The Uncertain Definition of Humanity - Will we embrace the coming era of cyberization

[andrew123]

I'm not talking about just phones and the internet, but the idea of replacing, or augmenting, parts of our body with artificial substitutes.

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/187904-researchers-create-artificial-brain-like-structure-in-a-dish

1. Researchers believe that they now know the path of development to a much more reliable and non destructive brain computer interface chip. With these advances, coupled with the exponential growth in computing power and the advances in prosthetics, do you, KSP forum goers, believe that we will achieve full body prosthesis superior to that of our natural bodies?

2. If so, would you willingly choose to do so or refuse given the risk of computer security, or even on your moral grounds?

3. What about financial considerations? Do you believe that your insurance will cover these future operations?

4. Would you only accept augmentations in emergencies?

5. Do you believe that companies will discriminate against employees without augmentations due to lower capability? The other way around due to medical costs?

6. Would you willingly fall in love with a cyborg?

7. Finally, a more personal question. If, as a parent, your child was dying and could only be saved by receiving full-body prosthesis, would you allow them to die, or would you allow them to receive it? I ask this because, after speaking to my mother, she said that when a human is put into that type of a situation, they must be allowed to naturally die. I, on the other hand, believe that a full prosthesis is preferable to possible oblivion.

Ghost in the Shell and Deus Ex explore these ideas, but I want to know what you guys think.

PS: 8. How do you think we'll solve the problems with reproduction? I wonder how scientists will solve that issue, but I'll leave that up to your imaginations.

Edited August 27, 2014 by andrew123

[WestAir]

1. Researchers believe that they now know the path of development to a much more reliable and non destructive brain computer interface chip. With these advances, coupled with the exponential growth in computing power and the advances in prosthetics, do you, KSP forum goers, believe that we will achieve full body prosthesis superior to that of our natural bodies?

Of course. Because it is possible for the human body to be made better, it will. Making things better is one of humanities specialties.

2. If so, would you willingly choose to do so or refuse given the risk of computer security, or even on your moral grounds?

I want augmentations that allow me the opportunity to enhance my quality of life. If they can build me a new skeleton that won't break or introduce artificial cells that can fight any infection, of course I'll do it. Replacing my brain with a computer or destroying my consciousness doesn't do anything to help me, and those who believe in Ghost In The Shell-esque technologies like brain uploading and consciousness transfers are in for a rude awakening when they die and are replaced by a computer brain. The proshetics I'll allow myself are limited to those that would help me, not those that would replace me.

3. What about financial considerations? Do you believe that your insurance will cover these future operations?

Is wealth of any importance to a cyborg who can live indefinitely? If you can afford the technology to extend your life until the sea's evaporate, what value will you place on wealth? It would literally be worth it to rob a bank to afford the operation because you'll outlive any conceivable sentence handed to you. One dollar in your bank account will accrue enough interest to make you wealthy - within your own lifetime.

4. Would you only accept augmentations in emergencies?

See the above. I'll accept anything that enhances my quality of life.

5. Do you believe that companies will discriminate against employees without augmentations due to lower capability? The other way around due to medical costs?

They already do. Companies are glad to replace employees with computers where possible. Machines that can fix a door to a car are cheaper and more reliable than having a human affix a door to a car. The same will go to people. If an augmented man has the mental capacity of two hundred other men, of course you'll hire him before a regular natural-born man. It's common sense, really.

6. Would you willingly fall in love with a cyborg?

I have a hard time believing in the concept of love. I believe in attraction, familiarity, comfort, and appreciation. All of those I can affix to a cyborg woman. So yes? Besides, genetic engineering will probably let parents make their children "perfect" - perfect weight, height, size, intelligence, and most importantly health. In my opinion there's more to gain from loving a cyborg than not.

7. Finally, a more personal question. If, as a parent, your child was dying and could only be saved by receiving full-body prosthesis, would you allow them to die, or would you allow them to receive it? I ask this because, after speaking to my mother, she said that when a human is put into that type of a situation, they must be allowed to naturally die. I, on the other hand, believe that a full prosthesis is preferable to possible oblivion.

