PresentationPDF Available

Are you a Cyborg 2019

April 2019

DOI:10.13140/RG.2.2.17792.89607

Authors:

University of Saskatchewan

A short presentation on cyborg technology and some possible implications of such technologies for our lives. The aim of the paper is to promote discussion among readers from a variety of backgrounds.

Content uploaded by Ivan William Kelly

Content may be subject to copyright.

Updates: Jan/Feb/April/June //2017/April 24/2019

Are you a Cyborg? 1

Ivan William Kelly

Professor Emeritus, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada

Introduction

In this talk, I’d like to focus not on external technologies like computers, smart boards,

virtual experience, nor the Orgasmatron in Woody Allen’s movie Sleeper (1973), but rather on

some of the possible social implications of bodily implanted devices on the future of human

nature and society. In other words, I’ll leave the science underlying cyborgs to the boffins in

engineering, computer science and artificial intelligence, and just focus on some

conceptualizations of the word ‘cyborg’, along with possible social implications and concerns

surrounding cyborgization.

The Israeli historian Harari in his best-seller Homo Deus (2016) contends the main project

of the 21st century will be to upgrade humanity into a new species where our biological “neural

networks will be replaced by intelligent software.” Indeed, an international movement called

Trans-Humanism has already arisen to consider these possibilities. Wikipedia tells us,

In 2010, the Cyborg Foundation became the world's first international organization dedicated to help

humans become cyborgs. The foundation was created … as a response to the growing amount of

letters and emails received from people around the world interested in becoming a cyborg.

What is a cyborg?

With this in mind let’s mentally ‘pop some corn’ about cyborgs. In the first place, what,

specifically, is a cyborg? Wikipedia defines a cyborg as:

a theoretical or fictional being with both organic and bio-mechatronic parts. The term

[cyborg] was coined in 1960…In popular culture, some cyborgs may be represented as visibly

mechanical (e.g. the Cybermen in the Doctor Who franchise or The Borg from Star Trek or Darth

Vader from Star Wars); or as almost indistinguishable from humans (e.g. the Terminators from the

Terminator films, the "Human-looking" Cylons from the re-imagining of Battlestar Galactica etc.)

The 1970s television series The Six Million Dollar Man featured one of the most famous fictional

cyborgs, referred to as a bionic man; the series was based upon a novel by Martin Caidin titled

Cyborg.2

Note the wide Wiki definition does not include the use of drug or chemical

enhancements, or the straightforward physical replacements of bodily parts or functions. Hence,

someone who uses doping to enhance physical skills, or drugs to enhance cognitive abilities

would be ruled out as being cyborgs. For many of us, our intuitions would agree here.

Recipients of genetic engineering and modifications to their genome as enhancements or

augmentations would also be ruled out as being cyborgs (they might alternately be described as

1 With special thanks to my long-term colleague, philosopher Karl Pfeifer (Monash University, Australia) for his useful

comments and suggestions on several drafts of this paper. The initial draft was placed on Research Gate, January, 2017.

2 The background to the word ‘cyborg’ can be found in Madrigal (2010).

neo-humans or super-humans).3 Nor would body transplants, including head transplants, result in

cyborgs on this definition. This means the type of instigating mechanism, not the resulting

outcomes, would be what contributes to be being described as a cyborg or not. If either a

electronic computerized implant or genetic engineering could change one from being a dour,

‘who stole my slice of pizza’ character to a happy clappy one, only the former would count

towards one being called a cyborg.

Would augmentation by nanobots count, and how invasive would implants have to be to

count as cyborg parts? Would any alternations have to specifically involve invasively interfacing

with the brain or perceptual mechanisms (which may but need not have deleterious effects on

emotional cognition).4 Note also, the Wiki definition only includes bio-mechanical electronic

implanted parts. This means, happily, that Uncle Clem with his false teeth and metal hips isn’t

considered the family cyborg. We might also add to the definition that the electro-bio-

mechanical parts should have some kind of working, integrated, useful function. After all, most

of us would agree that walking around with nonworking computer parts, however artfully

arranged on or in our body, would not qualify one as being a cyborg.

Assuming the electro-technological parts have a purpose, how many artificial parts do

you need to be labelled a cyborg? Having one or a few artificial parts may not make you a

cyborg. If one has a pacemaker, are they a cyborg? I suspect most of us would intuitively say no.

But we can keep adding to this list and keep asking the same question. This suggests a

continuum approach. The extremes would be recognizable, from what cognitive scientist Andy

Clark calls unsullied “electronic virgins” at one end 5 and perhaps the Star Trek Borgs at the

other end with fifty shades of grey in between. Alternatively, we might view things differently.

Perhaps the continuum approach is not the best way of tackling the question.

Maybe having one or more special, particular bio-mechanical, electronic parts is more

likely to have you labelled a cyborg than having other particular electro-mechanical parts? But

which ones? What about an electro-mechanical arm? Would having a mechanical heart make you

a cyborg? What about having a mechanical brain with neurons replaced by silicon chips? Or

what about having particular technological, computer-related mechanical parts inserted into

your body that might have different functions from natural body parts, or which greatly enhance

the effectiveness of natural parts? 6 For example, the Guardian tells us some bio-hackers “are

installing USB drives in their fingertips, giving themselves night-vision eye-drops and growing

third ears on their arms (that can go online).” Presumably in the early stages of cyborgization

people will have more choice over what characteristics they want, such as having larger

mechanical hands or being able to permanently see in the dark. Interestingly, are we coming back

3 Of course, the two (genetic modifications and electronic implants) are not mutually exclusive. They could be combined in

various ways: the implants might incorporate some biological/organic components, including genetically engineered elements.

