Seite - 104 - in Cyborg Mind - What Brain–Computer and Mind–Cyberspace Interfaces Mean for Cyberneuroethics

104 • Cyborg Mind national level or may even impose their use if they believe they could bring greater benefits to society. This has already happened, for example, with certain immunisation programmes in some countries.8 There might even be a strong public interest argument in making neuronal interfaces compulsory if it could be demonstrated that such appliances may lead to a more stable society. It is also worth noting that the potential military use of neuronal applica- tions is already of interest to national defence agencies seeking to maximise the performance of soldiers. As a result, this may mean that if such interfaces are available to one side in a conflict, pressure will mount for others to have them as well.9 The Risk of Increasing Inequality in Society A final risk for society arising from neuronal interfaces that may need further discussion is that they may actually increase inequality. Indeed, whilst such interfaces may bring certain benefits to individuals, they may also accentuate a competitive and individualistic success culture, which may be detrimental to the cohesion of a fair and descent society within which everyone can flour- ish. Moreover, at least initially, it is likely that the appliances may only be available to those who are willing and able to pay. The fairness argument focuses on the future of society and recognises that, for good or for ill, financial resources are not usually spread evenly across the general public.10 Consequently, some individuals may be unable to afford any or only certain neuronal interface enhancements. As with all techno- logical developments, the cost would certainly exceed what some people could afford. Thus, unless limited to those who had the appropriate means, the interfaces could become a serious financial drain on the resources of an already fragile economy. Moreover, the financial intervention of healthcare providers introduces other interested parties into the already complex web of professional bodies with a stake in interfaces. More seriously, however, the cost of the neuronal interfaces may lead to inequalities amongst future individuals. But in some respects, this unfairness already exists in many other areas of public life. Any individual who accepts the right of parents to put their children into an expensive private school or hospital cannot really use the fairness argument as a reason for rejecting the use of neuronal interfaces. Nevertheless, the central point of this fairness argument emphasises that these inequalities should not be strengthened or encouraged in any way. Indeed, the sufferings of the poor may be multiplied by the use of neuronal interface enhancements, since they would have to contend with technological discrimination in addition to the limitations that they already experience because of their economic situation.11 An example of This open access edition has been made available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license thanks to the support of Knowledge Unlatched. Not for resale.