From my answers you can probably already tell I'm pro-transhuman. The short answer is yes.

PS: 8. How do you think we'll solve the problems with reproduction? I wonder how scientists will solve that issue, but I'll leave that up to your imaginations.

Well, if we're genetically engineering babies to be perfect like I'm sure a lot of parents will (Note: Designer Babies), I imagine reproduction will remain fairly the same - the only difference will be the doctor visits.

[Seret]

Cyborgs are around us already. My dad has a pacemaker that's probably the only reason he's alive today. Amputees are getting increasingly smart prosthetic limbs. You could also argue that we're all cyborgs if we've received vaccinations, since our immune systems have been enhanced by a manufacturing process.

I think the transition will come gradually, and be driven through necessity. This will prevent any "ick factor", people will get used to it slowly. My daughter is visually impaired, if technology provided her with vision I'd definitely be up for it. I wouldn't be surprised if a camera coupled to a BCI became available during her lifetime, restoring reasonable quality vision. The military are also likely to drive much of the technology. They'll want prosthetics for injured troops and that's reasonably parallel to the exoskeleton research they're showing interest in. Closer coupling with the nervous system for both of these is an obvious development path. I see the emergence of technology that integrates tightly with our nervous system as inevitable. Some of this may be appropriate for permanent implantation, some will be wearable.

In the future the technology to manipulate our bodies is likely to be increasingly soft and squishy instead of the chrome limbs of cyberpunk fiction. Biocompatibility is a big deal and the best way to achieve both this and a lot of our power supply and miniaturisation goals is through synthetic biology.

[Tommygun]

In the long run I would put my money on the general public adopting genetic engineering over cyberization.

[Seret]

I think you're right, but I also think you might find the line between them gets pretty blurry. What would you class a genetic alteration that made someone's body start incorporating non-biological reinforcement into their skeleton as?

Anything that's less obvious, or modifies less sensitive parts of the body than the face, hands and eyes will be accepted quicker. Just look at the reaction to things like Google Glass, where there's a gut-level reaction to tech mounted on people's face when it's essentially the exact same thing we're happy to carry strapped to us or in a pocket.

Edited August 27, 2014 by Seret

[Tommygun]

....... What would you class a genetic alteration that made someone's body start incorporating non-biological reinforcement into their skeleton as?

Wolverine

[TrooperCooper]

TBH, I am somewhat glad to be amongst one of the last generations that can still drink, listen to music, smoke and enjoy trans-gender intercourse.... Then again, I might think differently when I get older.

And of course I also wouldnt mind a few robotic slaves.

[meve12]

TBH, I am somewhat glad to be amongst one of the last generations that can still drink, listen to music, smoke and enjoy trans-gender intercourse.... Then again, I might think differently when I get older.

And of course I also wouldnt mind a few robotic slaves.

Wouldn't computer uploading be a 2-way process?

And if you're going to say that, stay the .... away from my HAL.

Edit: stupid censure.

[The Mechanic]

2. If so, would you willingly choose to do so or refuse given the risk of computer security, or even on your moral grounds?

This truly is a two-edged sword. On the one hand it would of course be useful and awesome to enhance the capabilities of the human body or give people things back they lost because of illness, accidents or whatever other cause. We already see the first steps with hearing aids, advanced prosthetics and similar things. There are great possibilities for cybernetic enhancements/replacements. They make it possible to help a lot of people.

On the other hand however...Well, I don't want to delve into politics here but think about how those technologies can be misused in really dystopian ways.

I don't want to derail this thread but I would say that with Google Glass, smartwatches, smartphones and all those stuff we basically we already have low-level cybernetics. And I must admit that it frightens me. I grew up with computers, internet and mobile phones so it is not that I'm not used to it.

