No time like the present to discuss cyborg rights

Illustration for article titled No time like the present to discuss cyborg rights

Though creatures like the Terminator are still scifi dreams, cyborgs already exist in real life. Millions of people use mechanical implants to improve their lives. That opens up urgent questions about cyborg rights, particularly in athletics.

Advertisement

Dr. Roger Clarke, visiting professor at the Australian National University, is using his keynote speech at this week's IEEE International Symposium on Technology and Society to discuss what he sees as the most crucial issues in the field of cyborg rights. Using a term like "cyborg" may make it seem as though Clarke is engaging in an abstract thought experiment for far future ethics, but he argues the recent advances in mechanical and electromechanical implants makes this very much a topic for the here and now.

As he sees it, anything that gives humans abilities they would otherwise lack counts as a form of "cyborgization." Early pacemakers, basic prostheses*, and procedures like renal dialysis kicked off the trend, but the types of possible implants have hugely diversified in recent years, extending to restoring sight, hearing, and even function in the neural system. He sees all of this as having major implications for human rights, and perhaps no recent example illustrates this better than the case of South African sprinter Oscar Pistorius, pictured above.

Advertisement

Pistorius is a double amputee who uses prosthetic legs made of carbon fiber and titanium to compete in track events. He holds the Paralympic records in the 100, 200, and 400 meter events, and has since began competing against able-bodied athletes. These efforts have met with resistance from the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF), the governing body for all major athletic events. They claimed Pistorius should not be allowed to compete in the Olympic or Commonwealth games because his legs were mechanically superior to those of his able-bodied competitors, giving him an unfair advantage.

Clarke articulates this issue in terms of competing human rights:

"He is making a claim that he has a right to compete against able-bodied athletes in the same races and, in the event that he comes first, second or third, be awarded the appropriate ribbon or medal. The IAAF is claiming in effect that either, no he doesn't have that right, or the rights of able-bodied athletes to not have to compete against enhanced humans trumps his rights."

Clarke sees how this argument could cut both ways, as able-bodied athletes might seek the right to use performance-enhancing technology (which, for their disabled counterparts, is performance-enabling) in races. After all, as Clarke points out, although the average times in races using leg prostheses are slower than those using flesh-and-blood legs, wheelchair races often have faster times than either.

If Pistorius has the right to compete with able-bodied athletes regardless of any theoretical mechanical advantage, should wheelchair races also be opened up to all competitors? Clarke doesn't offer an immediate answer, but he argues it's better to hash these questions out now than at a time when technology has progressed so far that the lines have become irrevocably blurred.

Advertisement

Although his wheelchair scenario might seem a bit far-fetched, other aids for the purpose of augmenting normal functions are more clearly within the realm of possibility. Cochlear implants could go from providing the deaf an approximation of normal hearing to boosting those with properly functioning ears to almost superhuman levels. Various retinal implants could allow people to record and send everything they observe without anyone else realize what they're doing.

These possibilities open up a number of question, such as whether people have the right to these implants when a pressing need for them does not exist, and whether people have the right to augment themselves in ways that could have privacy implications for others. One of the thorniest issues is whether people have the right to refuse implants, such as scenarios in which prisoners are given chips to restrict and monitor their movement.

Advertisement

Clarke sums up what cyborgization means for human rights:

"People who are using prostheses to recover lost capabilities will seek to protect their existing rights. People who have lost capabilities but have not yet got the relevant prostheses will seek the right to have them. Enhanced humans will seek additional rights, to go with the additional capabilities that they have."

Advertisement

There are no clear answers yet for how to navigate these complex ethical debates, but Clarke does offer at least one concrete solution: all engineers and developers of prostheses and implants must consider the broader implications of their technologies and make these potential consequences clear to various institutions before sending them to market.

*This means, by Clarke's logic, that the pirate ships of old were full of cyborgs, what with all the hooks and peg legs. You have no idea how hard I had to fight to resist the urge to turn this post into a discussion of cyborg pirates.

Advertisement

[ABC Science]

Share This Story

Get our newsletter

DISCUSSION

malcontent79
Malcontent79

This is a great article.

I've seen aspects of this struggle in my own life (in a way) because I'm partly deaf and need a hearing aid in order to function anywhere near normally amongst the normies.

Employers either love me or hate me because hiring me could show how progressive they are in their hiring practices, but having a guy around with crappy hearing is a pain in the ass.

Just as a nitpick/point of trivia: The hearing technology you're talking about wouldn't be much good to someone who didn't actually have a disability. I can't get a cochlear implant for my right ear because I still have some hearing in my left. The mechanical vs. natural inputs are too different for people to make proper use of them. Even a regular hearing aid will do more harm than good, used by a non-deaf person: The amplified sound direct to your eardrums will likely CAUSE hearing loss.

So in a way, this is almost a moot point because few if any of these technologies in their current state are even usable to normal people. I.e. if you want a bionic leg, it really does mean you've gotta wreck your natural one to get it. And current state of the art, per my understanding, has the aim of getting you as close as possible to "normal".

We need to start worrying about this in earnest when the implants, etc., begin to be designed to go *beyond* normal.

Mind you, I have come up with a lot of workarounds that could be considered an unfair advantage. Like lip-reading as an easily-understandable example. So there's that. *grin*

As far as competing with everyone else goes: I think it's a weird situation, and I'm honestly not sure how I feel about it. I rather suspect it's the kind of thing best handled on a case-by-case basis.

PS: I totally want to see that cyborg-pirate article also. Toot-fuckin'-sweet. (haha)