Page - 236 - in Cyborg Mind - What Brain–Computer and Mind–Cyberspace Interfaces Mean for Cyberneuroethics

236 • Cyborg Mind she warns that there is a very real danger of dehumanising individuals if sci- ence and technology are left to reign supreme as a force that cannot be con- strained. In this she quotes the German politician and despot Adolf Hitler (1889–1945) in Mein Kampf,29 who died after her, when he argued that humanity must never be so naive as to believe that it can be lord and master of the laws of Nature. Instead, he indicated that human beings must under- stand and accept the fundamental necessity of Nature’s rule where physical scientific force alone is forever master. In other words, Hitler believed that there could be no special laws for humanity outside the laws of Nature.30 In this regard, Weil explains that such a belief expresses the only reason- able conclusion if a world is closed into, and reduced to, physical science. And, in a way, the whole of Hitler’s life was nothing more than the imple- mentation of this conclusion and what he believed to be true. Weil then suggests that those with a similar belief in the mastery and domination of the laws of Nature, science and technology may simply be fooling themselves in thinking that they are on a different road from him.31 This implies that a dif- ferent ethical view is necessary for humanity to flourish  – one that does not imprison or reduce itself to science. Society therefore needs to be careful in terms of always seeking to pro- tect human dignity. That not everything will be positive in the future with the widespread use of neuronal interface systems should be acknowledged. Indeed, in Diderot’s dialogues, his friend d’Alembert recognises that with some of these new technologies, human beings could eventually become some ‘great, inert, motionless sediment’.32 Similarly, James Hughes warns against the risks of a dystopian future, stressing that: We need guidelines and policies to steer human evolution away from dead ends of radical selfishness and addictive absorption, and towards greater socia- bility, self-awareness and reason. Even self-chosen brain engineering could make us all less than human, and we need instead to encourage one another to enhance the virtues that we value.33 Haraway also comments on the risk of ‘fusion’ of the different leading to ‘confusion’ by an undermining of clear differences.34 At the same time and in discussing the ‘cybernetic’ term borrowed by Wiener, the British theologian and technology commentators, Scott Midson, asks: ‘[A]re humans still the steersmen of these [cyborgian] technologies; are humans still in control?’35 Careful and prudent discussions in cyberneuroethics are, therefore, neces- sary for humanity to protect itself from losing its humanity through the use of new direct neuronal interfaces. This means that society must remain vigilant in the face of future prospects, while trying to understand why it wants a differ- ent future from the present and, if it does, what kind of future it really wants. 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.