But people are taking it to a level I find quite disturbing, especially because they willingly give up a lot of their privacy and are always on their phones doing social media. I don't know if it is like this everywhere or if it just my age-group or if I just perceive it differently because I don't like stuff like facebook. Well, maybe I'm just old-fashioned.

[Godot]

Well, I for my part consider myself to be a moderate Transhumanist.

Insofar, yes, I would be open to augmenting by body with technology.

But only with things of which I am more oer less certain that they don´t cause any negative long term sideeffects.

And only things I deem absolutely necessary (which, for example, would exclude any leg or arm replacements ...

as I neither work in a business where I need an especially high strength in arms/legs and there also is no real reason for me to have such a thing in my personal life,

there would no reason to take any risk for augmentations that would be just fancy gadgets for me)

As for pressure of employers on emloyees to get cyber-enhancements.

Yes ... even if it is regulated that cybernetic or genetic augmentations are deliberate and no emploer can demand from employees to get these things,

they would just use employment policies ... with preferring new hires who have augmentations above those without ... and maybe finding reasons to fire employees without augmentations,

if they have the opportunity to get an augmented replacement).

This is a grave danger and ways have to be found to prevent hire/fire strategies like these.

(it reminds me a little bit of the movie "Gattaca", where normally born and raised people are second class citizens compared to those who got genetically enhanced in the womb)

[Idobox]

Computer risks will be negligible if the tech is done properly. Nobody can hack into a microwave or ATM without putting a hole in it and plugging cables in concealed places. I don't ned my prosthetic leg to have Wi-Fi or to be reconfigurable without physical operations (might be as simple as a switch allowing rewrite of flash memory).

Brain computer interfaces are light years away from what we see in Sci-Fi, I'm doing a PhD in Neuroscience and people around me are developing this kind of tools. The cutting edge right now is a retina implant with 1M pixel, still in development (not even experimental phase), and bio mimetic AI are even further (the guy behind me is part of a project involving hundreds of searchers, and millions of € of budget, to simulate the brain of a 1 mm long nematode, check "Si Elegans" for more info).

Now, if I had access to cyborg technology that improves certain things, I'd definitely be interested. It will of course depend on cost (it can be seen as an investment, buy cyber-legs today, save on gas now and arthritis drugs when you're 70), and loss of function (I love foot massages).

In practice, the next big thing will implants for diabetic people, managing insulin automatically. And these things WILL be improved to monitor all sort of things, and maybe regulate them (imagine an implant destroying cholesterol or alcohol beyond a certain concentration threshold).

Exoskeletons are also going to happen soon, and powered limbs already exist, and lots of people are working hard on connecting them directly to nerves to get more accuracy, and sensory feedback. But they'll be either very bulky, or inferior to healthy human limbs until we find better power sources.

[78stonewobble]

Computer risks will be negligible if the tech is done properly. Nobody can hack into a microwave or ATM without putting a hole in it and plugging cables in concealed places. I don't ned my prosthetic leg to have Wi-Fi or to be reconfigurable without physical operations (might be as simple as a switch allowing rewrite of flash memory).

Though obviously organisations exists with that capability and presumably to do the equivalent with any technology we put in our bodies in the future.

Why risk a spy's life, if you can gather intel from inside the body of unsuspecting people.

However... As an ordinary citizen I'm not that worried, even with todays capabilities. I do believe that most members of the intelligence community are wholly uninterested in any of my online activities.

[Seret]

Computer risks will be negligible if the tech is done properly. Nobody can hack into a microwave or ATM without putting a hole in it and plugging cables in concealed places

Actually a lot of ATMs are quite vulnerable. Security in embedded and SCADA systems is often surprisingly bad. Just look at Stuxnet, despite the fact that the system was behind a firebreak it got infected via sneakernet, and one of the many, many flaws in the Siemens system used was that Siemens themselves advised customers not to ever change the default password. It beggars belief. Manufacturers have for a long time imagined themselves immune due to using proprietary protocols and not being networked. That's naive, and has led to an industry that's woefully, dangerously under-prepared for the TCP/IP world.

