Page - 235 - in Cyborg Mind - What Brain–Computer and Mind–Cyberspace Interfaces Mean for Cyberneuroethics

Conclusion • 235 It is also impossible to predict how individuals would behave. For exam- ple, if it was possible to decrease suffering or increase life extensions, it is difficult to determine what kind of risks persons may be prepared to take. Diderot suggests that: ‘Vouchsafe a man, I don’t say immortality, but only twice his normal span, and see what will happen!’26 But real and practical applications already exist, which need to be consid- ered. For instance, even if at present some interface systems are nonintru- sive and reversible, their effects on the brain may themselves be irreversible, making it important to inform any potential users of their consequences. Moreover, the fact that some brain implants are less intrusive than other forms of treatment, such as neurosurgery, is not sufficient from an ethical perspective for them to be used without further questioning. Neuronal interfaces and their applications in creating a connection between the human mind and cyberspace should also not be used in a manner that may undermine the very meaning of being a person, such as when the free will of an individual is taken away. This means that non- consensual treatment or compulsion can only rarely, and only in the most extreme circumstances, be justified for an individual patient or a wider class of patients or persons. Limiting autonomy can only be considered as a result of clear and objective medical criteria while respecting human dignity and the appropriate procedural safeguards.27 Another concern relates to the way in which this new technology is accessed, since it should not just be restricted to a rich minority who can afford it. Instead, it should be offered to as many individuals as possible so that societal inequalities can be redressed. For instance, if it is proved to be safe, wider access to cognitive enhancements procedures should be available to all who have cognitive limitations, even if they only have limited financial resources. In the same way, any potential changes to a human being should always be considered in the light of protecting humanity as such. The educated lady in Diderot’s dialogue considered the possibility of deconstructing a mind of a genius for storage, and then reconstructing it to examine ‘memory, ability to make comparisons, judgement, reason, desires, aversions, passions, natural aptitudes, talent, and lo! My man of genius again’.28 However, creating geniuses who live forever without experiencing suffer- ing cannot be the final aim of humanity if it is to remain human. Indeed, if suffering was completely eliminated through science and technology, impor- tant human capacities such as empathy, responsibility and even certain forms of sacrificial love would also be lost. The French philosopher Simone Weil (1909–43) discussed the difficulty in recognising that science is the master of everything in the universe while still believing that there is a certain value and worth in humanity. As such, 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.