by Elon Musk’s company called Neuralink, launched in 2016, aims to implant a piece of technology in people’s brains that would allow them to control a computer or phone just by thinking. This is otherwise known as a brain-computer interface.
After years of testing on animals, Neuralink recently announced the implantation of one of their devices into a human brain.
But “neurotechnology”, in this form, promises to reduce human suffering and allow disabled people to regain lost resources.
And it raises more questions. Would people without disabilities accept technology that connects directly to their brain and nervous system? What would happen in the future if people could connect themselves to other people’s devices, infrastructure and even brains in a kind of brain-computer internet?
Now is the time to start thinking about those questions. Medical conditions such as locked-in syndrome prevent people from pointing or moving their limbs. The Neuralink device is initially aimed at restoring abilities to people with such conditions by controlling a computer cursor to communicate, or by using a robotic arm to feed themselves.
However, the company’s long-term aspirations, as expressed by Musk, include the ability to summon a self-driving vehicle with just a thought. These aspirations suggest that neurotechnology could connect people 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 trying to decode it – and read people’s minds
What 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 a cursor to move to the right side, he could imagine that he plays his 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. BCI can be thought of as a “universal controller”, or as the renowned neuroscientist Professor Rafael Yuste described it, an iPhone for the brain.
Neurotechnology can be implanted invasively into the brain or nervous system, or come in the form of wearable technology, such as headphones or earphones. Air traffic controllers with external headphones can monitor their brains to alert them when their attention levels are dropping.
Teachers have already monitored children in high schools in China. The company Brainwave Science even offers a product for security services and police that can monitor a suspect’s brain during questioning.
However, things could go even further, as direct forms of brain-to-brain communication are being tested. Instead of calling your friend or texting them, you could communicate telepathically one day. Basic forms of direct brain-to-brain communication between humans (and even between humans and different animals) have already been achieved.
Military uses
Various 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 settings.
This will incorporate weapons systems, sensing and monitoring the human brain of military personnel into a distributed battlefield control system. A striking example of this approach comes in the form of thought-controlled robotic dogs recently demonstrated by the Australian Army.
This brings to mind the fictional Borg civilization from Star Trek, which is a similar combination of biology and machine parts. The alien Borg are individuals connected by neurotechnology that work together as a single entity. We should start thinking about the implications of an interconnected system of humans and machines enabled by neurotechnology, along with the possible values for society.
We can imagine all kinds of situations. In the future, those who operate critical infrastructure in cities may have their brains monitored to prevent accidents. People with mobility problems could increasingly interact with devices in their home, turning lights on and off and controlling home robots through their brain-computer interfaces.
Wider acceptance?
At some point, people without disabilities may also decide to ditch handheld remote control devices in favor of brain-controlled devices. Prisoners and offenders in the community could be monitored in real time to assess their mental state.
Over time, these separate applications may begin to interconnect in service of improved efficiency, commercial convenience and social control. Neurotech could emerge as an essential infrastructure that becomes the primary interface between human relations and technological systems.
What does all this lead to? There has been some reflection and action on the human rights and wider legal implications of neurotechnology. But much of the debate is rather individualistic in orientation and neglects the wider societal implications of changing human relationships with technological systems.
Therefore, we want to discuss the larger purpose of neurotechnology, its use 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 diverse impacts across society: at home, in the workplace, in the criminal justice system and in infrastructure networks.
Teasing out the emerging issues across these different sectors should enable us to predict the harms and benefits of neurotechnology. This will allow us to shape its development to support people and the environment.
To paraphrase the Borg: resistance might not be futile after all.
This article from The Conversation is republished under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Allan McCay is a member of Standard Australia’s Brain-computer interface committee.
Simon Marvin does not work for, consult with, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