[78stonewobble]

1. Conceivably... I still believe that our ability to mimick a brain via computer is somewhat overestimated. Personally my guess is.

A: AI atleast equivalent to a human brain or fully "run" a human consciousness on a computer. 50 years away atleast.

B: Brain interface that can augment a human. Ie. internet, database access or just a calculator in the brain... Might be possible within 50 years.

C: An existing brain supported in a robot body... Might also be within 50 years.

2. While I could use some short term memory augmentation, I'd have to say no in general. A little concerned about security and privacy, somewhat concerned about the morality, not from the individuals perspective but from society's, but mostly... because it holds no interest for me.

3. No idea... too many factors to even hazard a guess.

4. Yeah pretty much, depending on what it is, but really... there's over 7 billion people in the world, for the cost of an expensive medical treatment here in the first world.... We could save countless lives in the third world. At some point people just have let go....

5. Isn't that just picking the best person for the job? ... It might happen and legal steps might have to be taken. Not so worried though.

If we can augment human brains and bodies on THAT level... Odds are we could design a computer program or simple robot, that can do the job and doesn't have to get paid. I'd be much more worried about, how humanity's gonna react when theres only jobs for ie. 10 percent of the population.

6. Love isn't rational and if it was... it'd be too boring to even bother with it.

7. Not a parent, but ... Life isn't everything. Life needs quality of life. If it means a lifetime, possibly in pain and social stigmatization, then maybe not. Depends on how good the solution is.

8. Do we really have to... There's plenty of people allready.

[andrew123]

I'm fascinated by these responses...

Here's my take on it:

1. Bio-synthetic technology will advance, most likely within 40 years, to the point of exceeding human capabilities.

2. I would willingly have non-conscious vital sections of my brain replaced and augmented if it came with large benefits and no inconveniences to my daily life.

3. I hope my insurance covers it... If I manage to get my neurosurgeon practicing license, I'll probably have a small co pay.

4. If my colleagues (adversaries) received them, I wouldn't hesitate in receiving drastic augmentations.

5. Why do you think I wouldn't hesitate to receive augmentations?

6. I wouldn't care if my wife was cyberized. Future technology could solve most potential problems. (ie: Researchers actually turned skin cells into eggs and sperm cells, which could actually be developed. It was in a joint South Korean and US medical study.)

7. If the full body prosthetic was passable, of course. We could always upgrade or replace the prosthesis as better models come out.

8. See my answer to question 6.

[Idobox]

Actually a lot of ATMs are quite vulnerable. Security in embedded and SCADA systems is often surprisingly bad. Just look at Stuxnet, despite the fact that the system was behind a firebreak it got infected via sneakernet, and one of the many, many flaws in the Siemens system used was that Siemens themselves advised customers not to ever change the default password. It beggars belief. Manufacturers have for a long time imagined themselves immune due to using proprietary protocols and not being networked. That's naive, and has led to an industry that's woefully, dangerously under-prepared for the TCP/IP world.

We are talking about a piece of your body here, not a computer that's expected to read files all the time. To hack an ATM, you need to open it or drill a hole in it, because there is simply no input available on the outside.

Now imagine that your cybernetic leg has no available communication interface, and that maintenance/upgrade is done by first removing a panel using a mechanical key.

And of course, if hacking becomes a problem, you always have the possibility to use non rewritable memory for the program. Now to hack your leg, you would need to physically alter the circuit, a bit like chipping on older game consoles.

People who have the ability to physically alter your device can also beat you up, abduct you, drug you. If people like that are after you, the possibility of having your stuff hacked should be the last of your problems.

[andrew123]

We are talking about a piece of your body here, not a computer that's expected to read files all the time. To hack an ATM, you need to open it or drill a hole in it, because there is simply no input available on the outside.

Now imagine that your cybernetic leg has no available communication interface, and that maintenance/upgrade is done by first removing a panel using a mechanical key.

