bodies. But it's not clear that these 'cyborgs' would not turn on their
creators. Indeed, there's no reason at all to think they would forever
allow themselves to be controlled by inferiors. They could easily become
a new sort of dominant caste, forcing the rest of untechnologized
humanity into serfdom. Or perhaps they might decide simply to eliminate
it.
For that reason, it's logical to suspect that one of the other
dangers inherent in bioelectronics might be the ability to control and
monitor people. Certainly, it would be easy to utilize bio-implants that
would allow people to trace the location and perhaps even monitor the
condition and behavior (through observation of EEG, EKG, and other
biological readouts) of implanted persons. This would be a tremendous
violation of human privacy, but the creators of human biotech might see
it as necessary to keep their subjects under control[9.] Once
implanted with bio-implant electronic devices, 'cyborgs' might become
highly dependent on the creators of these devices for their repair,
recharge, and maintenance. It could be possible to modify the person
technologically so that their body would stop producing some essential
substance for survival, thus placing them under the absolute control of
the designers of the technology.
Perhaps the most cogent arguments against this technology
originate from people who foresee tremendous possible risks toward human
health and safety. Pointing toward the dangers already presented by
technologies like Thalidomide, Prozac, silicone breast implants,
steroids, and artificial hearts, these critics try to show that the
autoimmune system of human beings will not so easily accommodate
technological interventions and that widespread failure of organic
systems may be the result. While there is widespread talk of improving
the human brain through the use of 'skill chips' for implanting new
knowledge, many people suspect that such interventions may be even more
catastrophic because of the inability of the human nervous system to
regenerate. Millions of years of evolution produced only so much
capability within the human organism, and it may be fatal to
technologically stretch its performance beyond those built-in
limits[10].
While all these scientific criticisms exist, there are
certainly equally eloquent ones coming out of the realms of traditional
theology and bioethics. Many people foresee drastic consequences on
religion from biotechnology, especially with regard to the idea of the
intrinsic sanctity and integrity of human life and that human beings are
created in the image of the Divine. Even those not spiritually inclined
who still nevertheless possess the feeling that there is something within
humanity which is not found in animals or machines and which makes us
uniquely human, worry that the essence of our humanity will be lost to
this technology. The idea that human beings are worth something
regardless of their deficits, flaws, and infirmities, may be lost in the
onrush to human biotechnological improvement[11]. Those who still
possess doubts that human beings are nothing but biological machines
made from 'wetware' fear the consequences of the 'Brave New World' that
bioelectronics makes possible.
The Arguments on Balance
The proponents of bioelectronics are inevitably correct in
suggesting that it holds out incredible benefits for the human race.
(Admittedly, those who argue for human obsolescence as a benefit should
be discounted by any reasonable humanist.) Likewise, it is undeniably the
case that some of the skepticism toward bioelectronics arises out of the
superstitious attitude that people hold toward computers and electronic
technology, as well as medical and reproductive procedures that they
don't fully understand. However, they are incorrect in arguing that
regulation and oversight will only hinder research in this area and
prevent scientific progress in the relevant areas. In marginalizing the
social and ethical issues generated by research in biocomputing, these
researchers are showing a side of science that people have routinely
expressed anger about - its refusal to accept social responsibility for
unforeseen consequences. In order for bioelectronic research to progress,
it will have to accept that the potential dangers are real, and that the
concerns of some skeptics are valid. Otherwise, something disastrous
might occur which might create a 'death-blow' for the industry, much as
has happened with nuclear power in the U.S., and nothing positive will
ever have been attained.
CONCLUSION
As many scientists have eloquently argued, once a technology is
out there, you cannot make it go away. The genie simply will not go back
in the bottle. There never was a technology that the human race ever
abandoned wholesale, even the hydrogen bomb or other weapons of mass
destruction with the power to wipe out all life on Earth. You might
eventually be able to ban the production of H-bombs, but it would take a
long time to kill everybody who knew how to make one or eliminate all
blueprints and specifications for the design. While scientists discussed
the possibility of a ban on recombinant DNA research at the Asilomar
Conference, they knew it was not feasible. Even if overt public funding
for such research was cut off, covert private funding would continue to
flow from various interested parties, as has happened with even disproven
technologies like cold fusion.
Thus, once invented, bioelectronic technologies cannot be wished
away. Once given the opportunity to improve themselves in any form, human
beings rarely surrender the opportunity, whether it's "pumping iron" or
exercise to raise physical fitness, so-called "smart drugs" to raise
intelligence, or vitamin therapies to stem the onslaught of the aging
process. When human beings are offered the chance to utilize computers
and electronic technologies within their bodies to achieve these same
results, it is almost certain they will embrace them regardless of the
risks. Based on this, it would be unrealistic to try and ban such
technologies, however one might worry about their ethical and social
consequences. A ban would only probably force them into a large, criminal
black market, as illegal drugs and weapons already have been.