Some developers are already working on such chips. See https//newatlas.com/cyborg-biological-powered-chip/40815/. Thanks

again to Karl Pfeifer for this reference. One can imagine ways in which genetic engineering and implants might interact, for

example, implants might be used to turn on, or turn off, or modify particular biological processes for differing periods of time.

4 Thanks to Karl Pfeifer for this point.

5 Clark (2000) calls an electronic virgin someone with “no silicon chips, no retinal or cochlear implants, no pacemaker” and no

smartphone, computer, and perhaps no glasses!

6 Perhaps one very special implant might incline us to consider someone a cyborg in some cases? Consider the short-lived

American TV series ‘Intelligence’ (2014) where the protagonist has a special chip implanted in his brain which enables him,

among other things, to stroll through a global virtual internet reality to seek and analyze data and basically hack into all sorts of

computerized systems. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2693776/ Thanks again to Karl Pfeifer for this pointer.

here to the continuum hypothesis (the more such technological parts you have the more likely

you are on the way to becoming a cyborg), or as the Guardian article implies, does having even a

few special devices in your body makes you a cyborg?

Could you be a part-time cyborg? Before you accuse me of smoking too much Colorado

marmalade here, let me elaborate. Most of you probably missed something that happened in the

fall of 2016 – the First Cyborg Olympics (Cybathlon) in Switzerland! Participants came from

twenty-five different countries. Under the influence of movies such as X-Men, Transformers and

Bridget Jones’s Baby, one might expect such Olympic events to comprise mainly events such as

throwing cars, fights where arms, heads and legs are routinely ripped off, or candidates jumping

lines of trucks. Not so. A number of bio-technology companies were demonstrating their latest

technologies with disabled individuals in events such as bread-slicing, prosthetic leg races and

brain-computer interface races. Many of the participants were using exo-skeletons which could

be removed after events. While they were wearing such exo-skeletons they were considered

cyborgs by the organizers. Others would not consider such athletes cyborgs because the exo-

skeletons are not invasive and are removable.

So far, I’ve been largely talking within the wide Wiki definition of cyborg, which is

admittedly, the most common way of thinking about cyborgs. Several of the boundary issues

mentioned so far surrounding the word “cyborg” may be due to its recent origin (remember it

was only coined in 1960) along with the influence of science fiction on our notions of what

cyborgs supposedly look like.7 But the term “cyborg” has also been used in wider and

metaphorical senses by others. Elon Musk contends that our digital, online connections already

make us proto-cyborgs. This is a different, even wider way of using the word “cyborg” – does

our largely external interaction with mechanical gadgets like TV’s, computers, cell phones, on-

line profiles, etc., make many of us already cyborgs in a sense? This view would not be new to

the philosophical community. For some, those with an “externalist view” of the mind, our mind

should not be viewed simply as only what is going on inside the brain, but also should be seen as

including external tools we use, since they are now indispensable to our thinking. Much of our

memory is already external, stored in our cell phones and computers.8 More and more of our

thinking is conducted while we are tied in with external devices such as calculators and

computers.

7 The main guides to what we tend to think cyborgs might be like is largely influenced by their portrayal in the movies and

films. Leane (2014) ‘Movie cyborgs, sci-fi, and what’s really Going on’ Den of Geek,

http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/cyborgs/29674/movie-cyborgs-sci-fi-and-whats-really-going-on Leane points out that in the

movies cyborg characters tend to be at the extremes of good (RoboCop, Del Spooner in I Robot, Max in Elysium, Macus from

Terminator Salvation) or evil (Darth Vader from Star Wars, the Borg from Star Trek, the Cybermen from Doctor Who). Of course,

this shouldn’t be surprising, many characters in fiction tend to also be at the extremes along the morality spectrum. One might

consider the way apprentices of sorcerer’s have been portrayed in fantasy novels. See J. Zipes (2017) The Sorcerers Apprentice:

An Anthology of Magical Tales. Princeton University Press. Talk of "The Sorcerer's Apprentice" might conjure up images of

Mickey Mouse from the Disney film Fantasia (1940), or of Harry Potter (books 1997 onwards). As this anthology reveals,

however, "sorcerer's apprentice" tales—in which a young person rebels against, or complies with, an authority who holds the

keys to magical powers—have been told through the centuries, in many languages and cultures, from classical times to today. In

these stories, readers enter worlds where household objects are brought to life and shape-shifting occurs from human to animal

and back again. We meet two types of apprentice: "The Humiliated Apprentice," a foolish bumbler who wields magic

ineffectively and promotes obedience to authority; and "The Rebellious Apprentice" who, through ambition and transformative

skills, promotes empowerment and self-awareness.