And of course, if hacking becomes a problem, you always have the possibility to use non rewritable memory for the program. Now to hack your leg, you would need to physically alter the circuit, a bit like chipping on older game consoles.

People who have the ability to physically alter your device can also beat you up, abduct you, drug you. If people like that are after you, the possibility of having your stuff hacked should be the last of your problems.

While your points are rational, I believe convenience will override safety. Doctors and entrepreneurs are already discussing implanted health monitors with internet access that doctors can monitor in real-time... the utility of OTA updates for your prosthetics and implants will outweigh the risks for countless people. Just see how incompetent corporate security really is: do you really believe that a high margin industry will spend that extra dollar or two to secure their networks? I highly doubt it.

Heck, Chinese hackers are infamous for hacking into medical databases to gain confidential patient info. What's to stop them from sending a fatal logic plague or microcode update to murder countless prosthetic users in the near future?

Edited August 28, 2014 by andrew123

[Seret]

We are talking about a piece of your body here, not a computer that's expected to read files all the time. To hack an ATM, you need to open it or drill a hole in it, because there is simply no input available on the outside.

That's a bit like saying my Linux PC can't be hacked, because it has no open ports. If the protocol allows for two-way communication there's always a risk someone will find their way in. There have been valid remote hacks of ATMs demonstrated. Given that this was only four years ago and the embedded world is so slack regarding security I wouldn't be surprised if many (most? all?) of the affected machines remained vulnerable.

More and more stuff is moving online for performance monitoring and fault diagnosis. That's hugely useful for day-to-day business, but it's also a massive security risk. And even systems that aren't hooked up to the internet are still vulnerable to a malicious attacker, as Stuxnet showed.

While your points are rational, I believe convenience will override safety. Doctors and entrepreneurs are already discussing implanted health monitors with internet access that doctors can monitor in real-time... the utility of OTA updates for your prosthetics and implants will outweigh the risks for countless people.

I agree. Wireless comms makes sense for a lot of devices, take my dad's pacemaker for example. It's implanted under the skin, then was programmed and is checked by the doctor wirelessly while sitting in a consulting room. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the only thing securing that link is the fact it uses an oddball protocol or frequency at short range. Security through obscurity is the only thing protecting a huge number of embedded and industrial systems.

Not everything is going to have a port available on the surface. In fact even in the case of a cybernetic limb it might even be desirable to grow skin over it if possible.

To go back to your original point Idobox:

Computer risks will be negligible if the tech is done properly.

I agree, but judging by what's being done at the moment it's by no means sure that it would be done properly. Security just isn't taken very seriously by the folks that design this stuff. I really, really want that to change.

[Idobox]

That's a bit like saying my Linux PC can't be hacked, because it has no open ports. If the protocol allows for two-way communication there's always a risk someone will find their way in. There have been valid remote hacks of ATMs demonstrated. Given that this was only four years ago and the embedded world is so slack regarding security I wouldn't be surprised if many (most? all?) of the affected machines remained vulnerable.

More and more stuff is moving online for performance monitoring and fault diagnosis. That's hugely useful for day-to-day business, but it's also a massive security risk. And even systems that aren't hooked up to the internet are still vulnerable to a malicious attacker, as Stuxnet showed.

It would be more like saying your Linux PC can't be hacked because it is not connected to any network, doesn't have a USB port or optic drive, and is in safe. You can hack it, but you need to open the safe first.

I was sure ATM were using dedicated network to avoid this king of attack, this is scary. Anyway, for things like cyber limbs, you wouldn't need upgrade ability more than your microwave or DVD player does, and using ROM would be a perfectly good option.

I agree. Wireless comms makes sense for a lot of devices, take my dad's pacemaker for example. It's implanted under the skin, then was programmed and is checked by the doctor wirelessly while sitting in a consulting room. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the only thing securing that link is the fact it uses an oddball protocol or frequency at short range. Security through obscurity is the only thing protecting a huge number of embedded and industrial systems.