A new "cyborg bioethics" may be necessary. While it cannot be
possible to foresee all the consequences resulting from bioelectronics,
most scientists are already aware of what some of the major dangers are.
Researchers in biocomputing may be required to adopt protocols on
acceptable research with human subjects, much as genetic engineers did
back in the 1970s. In drafting bioethical imperatives for bioelectronics
research, it will probably be imperative to consider the concerns of
groups such as the religious community, since to ignore their concerns
simply out of the insistence that they are merely acting out of
"anti-science" ignorance will leave an important group "out of the loop"
of this research. This is uncharted territory for the human race, and it
is the first time in which our own "built environment" may be directly
incorporated into our own sense of self and human nature. Our own
biocomputers (the human mind) evolved under a very specific set of
evolutionary circumstances, after all, and they may not be equipped with
the foresight and moral sense to keep up with the accelerating pace of
technology.
Since this is the case, it is probably imperative for society to
assert that the scientists and engineers charged with creating this new
technology exert the proper amount of social responsibility. Safeguards
will have to be insisted on to prevent the possible negative impacts
discussed above, and many of these things will have to be built in at the
instrumental level, since they probably cannot be achieved only through
policy and regulation. Critical public awareness and vigilance, of the
kind already shown by Jeremy Rifkin and the Foundation on Economic Trends
with regard to biotechnology, will be essential. But ultimately,
bioethicists will have to grapple with the fundamental issues involved,
which touch on aspects of human existence and human nature which reach to
the core of what most people think is involved in what it means to be
human, and this will not be an easy dilemma to resolve.
FOOTNOTES
- Kevles and Hood, 1992, pp. 6
- Information for Industry, Inc., 1963, pp. xiv
- More, 1994, pp. 3
- Paepke, 1993, pp. 9
- Wade, 1977, pp. 58
- Banathy, 1993, pp. 18
- Haraway, 1991, pp. 224
- Gray, ed., 1989, pp. 15
- Crary and Kwinter, 1994, pp. 113
- Lynch, 1982, pp. 28
- Rifkin, 1984, pp. 181
BIBLIOGRAPHY
- Banathy, Betha H., "Is the improvement of the human condition our
field? Making evolutionary science work for human betterment," in the
Journal of World Futures, vol. 38, October 1993, pp.
17-32.
- Connors, Mary M., "Crew Systems: integrating human and technical
subsystems for the exploration of space," in the Journal of
Behavioral Science, vol. 39, July 1994, pp. 183-213.
- Crary, Jonathan, and Kwinter, Sanford, Incorporations,
Zone Books, New York, 1992.
- Gray, Chris, ed., Cyborg Worlds: the military information
society, Free Associations, London, 1989.
- Haraway, Donna, Simians, Cyborgs, and Women: the reinvention of
nature, Free Associations, London, 1991.
- Harris, John, Wonderwoman and Superman: the ethics of human
biotechnology, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1992.
- Information for Industry, Inc., The Augmentation of Man's
Intellect by Machine, Spartan Books, Washington, DC, 1963.
- Kevles, Daniel J., and Hood, Leroy, The Code of Codes:
Scientific and Social Issues in the Human Genome Project, Harvard
University Press, Cambridge, 1992.
- Krimsky, Sheldon, Biotechnics and Society: the rise of
industrial genetics, Praeger Books, New York, 1991.
- Lappe, Marc, "Genetics, neuroscience, and biotechnology: recent
articles," in the Hastings Center Report, vol. 20,
November-December 1990, pp. 21-25.
- Leary, Timothy, Chaos and Cyberculture, Ronin
Publishing, Berkeley, 1994.
- Lynch, Wilfred, Implants: reconstructing the human body,
Von Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 1982.
- Miller, Tom, ed., Behavioral and Biological Technologies and
the Law, Praeger Books, New York, 1982.
- More, Max, Principia Extropia. Available from
http://www.extropy.com/principia.html.
- Paepke, Owen, The Evolution of Progress: the end of economic
growth and the beginning of human transformation, Random House,
New York, 1993.
- President's Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine
and Biomedical and Behavioral Research, Splicing Life: the social
and ethical issues of genetic engineering with human beings, U.S
Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 1982.
- Rifkin, Jeremy, Algeny: a new word -- a new world,
Penguin Books, New York, 1984.
- Wade, Nicholas, The Ultimate Experiment: man-made
evolution, Walker Books, New York, 1977.
- Zimmerman, Burke K., BioFuture: confronting the genetic
era, Plenum Press, New York, 1984.
[ Top ]
|