8 The externalist approach to mind was first conceived by Andy Clark and David Chalmers, in their philosophical article (1999),

"The Extended Mind." Analysis, 10-23. A very readable interview by MacFarquhar (2018, see my references) with Andy Clark

provides a useful outline of the externalist theory of mind.

A related and early thought-provoking view was expressed by the feminist thinker Donna

Haraway. In her justly acclaimed 1985 “Cyborg Manifesto” Haraway claims that we can

consider talk of cyborgs as a metaphor for going beyond many of our traditional concepts of

gender, feminism and politics. Given that the possibility of cyborgs undermines the human-

machine distinction, it can also lead us to rethink other binary distinctions: black vs white; left vs

right; economic vs social; immigrant vs non-immigrant; human vs animal; Christian vs Muslim;

elite vs non-elite; man vs woman; heterosexual vs non-heterosexual, etc. 9

Social Implications of Cyborgization

Okay, enough of the beard-stroking about words and definitions 10, so let’s move on to talking

about some possible social and ethical implications of our cyborg technologies. Among many in

the technical field, the dominant view is that we are all on the road to becoming cyborgs. A

question arises regarding which traditional human characteristics should be modified or replaced

in the future with new technologies. It is unlikely that electronic bio-mechanical hairy lips are on

the agenda for most of us, but what about implants resulting in cognitive and emotional

modifications or enhancements? What if we could augment our emotions in an extreme way?

The expression “I really hate/love X” could take on a new meaning.11 On a more serious note,

could we make ourselves more empathic towards other people? 12 Could we enhance ourselves

morally? 13 How far would we go – what about making students that would take a howitzer round

9 A large number of philosophical issues arise when we think of cyborgs. For example, how would increasing cyborgization

affect our notions of free will? While questions of free will usually center on human beings, what if more and more of our bodily

parts are composed of mechanical parts? Similarly, if more and more of our mental structure is tied in with computer parts, how

would this affect our views of human nature and issues such as the mind-body problem?

10 I’ve just considered two ways of thinking about what a cyborg is----namely categorical and dimensional. There are a number

of other ways. For example, do the specific purposes or functions of the electronic implants may a role in the definition of

cyborg? Would implants emphasizing particular intellectual abilities be more important than those that enhance perceptual

abilities? One might best think of the term ‘cyborg’ as a family resemblance concept where a variety of overlapping uses of the

same word are connected rather than with any strict necessary or sufficient conditions. An accessible discussion and critique of

the family resemblance approach can be found in C. McGinn (2011) Truth by analysis: games, names, and philosophy. OUP.

Chapter 2 ‘Definition and family resemblance’.

11 Talk of augmenting our emotions brings up the notion of teledildonics (or cyberdildonics) where remote sexual textual sexual

sensations can be transmitted over remote links between people. Trout in the following article describes present day live cam sex

with ‘two-way sex-toy integration’ and future possibilities: C. Trout (2018) ‘Teledildonics gave me he gift of long-distance sex

with a stranger’ engadget, Feb 7. https://www.engadget.com/2018/07/02/flirt4free-teledildonics-long-distance-sex/

Serious legalities will arise when a teledidonic act is hacked. Depending on the state of the technology, issues around consent and

rape will come to the foreground.

12 Empathy involves being able to experience the emotions of others. While this seems to be an all-around positive human

ability, it is controversial. The neurologist Burton considers it a myth that we can experience the minds of other people [R.A.

Burton (2018) ‘The theory of mind myth’ Aeon magazine, July 23, https://aeon.co/essays/think-you-can-tell-what-others-are-

thinking-think-again]. Bloom, on the other hand, does not consider empathy a myth but denies that it necessarily has a strong

connection with moral reasoning and behavior. [P. Bloom (2016) Against empathy: the case for rational compassion. Ecco].

13 Making ourselves more moral opens up a minefield. Exactly what actions would we encourage and who would decide?

And how would we justify to others our chosen enhancements? How one answers this question may relate to one’s notion of

human nature and how morality is related to evolutionary theory. Much may depend on commitment to certain ‘facts’ which may

not be decidable. Some consider morality as a necessary overlay on our basic nature. Others do not. Al-Rodham contends

enhancement issues need to take into account human nature and especially our neurological predispositions. N. Al-Rodham

(2019) ‘Neurophilosophy and transhumanism’ Blog of the American Philosophical Association, Feb 19.

https://blog.apaonline.org/2019/02/19/neurophilosophy-and-transhumanism/ Also, the same authors blog “A Neuro-Philosophy of

for their professors? Things could go very differently. Could future cyborgs – perhaps more

machine than meat – be morally blind to some of the things we now consider immoral or cruel?

One philosopher has recently considered the possibility that psychopaths should not be described

as being cruel (any more than lions are cruel) no matter what they do to people.14 Her view is

that such people lack some basic human features and are no more immoral than lions and tigers.

Could this be extended to future cyborgs that might lack our present-day moral sensibilities?

Further, given that our notions of person-hood are at present tied to our human biological

functions and bodily expressions, would very different abilities and sense experiences grounded

in electronic implants result in new notions of ‘self’ and ‘person’? 15 The issue is likely to be

important since the concept of ‘person’ is tied to legal and moral categories.

