SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Changes in technology often produce ethical quandaries that did not previously exist. The successful transplantation of human hearts lead some to re-define death as "brain-death", so as to allow removal of organs for transplants. Now we may be faced with similar need for new definitions and limitations, as tech moves into neural interfaces. The article is to be found at Vox.
“Nothing was your own except the few cubic centimeters inside your skull.” That’s from George Orwell’s dystopian novel 1984, published in 1949. The comment is meant to highlight what a repressive surveillance state the characters live in, but looked at another way, it shows how lucky they are: At least their brains are still private.
Over the past few weeks, Facebook and Elon Musk’s Neuralink have announced that they’re building tech to read your mind — literally.
Mark Zuckerberg’s company is funding research on brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) that can pick up thoughts directly from your neurons and translate them into words. The researchers say they’ve already built an algorithm that can decode words from brain activity in real time.
And Musk’s company has created flexible “threads” that can be implanted into a brain and could one day allow you to control your smartphone or computer with just your thoughts. Musk wants to start testing in humans by the end of next year.
Of course, with medical technology, one could always make the argument that the issue was saving humans lives. Somehow we do not suspect that Zuckerberg or Musk are contaminated by such motives.
Your brain, the final privacy frontier, may not be private much longer.
Some neuroethicists argue that the potential for misuse of these technologies is so great that we need revamped human rights laws — a new “jurisprudence of the mind” — to protect us. The technologies have the potential to interfere with rights that are so basic that we may not even think of them as rights, like our ability to determine where our selves end and machines begin. Our current laws are not equipped to address this.
It's an in-depth article; a few highlights:
One of the main people pushing for these new human rights is neuroethicist Marcello Ienca, a researcher at ETH Zurich, one of Europe’s top science and technology universities. In 2017, he released a paper outlining four specific rights for the neurotechnology age he believes we should enshrine in law. I reached out to ask what he thought of the recent revelations from Facebook and Neuralink.
The four rights are:
1. The right to cognitive liberty
You should have the right to freely decide you want to use a given neurotechnology or to refuse it.
. . .
2. The right to mental privacy
You should have the right to seclude your brain data or to publicly share it.
. . . .
3. The right to mental integrity
You should have the right not to be harmed physically or psychologically by neurotechnology.
. . .
4. The right to psychological continuity
You should have the right to be protected from alterations to your sense of self that you did not authorize.
Alright, I know what you are thinking; wait, no, I don't! Not really. Let's keep it that way.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 19 2019, @08:06AM (1 child)
Different AC here. I think you need to read up a little more on intersectionality before critiquing other peoples understanding of it. This is something that has come from Critical Theory and is basically an re-expression of the old Marxist idea of the bourgeoisie oppressing the proletariat, but now instead of the proletariat we have all the plethora of identity groups - so we can now castigate everyone as oppressors or defend as the oppressed depending upon the prevailing political expediency. I believe this is what is driving a lot of the nasty "cancel culture" which we have seen so very recently WRT RMS.
(Score: 2) by meustrus on Thursday September 19 2019, @09:28PM
Scruton's musings on intersectionality involved people adopting the identities of other disadvantaged groups. I think I saw that on the news once, actually. Generally, though, intersectional feminists don't start acting like they're all African-American too.
The plethora of identity groups is part of the bourgeoisie oppression. It has been for centuries. It is, in fact, the reason why southern states stopped keeping white slaves in the 18th century. Poor whites are still shafted by intentional public policy. Red scares aren't what keep them from rising up. White supremacy is. They're placated by burning crosses, knowing that they're better than someone else...who could have been an ally for economic justice.
Intersectionality is intended as a remedy to this. Radicals in the 60s and 70s understood that they were up against a big, big adversary and that they would need allies. All it takes is to be "disadvantaged".
I suppose it would be nice if we could all agree that trailer trash are disadvantaged similar to gang bangers. Seems like there's a lot of old hurt to process first, though, starting with that whole confederate flag thing. Not saying it has to go, just that it has to be for everyone or no one. I dunno, maybe the descendants of slaves could be convinced it was some kind of Springtime for Hitler thing to reclaim the flag for actual rebellion's sake.
As for "cancel culture", I'm quite sure that its intent is fundamentally to change culture. As I understand it, people trying to prevent certain abuses from going unpunished are so sick of the excuses that they're willing to accept some collateral damage. But the goal is still to end those abuses. Just like laws against murder are intended to prevent murder for fear for the consequences.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?