Page - 231 - in Cyborg Mind - What Brain–Computer and Mind–Cyberspace Interfaces Mean for Cyberneuroethics

Conclusion • 231 Orwell (1903–1950), entitled Nineteen Eighty-Four, which described a soci- ety that completely controls all its members in their everyday lives. When this latter book was published, Huxley sent a letter to Orwell indicating that he believed that the Nineteen Eighty–Four dystopia ‘is destined to modulate into the nightmare of a world having more resemblance to that which I imag- ined in Brave New World. The change will be brought about as a result of a felt need for increased efficiency’.7 However, in 2015, Roger Strand and Matthias Kaiser from the University of Bergen in Norway came to a different conclusion indicating that: Whereas Orwell’s 1984 mainly thematise[s] violent oppression, Brave New World creates the scenario of a world in which violent oppression no longer is needed because human desires for rights and freedoms have changed. Identity, dignity and integrity as we know it, have ceased to exist. We believe that the type of scenario presented by Brave New World is neither unthinkable nor necessarily unlikely anymore.8 This may mean that society should begin to earnestly examine, reflect and discuss the ethical dilemmas and possible social consequences arising, in the near future, from developments in neurotechnologies. Indeed, what was unthinkable by society at some stage in history often becomes reality more quickly than envisaged. As Braude explains: The temptation to improve society through improving mental capacity, or even shore up political power through neural interventions, is an issue that might seem futuristic but that requires close ethical foresight. The traditional bioethics principles of autonomy, beneficence, and justice are not penetrating enough to deal with these issues that may transform the neurobiological foun- dations of human liberty, instead they require sustained reflection in terms of biopolitics.9 With new developments in direct neuronal interface systems, it may indeed be possible in the future to control behaviour and thoughts by manipulat- ing the brain under the initial pretext of enhancing the cognitive faculties of human beings. It may also be feasible for the mind of an individual to develop in cyberspace, raising questions about the identity, dignity and integ- rity of this person. As a result, there is certainly a need to consider any risks to freedoms that may arise from such new technologies. This is all the more complex because, as O’Brolchain and Gordijn explain, it may be possible for neuronal interfaces to be used for dual use, meaning that: ‘Whilst they will offer many therapeutic and social benefits, they will also provide those with malevolent aims with greater control and knowledge, and thus with greater capabilities to cause harm.’10 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.