The distinction between ‘person’ and ‘personality’ is also important here since a change

in one doesn’t imply a change in the other category (the two are often wrongly conflated). 16

While Indeed, it is likely, over time, new implants and interactions with other electronic implants

would produce new psychologies, interests and concerns and perhaps different personalities.

Would some bio-mechanical changes make people view someone as a very different person

(personality), only distantly related to the person before the major enhancements? (Think of

Anakin Skywalker and Darth Vader of Star Wars fame). Much of what a person is, or who a

person is, seems to be socially constructed, and therefore somewhat changeable. Whether

changes might cause one to be viewed as a new person might depend on the type or number of

changes in one’s cognitive, emotional or behavioral abilities. If I could, with new bio-mechanical

parts, run a three-minute mile, most would still consider me the same person, albeit an upgraded

version of myself in that one respect, but what if I could become a brighter light bulb with some

bio-mechanical brain implants – say, in some Flowers for Algernon-like fashion---my IQ was

increased ten-times to 500? 17 (I know what I have just said.) I mention this because some of our

attributes, for example, our intelligence, may have wide impacts on other interests and activities

Human Nature: Emotional Amoral Egoism and the Five Motivators of Humankind” American Philosophical Association Blog,

April 4, 2019. https://blog.apaonline.org/2019/04/04/a-neuro-philosophy-of-human-nature-emotional-amoral-egoism-and-the-

five-motivators-of-humankind/ Young considers debates over moral enhancement problematic because moral norms change over

time and who knows what future norms will be held? And present-day debates are conducted from very different premises (moral

realist or non-realist or pragmatist) making agreement on standards for moral enhancement more unlikely. G. Young (2018) ‘How

would we know if moral enhancement had occurred?’ The Journal of Speculative Philosophy, 32/4, 587-606.

14 See D. Nelkin (2015) “Psychopaths, incorrigible racists, and the faces of responsibility,” Ethics, vol 125/ issue 2, 357-390.

15 Not everyone would agree with our present human-centered notions of personhood. Mark Rowlands (2016) Are animals

persons? Animal Sentience, 10/1. http://animalstudiesrepository.org/animsent/vol1/iss10/1/ Rowland contends the kind of self-

awareness present in some animals qualifies them to be considered persons. This would be directly relevant to any personhood

considerations regarding cyborgs. Those in the Humanities will find Lake’s book of special interest. It is also noteworthy that

different cultures can have different notions of personhood than those in the West [see S. Jackson (2019) ‘A rock, a human, a tree:

all were persons to the Classic Maya’ Aeon magazine, April 22. https://aeon.co/ideas/a-rock-a-human-a-tree-all-were-persons-to-

the-classic-maya] C. B. Lake (2013) Prophets of the Posthuman: American fiction, Biotechnology and the Ethics of Personhood.

University of Notre Dame. Lake argues that stories play an unrecognized role in ethical reflection confronting enhancement of

cognitive abilities in animals (including human beings) and machines.

16 While most pet owners would attribute particular personalities to their pets, most would balk at considering them persons.

The latter is (so far) largely restricted to human beings.

17 At the same time, we might also want specific-purpose dumbed-down cyborgs such as field hands, some soldiers, or toilet

attendants.

in our lives. Is it possible that a large change in one characteristic could make us a new person

because of its widespread implications? What if several important features of our individuality

could be modified, changed or greatly enhanced simultaneously?

What about the influence of fashion and fads on various notions such as attractiveness in

a cyborg world? 18 When it comes to ideas of attractiveness, would adding electronic bio-

mechanical parts lead to some new ideas about who is attractive, or would notions of physical

attractiveness disappear or become completely different from our present-day ideas? Would a

neo-bio-mechanical Justin Trudeau with echolocation abilities and covered in implanted USB

drives and plug-ins be on a future cover of People magazine? Before you chortle and burp at

this, aren’t we influenced by the media and changing dominant cultural mores all the time? There

is a fairly wide variation across history and cultures regarding what is considered attractive.

How many men these days wear powdered wigs and high heels as the 1% did in the 16th century?

While perhaps some particular features of people are found to be universally attractive, all bets

are likely to be off if many of us end up looking something like the skinless Terminator.19

And how much credit should be given to individual cyborg enhanced accomplishments?

Having qualities or attributes in common with many others does not distinguish one as an

individual. People don’t point us out in the street because we can read or do basic arithmetic. But

what about uncommon enhanced abilities? It seems to depend on the particular enhancement and

the context. Few would be interested if an implant allows me to pat my head and rub my belly

faster than anyone else. The situation also matters: For relatively straightforward actions like

running a 200- yard dash or swimming a particular distance, being under the influence of

physically enhancing drugs is already enough to disqualify you from receiving a medal at the

Olympics. But what about far more complex achievements such as those that are impossible with

organic brains/bodies alone? Does the use of external aids such as computers erode our notions

of individual achievements to some extent? 20 The typical response is that human imagination

and creativity are often still required to come up with ideas in the first place. But what if new

bio-mechanical implants (or genetic enhancements) allow us to be far more creative or

imaginative? While there will likely remain individual difference among people, what if these

