Co-Author Anthony Morrell
- https://blogs.bmj.com/medical-ethics/2017/03/21/so-what-is-not-to-like-about-3d-bioprinting/
- https://medium.com/@lexikon1/the-ethics-of-experimentation-ethical-cybernetic-enhancements-48f9ad991769
As technologists, we strive to improve and advance whenever possible. And so, there arise questions. Where is the line in the sand when it comes to improving ourselves? One might argue that our current technology use is already equivalent to direct enhancement in every way that matters: our devices store our data, allow for distant communication, provide a lookup tool for research and entertainment, and never leave our hands. If they are already effectively part of ourselves as humans… how different would it really be if they were built-in?
Some might argue that our fundamental humanity requires us to be human. Others might argue that there is no inherent good or bad to the many flaws of the human race, and that any improvement makes us better. What is being human? What is life? Both questions worth asking, but philosophers be damned; we have a chance to take the next step and find out for ourselves! The best part of this technology is that it is currently in a democratizing phase. 3D printers are becoming more common, and ‘biohacking’ has grown from nothing to become an active and tight-knit community in just a short few decades. Low-level cyborgs are no longer a thing of the future, but part of the here and now. And that is pretty cool.
But to branch into the other side: bioprinting. The construction of living matter. This is extremely cool and useful, but it does raise some ethical concerns, especially when combined with cybernetic implants. Could malicious software be installed on a bio-printed organ? What are the risks if such an organ malfunctions? Fortunately, these are not yet software concerns as much as biological or legal concerns.
Back to cyborgs, we aren’t (yet) living in a scifi world. We should worry less about creating a dystopia and more about creating better tools for a better quality of life. A more informed, better connected, and more capable humanity is a better humanity. As programmers, we aren’t designing cyborg attachments, but we might make software for them. We aren’t designing bioprinted organs, but we might be iterating on learning machines that do. Ultimately these applications serve to remind us how essential it is to produce thorough, accurate, and precise code; because it might become fundamentally part of someone’s life.
So, ethically, we need to be sure of the security of such systems; and we also have an obligation to develop and improve those systems, as they are the first step towards improving the fundamental status of the human condition. But as only a small part in a big machine, the best we can do is our best. The cyborg apocalypse won’t happen without a lot of other fields working together to make any of this possible.