There have been many discussions in this class regarding the
link between humans and technology—starting with Slack’s cyborg theory. People
rely upon technology, and oftentimes carry it around with them like an extra
limb. In fact, in chapter six of his book, Fuchs explains that Google would
eventually like to plug directly into peoples’ brains. However, step one of
achieving this goal is convincing people that it is a good idea.
Exploitation is another important theme that we always seem
to revisit. Users of social media are exploited due to the fact that they
contribute to a company’s financial success without receiving any monetary
compensation. Although people oftentimes know that they are being exploited,
they continue to use social media sites regardless. Perhaps people are
conditioned to believe that social media does not exploit at all? Perhaps
people are conditioned to rely upon social media so much that the cost of use
is negligible? Is it such a stretch to think that future generations could be
conditioned to believe that Google brain implants are beneficial? Could they be
conditioned to think it is actually necessary?
All it takes is one person willing to try the implant. If
the trial runs successfully and this person has instant answers to any question
thought of, others may be persuaded to try, as well. It could eventually spread
through society like wildfire, making a Google plug-in a social—perhaps even
professional—necessity. If ever that
came to pass, then the human-technology relationship will have unquestionably
rendered a cyborg society.
Aside from Google being able to track every thought of a
person, they may also be able to control them. When watching Kingsmen: The Secret Service I noticed a
particular scene that made me think of Google brain implants. A fictitious technology
guru, by the name of Richmond Valentine, convinced many political and social leaders
around the world to implant a chip into their head which would ‘save’ them from
the upcoming revolution. Instead, these chips were used to kill them. Thankfully, the producer of this movie chose
a more comical representation than realistic. Hopefully this is not a forecast
of our future. Enjoy:
This is an interesting direction to take from our class discussions Sami. I want to respond to your notion and expand on them in several ways. First: I would like to suggest expanding your notion of exploitation beyond that of simply work being paid or unpaid. I think that exploitation is better understood as unequal benefit as a result of collaborative effort. This perspective certainly includes the issue of social media companies not monetarily compensating users for their labour, but can be extended to include interactions where workers are underpaid as well. This nuanced understanding is important as there is not a total absence of payment with social media companies and users, as a service is provided, but rather that users are seriously underpaid.
ReplyDeleteMoving on to the specific issue that you raise: the debate around it has been going on for quite some time. It is worth noting that the implementation of electronic implants is already a reality. An example of the full utilization of such a technology might be the tracking chips that are commonly implanted in pets. In terms of humans embeddable implants (beyond hobbyist’s applications) are already in full development:
http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/08/tech/forget-wearable-tech-embeddable-implants
Additionally the debate surrounding the issue of cyborg implants has been going on for quite some time. Two rather important modern figures in it are Ray Kurzwiel and Ted Kaczynski. Kurzwiel is a futurist who thinks that technology will develop to a point where we all become cyborg super-humans that will basically live forever…. No seriously. He is currently doing everything he can to prolong his life so that computer and nano-bot technology might develop to the point where he can use it to prolong his life. His position seems absolutely odd and questionable making Google’s employment of him as their Director of Engineering somewhat concerning. For more information check out:
http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/272344
On the other side of the debate is Ted Kaczynski (aka the Unabomber). He is an explosive math professor (my apologies for the pun which is in extremely bad taste) who graduated from Harvard. He was (and presumably still is) gravely concerned about the potential for control that he saw inherent within the development and use of intensive communication technologies. It is absolutely worth noting that he protested over his concerns in a horrible and inexcusable manner by mailing bombs to several university labs that were developing the technologies which he opposed. Regardless he may still have had point (as your post suggests). For more information check out the Wikipedia article about him
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Kaczynski#Bombings
These two individuals may represent the poles of this debate: one sees the intensification of computing power in relation to cyborgs as wonderful and the other thinks that the world will end. I will not delve into this here but I largely agree with your cautious approach. Perhaps this type of development of the potential of the human cyborg (as we all are already cyborgs to some extent) may be used for good, but we should be proceed carefully.
Hey Sami, your mention of Kingsmen reminded me of other movies that feature cyborgs and how people in the movies and in real life perceive these blends of humans and machines. In particular, the idea of one being controlling others through a network is a common sight in many science fiction media; Skynet in the Terminator franchise being a prominent example. However, I was looking through other examples of networking and was interested to see how the gestalt or group mind can be an alternative to one controlling entity ordering everyone around through a network.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that the notions of technology being programed within our own bodies would catch on within society like wildfire. While I cannot prove this, the idea of having a cell phone never seemed to be a good idea to me, personally. I fought having a phone for years, however, eventually felt like an outsider for being up-to-date, unable to catch up with friends while on-the-go. I feel this phenomenon works on another level, with the newest iPhone technology, as many will replace their devices as soon as the newest one becomes available. If these technologies become part of the larger system of capitalistic material gain, one can assume that as technology becomes more intrusive in our bodies, the same technologies created by Google will be necessary in order to access Google’s necessary platforms. As we have learned from Fuchs, Google owns much of the internet and information we access on a daily basis. In order to implement a technology which furthers exploitation, would Google not make this technology mandatory in order to create revenue?
ReplyDeleteThis is a very interesting way to look at the close connections people have with their devices. Although I think that a “cyborg explosion” in the nature that you described it is unlikely (at least in the near future), I think you are onto something with the consequences of this scenario. The possible consequences of a cyborg explosion you listed are certainly existent within contemporary social media; (1) it is becoming a social and professional necessity, (2) it can track thoughts, and (3) we seem to be approaching a “cyborg society.”
ReplyDeleteThe first consequence was argued by Andrejevic: information infrastructures allow for disproportionate power in the sense that users exchange their submission to comprehensive surveillance for “access to resources that have an increasingly important role to play in [users] social and professional lives” (Andrejevic, 2013, 9).
The second consequence was argued by Gehl (2014) in his discussion on socialbots. He pointed out that the the human mind can be understood as finite in the sense that it can be encoded, manipulated and imitated by computers. The possibility of creating social bots proves the ability to aggregate users’ thoughts. This is because socialbots are a reflection of human activity and they tell us that data are being abstracted and standardized to the point that information from the mind can be imitated by bots.
The third consequence requires the definition of a “cyborg:” a person whose physical abilities are extended beyond normal human limitations by mechanical elements built into the body. Digital devices and social media surely afford abilities that extend beyond normal human limits. Mechanical elements built into the body that afford these abilities have not yet been widespread. However, mechanical elements worn on the body, surely have become prominent in many respects, particularly with health-tracking devices.
Although your ideas were interesting, and seem to be quite a stretch, the consequences you raised from the “cyborg explosion” are quite familiar concepts within the parameters of this course.
Slack's definition of cyborg is different than "a person whose physical abilities are extended beyond normal human limitations by mechanical elements built into the body." Pointing to Andy Clark's book 'Natural Born-Cyborgs' (2003), Slack says "we have always restructured out bodies, our mental circuitry, and our social and cultural well being in relation to organisms and artifacts outside of "the skin bag." We have always, in that sense, been cyborg" (Slack 152). I would argue that, according to Slack's definition, we already are cyborg, but just haven't gotten to the point where we physically embed the technology into our body on a regular basis ... except perhaps in the case of ocular implants, or dental implants, or hip replacements. Even artificial limbs now contain technology that link them to the physical body in new and exciting ways. I think we're already well on our way down the path to being cyborg, starting with the smartphone held in your hand. How many of us don't feel complete without this little, powerful device, even if it's not permanently attached to our physical bodies?
ReplyDelete