18 It would seem notions of attractiveness are associated with biological beings. It is difficult to conceive of robots

having their own notions of attractiveness. Since cyborgs are at least part biological, they might have their own notions of

attractiveness, even if pure robots can’t. It is useful to point out that for non-cyborgs biological beings robots can be sexually

attractive (think of ‘sexbots’). Indeed, a British magazine featured a physically attractive ‘female’ robot on its cover in 2018. See

N. Byrd (2018) “Robot model on fashion magazine cover leaves some readers ‘freaked out’ “ Inquisitr, Jan 28.

https://www.inquisitr.com/4759542/robot-model-on-fashion-magazine-cover-leaves-some-readers-freaked-out/

19 Saxton contends that some part of what we find attractive (with specific other people) depends to some extent on the

“physical similarity between one’s parent and one’s partner”. T. Saxon (2017) ‘Keeping it in the family: why we pick the

partner’s we do’. Aeon Magazine, August. https://aeon.co/ideas/keeping-it-in-the-family-why-we-pick-the-partners-we-do . If

this idea has merit, it could be modified or made redundant in a world of genetic engineering or where technological implants

may change or modify or our desires and interests. At the same time, Saxton’s contention about physical characteristics strikes

me as small town xenophobic parochialism of a by-gone era. Many people have hooked up with partners physically (often

racially) unlike their parents. Further, there are all sorts of individuals who haunt comic book stores who find aliens and androids

attractive; there’re even categories of porn for that.

20 Our answer might depend on the role human beings have in the activity. The more active a role human beings have may

diminish the concern here. After all, there are those Korean gaming olympiads or tournaments; also programming competitions

are common nowadays where human imagination and cognition still have a sizeable role.

individual differences become largely due to some people possessing better enhancements (that

is, they far outstrip any natural biological individual differences)?

Animal cyborgs?

Do we also have moral responsibility to our fellow creatures – other non-human animals?

Why not animal cyborgs? 21 The onetime NASA scientist and science-fiction writer David Brin

says,

In all my research I have concluded that cetaceans, primates, corvids (crows),

parrots, pinnipeds (sea lions), and many other species on Earth appear to be stuck

under a firm glass ceiling, roughly the same level of thinking, problem-solving,

linguistic ability, and evolution seems stingy about letting any of them crash

through (Brin cited in Dvorsky, 2012)

Brin contends that it may actually be selfish for us to deny high-functioning animals (e.g apes,

dolphins, whales, etc.) our enhancement technologies. He imagines a possible Earth civilization

enlightened by diverse voices: “Imagine [for example, he says] dolphin philosophers … raven

playwrights and poets.” He adds, “How lonely [for us], if we turn away without trying” (cited

from Dvorsky, 2012).22 However, whatever the assets of Bonobo sex-therapists and orangutan

comedians, we need to think of other possible outcomes. I don’t want to be what our Australian

brother and sister academics call a “whinger” here, but all might not go as well as we might like.

We might have to face animal lawyers arguing for equal rights or reparations for past wrongs.

Enhanced animal politicians and activists might have very different concerns and values than our

human minds. Notions like “high functioning” might themselves be viewed quite differently

from our human interpretations. Given our human track record on ecology and the treatment of

other non-human animals, it is unclear whether newly enhanced intelligent non-human species

would describe us in the glowing terms that many human beings use to describe themselves. The

diversity within the community of human beings is challenging enough. Would complicating

things further between species not contribute to more social and political problems? Not only

might we face diverse conflicting demands between non-human animals and human beings but

between different animal species as well (prey/predator relationships would be a sticking point.)

And would we try to continue to prioritize human interests over animal interests (as we do at

21 There are already proto-animal cyborgs, but these tend to be designed to promote human interests, and not those of the

organisms themselves. For example, consider cockroaches with electronic backpacks that can pick-up subtle human sounds under

rubble in disasters or have their flight patterns controlled so they can be directed to fly through narrow passages in human rescue

operations. https://www.popsci.com/tags/cyborgs. An interesting ethical question that arises concerns the possibility that insects

feel pain and are conscious. See B. Keim (2019) ‘I, cockroach’ Aeon magazine (online). https://aeon.co/essays/do-cyborg-

cockroaches-dream-of-electric-trash

22 While bio-mechanical implantations could be involved in animal enhancement, genetic modifications are more likely to be

involved. We are still in the initial stages of such experimentation at present. Those genetic enhancements most visible in the

media seem largely limited to reports of glow-in-the dark rabbits, and cows that fart less than typical cows. Of course, genetic

modifications and bio-physical implants are not mutually exclusive; both could be utilized at the same time. A central issue is

how should we approach the topic of non-human animal enhancement? Chan contends that if we regard the enhancement of

human beings a moral obligation, so should we also regard non-human animal enhancement. S. Chan (2009) ‘Should we

enhance animals?’ Journal of Medical Ethics, 35/11, pp. 678-683. See also books discussing animal enhancement in the reference

section.

present)? 23 24 A further issue concerns which animals would we enhance? While it would

initially understandably be those animals such as mammals that are related to us and easier to

upgrade, human interests would almost certainly play a large role (at least in the earliest stages of

cyborgization). The pets of those who could afford the upgrades might be the earliest recipients

25, but likely those species we find cute or useful would be next in line. It seems unlikely

rattlesnakes or gophers would be prime candidates. Further, enhanced “beasts of burden” would

be more likely than intellectually enhanced animals; maybe our future Mars colonists might have

a use for somesuch. Considering these possibilities are what our Canadian prime minister, in

Sherlock Holmes mode, would call three-reefer speculations.