They are using a perfectly well documented protocol and frequency (125khZ if I remember correctly). The main defenses are that the thing is not reprogrammable, and communication range is a few cm. Anybody could read the data if they could get close enough, but thy couldn't do more.

The same kind of technology is used for cochlear and retina implants.

I agree, but judging by what's being done at the moment it's by no means sure that it would be done properly. Security just isn't taken very seriously by the folks that design this stuff. I really, really want that to change.

That is, of course, the main issue here.

But some industries have been able to protect their stuff well, like credit card chips, simply because they know that if people could hack their stuff, they would go bankrupt in months, maybe weeks. And for something like implants and prosthesis, the FDA and other regulatory organisms have the ability to impose stringent conditions.

Not saying it's the way it will happen, just that it is completely possible.

[NFUN]

In countries with socialized healthcare (i.e. Single Payer), the government insurance probably would cover augmentations. The one one-time cost of an 'upgrade' would, in the long-run, be offset by savings created from a lack of a need to pay for hospital care and drugs, and from productivity gained. Private insurance wouldn't insure augmentations, as then nobody would continue to patronize the companies after they become cyborgs and they will run out of business.

[hawkinator]

In countries with socialized healthcare (i.e. Single Payer), the government insurance probably would cover augmentations. The one one-time cost of an 'upgrade' would, in the long-run, be offset by savings created from a lack of a need to pay for hospital care and drugs, and from productivity gained. Private insurance wouldn't insure augmentations, as then nobody would continue to patronize the companies after they become cyborgs and they will run out of business.

You seem to be missing the fact that private insurance companies make more money off of healthy people than sick ones, so healthy cyborgs who pay low premiums and rarely get sick are pretty attractive customers from their perspective.

[andrew123]

You seem to be missing the fact that private insurance companies make more money off of healthy people than sick ones, so healthy cyborgs who pay low premiums and rarely get sick are pretty attractive customers from their perspective.

Those are good points...

How do you think they'll cure brain tumors in brain augmented and full body prosthetic users? Also, I hope nothing like cyberbrain sclerosis appears, although I believe it's unavoidable. The more you mess with biology, more things can, and inevitably, will, go wrong.

[NFUN]

You seem to be missing the fact that private insurance companies make more money off of healthy people than sick ones, so healthy cyborgs who pay low premiums and rarely get sick are pretty attractive customers from their perspective.

If you were an advanced, very healthy cyborg with increased productivity/salaries, would you buy insurance? Probably, I assume you are above average intelligence based on your presence in the Science Labs and would recognize that insurance would be cheaper than replacement or repair of your implants. However, most people, particularly adults in their 20's, are reluctant enough to buy insurance already because they doubt anything bad will happen to them. If they become essentially superhuman, most people would probably decide that the risk of significant, expense damage to their augmentations is too low for them to buy insurance for it, even with low premiums. I'm sure the companies would love the situation, but most people with invincibility complexes wouldn't give them their business.

On a tangentially related note, I hate Deus Ex: Human Revolution; it makes me feel like an idiot. Half an hour sneaking through a crowded room only to find a vent that leads right to the exit, next to a door blocked by lasers that I could've stealthed past using invisibility.

[WestAir]

If the augmentations are advanced enough to increase the cyborgs intelligence, either through better myelin shealths or synthetic neurons or better organization of the connections in the network, it's also possible that those "20 somethings" that will inevitably live to be tricentennials will understand the importance of insurance and a safer lifestyle.

I am assuming here that there will be an effort on the part of humans to compete with AI in intelligence, and no matter what the end result of that competition is, the side effect will be 20 somethings that are smarter than the 20 somethings of today.

[Seret]

What makes you guys think that cyborgs would require any less medical support? People with prostheses and medical implants today require regular maintenance and monitoring. Meat is self-repairing and amazingly resilient. The fact that most people's bodies last for decades with a very light maintenance regime puts most machines to shame. If I maintained the machines I'm responsible for in my working life as casually as we maintain the personnel I'd get sacked because they'd all be broken.