Some concerns about cyborgization

Much of the popular writing on the topic of future modifications to human beings focuses

on specific scientific/technological issues and their feasibility along with people’s fears of being

taken over by amoral Star Trek Borgies. But other concerns need to also be considered, at least in

the short term. (Advanced cyborgs in the more distant future may become closer to being fully

robotic, replacing meat more and more as the technologies become available).26 The cloven hoof

in the contemporary picture may not be the robotic part but the human aspect of cyborgs.

After all, cyborgs will for some time be largely human with parts designed by humans. Will

the directions taken regarding what is technically developed be influenced by the social and

cultural biases of those who generate and use such implanted parts? 27 Further, as John N

Gray says in his book, The Silence of Animals (2014), “There are not two kinds of human being,

savage and civilised. There is only the human animal, forever at war with itself.” The recent

events following the 2016 US election and the European refugee crisis have shown that sexism

and racism are widespread and still strong.28 Given this, the concern is that human biases

23 Consider those who already have their dead pets memorialized via taxidermy. Some might consider revitalizing their

deceased pets by turning them into interactive cyber-zombies. A lot of different ethical issues would arise on this topic.

24 Science fiction readers may be remined of Olaf Stapledon’s novel Sirius (1944) about an intelligently enhanced dog which is

rejected by human society. It raises the question about how we human beings would react to enhanced creatures that are non-

human or implant modified. Another issue is, would enhanced animals be used for military purposes? Consider the genetically

enhanced ape-like killer (the ‘Outsider’) in Koontz sci-fi novel Watchers (1987). Enhanced animals seem a more plausible

approach to military use than inbreeding suggested by Stalin in World War Two. Stalin suggested making super-warriors by

inbreeding human beings and apes [E.M. Johnson (2011) ‘Scientific ethics and Stalin’s ape-man super-warriors’ Scientific

American Blog. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/primate-diaries/stalins-ape-man-superwarriors/ ] It is of further interest to

note that talk of cross-breeding humans and animals to produce new species was considered in the speculations of some

enlightenment thinkers [A.S. Curren (2019) Diderot: And the art of thinking Freely, Other Press, NY, pp. 255-2580]

25 Pets occupy a unique place in our lives. Should they be given special consideration over other animals in enhancement?

Yeates and Savulescu point out pets both share our homes and are dependent on us and can be harmed or benefited by our

actions, emotionally as well as physically. Given this, the authors contend pets should have special ethical considerations beyond

those given to other animals. While the authors do not directly consider enhancement (genetic or technological), this would be an

outcome consistent with their position. J. Yeates & J. Savulescu (2017) ‘Companion animal ethics: a special area of moral theory

and practice?‘ Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 20, 347-359.

26 The field of robotics is itself worth exploring. A continually updated site on robotic development can be found at IEEE

Spectrum, Robotics. https://spectrum.ieee.org/robotics

27 See Ferrando (2014) for concerns along this path.

28 See E. Knowles & L. Tropp (2016) “Donald Trump and the rise of white identity politics,” The Conversation, Oct 20.

Chaplin (2017) points out, “The progress [we have made in the West on LGBTQ rights] ... doesn’t exist in most of the world: 74

(implicit and explicit) and self-serving desires will likely remain, cyborg or not, for the near

future at least.

Another social issue concerns who will have control over who gets what electronic

implants, and who decides what technologies are developed? Relatedly, manufacturers or

companies may add to their products information gathering programs or programs that, unknown

to us, subtly influence our behaviours or thought patterns. 29 While Harari in his book Homo

Deus expresses concern that a very small group of business entrepreneurs and engineers will be

in charge of the directions technology takes 30, the philosopher John Gray (2016) casts a wider

net and contends,

If such new species (including cyborgs) appear, they will be created by governments

and powerful corporations, and used by any group that can get its hands on them –

criminal cartels, terrorist networks, religious cults, and so on.31

The implications for our lives, following this line of thinking, at least in the short term,

are likely to be far-reaching. Consider the increase in social inequality, large financial disparities

between the very rich and the rest of society; usually the better off and more powerful members

of society can afford to acquire the most recent publicly available technologies first. 32 To keep

countries still criminalise homosexuality, including Russia and much of Africa and the Near East. Even where it’s legal, to be

identified as LGBTQ often leads to stigmatisation, harassment, assault. And all of these might yet increase. Gender conventions

are stubborn. So is racism. The Black Lives Matter movement states a goal – to make US law enforcement recognise blacks as

the equals of whites – that should not in 2017 be utopian, but is. The ‘Black Lives Matter’ slogan is….a comparison of some

human lives against others. And because the incidents of police violence that elicited the movement occurred after the financial

crisis of 2007-8, Black Lives Matter is [important] in identifying the persecution that comes with constrained economic

circumstances. Attacks on historically racialised individuals elsewhere have shown that the problem is global.” J. E. Chaplin, “Is

greatness finite?” Aeon Magazine, (online). https://aeon.co/essays/how-more-and-malthus-light-the-way-towards-humanitys-

future

29 See E. Schwitzgebel (2017) ‘In 25 years, your employer will directly control your moods’ Oct 26. The Splintered Mind Oct

26, http://schwitzsplinters.blogspot.ca/2017/10/in-25-years-your-employer-will-directly.html S contends that employers will be

able to control the moods and emotions of their employees (by drugs or direct brain stimulation) within a few decades and will

likely find ways of using that ability: “McDonald's might ask its cashiers to tweak their dials toward perky friendliness. Data

entry centers might ask their temp workers to tweak their dials toward undistractable focus. Brothels might ask their strippers to

tweak their dials toward sexual arousal”. We might also consider how other groups might manipulate emotions or moods such as

political organizations, large companies, criminal cartels (See Gray, 2019). Or might we be able to also modify our own minds:

could particular implants allow us to modify our own values, desires, tendencies? A discussion on this can be found at H. Shevlin

(guest post) (2017) ‘What would (or should) you do with administrator access to your mind’. The Splintered Mind blog, Aug 16.

http://schwitzsplinters.blogspot.ca/ This also brings up a lot of interesting issues around personal identity. One might also

consider the possibility that some changes might be so large that personal identity might continually change or may no longer be

considered a topic of relevance. A related issue is the possibility of cybog implants being hacked---a not remote possibility. One

might keep in mind in this regard, that results from MRI and CT scanners can potentially be hacked, putting false positives or

false negatives in readings. See K. Zetter (2019) ‘Hospital viruses: fake cancerous nodes in CT scans created by malware, trick

radiologists’. The Washington Post, April 3, https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/04/03/hospital-viruses-fake-

cancerous-nodes-ct-scans-created-by-malware-trick-radiologists/?utm_term=.b37bd7bf8099 and N. Wetsman (2019) ‘Health

care’s huge cybersecurity problem.’ The Verge, April 4, https://www.theverge.com/2019/4/4/18293817/cybersecurity-hospitals-

health-care-scan-simulation

30 A concern that Forer (2017) shares.

31 Gibb (2016) contends that military applications will be a large part of future research in human-computer interfaces.

32 A useful background on this ethical issue can be found in C. Wareham (2017) ‘How can life-extending treatments be

available for all?’ Aeon magazine online, August. https://aeon.co/ideas/how-can-life-extending-treatments-be-available-for-all.

up with even the average status quo most people will have to make severe cutbacks in budgets

regarding things they get enjoyment from such as food, hobbies, or Cialis. Some groups may,

assuming human biases are still prevalent and dominant, continue to face additional obstacles.

For one example, LGBTQ individuals desiring enhancing technologies could face not only bias

in the wider community but also obstacles from institutions such as insurance companies.

Political, financial, and social obstacles and biases would need to become part of the discussion

as technological advances allow us to modify more and more of our attributes. It should also be

mentioned that far from everyone is attached to the cyborg idea.

The futures suggested by Harari and Gray are indeed one possibility, but just that-- one

possibility. Swain (2014), on the other hand, contends the dystopian futures of competitive

hierarchies with some human-cyborgs at the top with non-augmented humans at the bottom

(Harari and Gray) to be unlikely, as people won’t be competing for augmentive implants but

rather, given the diverse interests and ways of life among human beings (given different personal

histories), people will choose to augment themselves in a great variety of different ways. But this

could result in other social problems. These different ways of life may also result in very

different implants and associated differing ways of thinking about the world. Just as different

species with different sensory organs may have different concepts and cognitive abilities than

human beings, cyborgization may contribute to different kinds of post-human species.33 While

adding artificial anatomical parts and implants that connect to the internet are one thing, larger,

more far reaching changes are likely. 34 For example, a change involving systems such as the

visual system might allow recipients to experience time on a different scale than unaltered

human beings.35 Along with such differing experiences of time that are tied in with implants

modifying cognitive abilities, and likely associated changes in psychologies might greatly

complicate our notion of differing species and notions of ‘the other’.

Hence, while in the early stages of cyborgization, social and financial inequalities might

develop among individuals and groups, more serious issues may arise in the longer term. Dyson

(2019) expresses the concern that our abilities to engage in genetic engineering (if poorly thought

through) may threaten the “nurture of a brotherhood of man”---our slowly being brought together

by the sharing of our arts and sciences across cultures with the ultimate goal of achieving “a

human society that is manageable if not always peaceful”. Buchanan and Powell express a

related view in their book The Evolution of Moral Progress (2018) 36. These authors contend that

an important aspect of what can be considered moral progress involves including more of ‘the

The topic under discussion considers the high likelihood that life-extending technologies would be initially available to

financially richer members of society with a further increase in inequality. We can substitute talk of ‘technological implants’ for

the article’s life-prolonging drugs. The concern is that the very rich will therefore always be one step ahead of the rest of us, as

only they will have access to the very newest technologies. Perhaps.

33 An excellent introduction to the differing ways terrestrial animals experience the world can be found in H. C. Hughes (1999)

Sensory Exotica. MIT Press. This book describes the senses that animals possess that we do not and the physiological and

structural biological organs that underlie such senses.

34 E.Reas (2014) ‘Small animals live in a slow-motion world’ Scientific American/Mind.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/small-animals-live-in-a-slow-motion-world/

35 Changes to human psychological makeup may be initially subtle but far reaching. As far as I know human beings are the

only species that collects things that have little direct survival value such as antiques, coins, stamps, etc. Could changes in

cognitive structure inadvertently eliminate or modify such interests. Taken further, its difficult to imagine a cyborg hoarder.

36 A. Buchanan & R. Powell (2018) The Evolution of Moral Progress: A Biocultural Theory. Oxford University Press.

other’ under people worthy of moral consideration. Dyson considers other conditions where the

slow ongoing ‘brotherhood of man’ may reverse, namely, where cultural evolution conflicts with

our biological evolution. If our cultural evolution supports large bodily implant modifications as

suggested in the previous paragraph, central notions across areas such as the arts and sciences,

morality and political arrangements may widen with unknown consequences. Further, talk of

making a ‘more humane society’ will become increasing problematic in that human beings as we

now know them will no longer exist as a single species.

Final Thoughts

Before I unplug myself, I’d like to just acknowledge the obvious, that we don’t have any

solid ideas about any long-term future positives or negatives that may be associated with

increasing cyborgization, or even whether cyborgization will even increase, despite its popularity

and attention in the present-day media.37 History has also shown that predictions about the future

(usually utopian or dystopian), 38 are far from certain. It also goes without saying, so I’ll say it,

even if cyborgian technologies become available and prevalent, it is likely that not all will buy

into the technologies for political, philosophical, religious, or even personal reasons. A number

of people would not even consider the super-powered ‘Six-Million Dollar Man’ of 1970’s TV

fame a cyborg (even though he is considered one under the Wikipedia definition) since he

retained largely human cognitive, emotional and moral abilities and concerns. Very different

cognitive or emotional structures may be required for the label ‘cyborg’ for such individuals. The

largest changes to human nature may likely involve genetic engineering rather than technological

implants which may enhance our already-present human abilities rather than provide us with

extensive totally new abilities, which will be reserved for robots and other artificial intelligences.

On the physical level, in the foreseeable future, all sorts of medical and engineering

problems would likely arise with the addition of such foreign parts into our biological bodies (we

would need things like 10,000 hour warranties and maintenance/servicing contracts). Just as

unpredictable consequences occur today with drug interactions, we would want to avoid serious

internal electronic implant interactions.39 We don’t know how having an increasing number of or

37 Especially when we also have to consider interactions between cyborgization along with the rapid changes in the virtual

realities in which we are immersing our lives. An excellent book on how virtual reality increasing affects all aspects of our lives

can be found in J. Gackenbach & J. Bown (Ed.) (2017) Boundaries of self and reality online. Academic Press. In chapter 6 de

Gortari and Griffiths describe the effects of virtual video game worlds on frequent players. The authors point out that the in-game

experiences have carry-over effects into everyday life. As such worlds become more sophisticated and immersive and interact

with technological bodily implants that may enhance or produce totally new experiences, the effects on notions of self and

identity, interpersonal relationships and world-views will be likely unimaginable.

38 P. J. Bowler (2017) A History of the Future: Prophets of Progress from H G Wells to Isaac Asimov. OUP. Bowler provides an

enjoyable survey of popular science, science fiction, films, and news media pieces about what life might be like in the later 20th

and 21st centuries. The book is of interest because it reflects many 19th and 20th century public perceptions of science and

technology and how they were thought might unfold in the near future.

39 Unforeseen consequences often come with new scientific advances. Some consequences end up more serious than others. In

this regard, one might keep in mind the drug thalidomide which was prescribed treatment for morning sickness with its severe

malformation effects on developing embryos. The drug seems to have had few, if any, negative effects when given to non-

pregnant adults. [see N. Vargesson (2015) Thalidomide-induced teratogenesis: history and mechanisms. Birth Defects Research C

Embryo Today, 105, 140-156). Another example, might be the famous case of Dolly the Sheep, the first mammal to be

successfully cloned from an adult body cell. One unexpected effect associated with Dolly was that she aged faster than normal

sheep. [see K. Murray (2017) 20 years after Dolly the Sheep, potential of cloning remains unclear. CNN Health,

https://www.cnn.com/2017/02/24/health/dolly-the-sheep-cloning-anniversary/index.html ]. Even if effects are not negative, they

can be unanticipated and far ranging. Consider the Russian fox domestication study done in the early 1950’s where pups

exhibiting the most human-friendly behaviors were interbred. While one would expect docility to be a resulting trait (and it was),

types of implanted devices may interact with our biological body over time, or the implants with

each other. Could implants eventually even change the brain structure itself in unanticipated

ways in groups with particular implants? 40

We will just have to wait and see. It would seem however, that implants that enhance or

modify or provide human beings with new cognitive possibilities would likely require us to

modify our psychology textbooks, religious beliefs and philosophical insights.

Hopefully, the wide variety of articles, with their differing views, in the references below

and others may provide a start to such engagements.

WHAT DO YOU THINK?

Are you a Cyborg 2019

Abstract

Recommended publications

Technology Matters: Questions to Live With

Showcasing antiquities while embracing technology. The Smithsonian Institute's information age exhib...

Live real-time animation leveraging machine learning and game engine technology

Enhanced Living Environments: From Models to Technologies