Journal of Research and Development
Open Access

Human Enhancement and Our Cyborg Future Pilot (Survey) Study

Cebo Daniel^{* *}Correspondence: Cebo Daniel, Department of Biotechnology and Medicine, Lifeboat Foundation, Nevada, USA, Email:

Author info »

About the Study

Human augmentation, defined as the use of technology to mimic or enhance a person's body and cognition, has made significant progress, with engineers, entrepreneurs, and policymakers investigating new and viable applications all over the world. Human augmentation can be divided into three levels: replication, supplementation, and exceeding human capability [1-3]. Replication is augmentation that mimics a skill that a regular person already possesses [4,5]. The most widely used examples include hearing aids, glasses, and prostheses.

The next stage of replication augmentation entails implanting or hosting various technological components in a person's body, like wearable gadgets that are already used to collect biometric data or communicate with gadgets [6]. Several examples already exist, including a 3D thumb that improves dexterity, an interactive digital skin tattoo that can control devices and monitor your health, extremely protective headgear that inflates into a helmet upon impact, glasses that enable people who are colorblind to see the full spectrum of light, and more [7]. Supplementation, which moves replication one step further by strengthening mental and physical constraints to reimagine what it means to be human, is the second phase of augmentation.

Exoskeletons, wearable mechanical devices that give users artificial strength and endurance, real-time dialogue translation earbuds, Google Glass, and Elon Musk's brain-computer interface project Neuralink are a few examples [8]. The last stage of augmentation enables humans to go beyond their natural capabilities. It is one of the most exciting, but it's also the furthest away. Hoverboards driven by turbines, invisibility cloaks, artificial blood cells, nanobots, and synthetic memory chips are a few examples of emerging technologies [9-11].

Survey study

A new study suggests that there is rising interest for human augmentation. 14,500 people in 16 countries across Europe and North Africa were online surveyed between March and July 2022 as part of a survey commissioned by the cyberbiosecurity initiative CyberBioCode and conducted in collaboration with Prof. Daniel Cebo. The results revealed sharply divergent opinions on what people would improve ethical and security conundrums, and governmental regulation. According to the survey, 90% respondents believe they would better themselves if they could, while just under two-thirds would think about temporarily or permanently enhancing their physical features.

Contrary to their (more technologically advanced) northern neighbors, respondents from southern Europe and Morocco expressed much greater excitement about the idea of human enhancement. When compared to responders from the UK, who were just 28%, an overwhelming 71% of Italians said they would contemplate augmentation. The most receptive populations are those in the Iberian countries of Spain and Portugal, where 55% of the population in each country thinks the idea is acceptable.

Overall, the UK and France have the highest levels of skepticism, with 39% of Brits and 25% of French adults opposing the idea and more than half (48%) and 51% respectively believing it to be a danger to society. Moroccans, the only non-Europeans surveyed for the study, have the highest levels of optimism (45%) on the potential of human enhancement to promote equality and level the playing field, while Brits (17%) and Swiss (19%) have the lowest levels of optimism. In accordance with 51% of Moroccans, All respondents who supported human augmentation ranked general physical health (38%) as their top priority, and their main arguments for doing so were that it may raise people's quality of life (50%) and lessen suffering (31%).

The wishes and expectations of the respondents were similarly influenced by age and gender. While younger respondents were more interested in improving their beauty and athletic prowess, older respondents had a greater level of support for augmentation that would improve their health. Compared to 32% of women, 40% of males said it was appropriate to add technology to their bodies. Women were more interested in acquiring a more appealing figure, while males were more likely to want more strength (20% compared to 15% of women) [12].

Compared to 10% of men, only 1.6% of women stated they would enhance their genitalia. Additionally, women (20%) were marginally more inclined than males (13%) to be concerned rather than enthusiastic about augmentation. Almost half (46%) of people surveyed think that governments should control human modification. Greece is the most opposed to government intervention (16%), while the UK is most in favor (69%). Still, some skepticism exists. Among those surveyed, 64%think that only the wealthy would benefit from augmentation, and 79% worry that cybercriminals could hack their bodies. Other major worries include devices breaking down (81%) and harming the body permanently (75%) [13,14].

Conclusion

One of the most important technological trends of our day is human enhancement. In areas of our daily life including athletics, education, transportation, and health and social care, we already see a wide variety of practical applications being implemented. People are correct to be cautious, though. In order to ensure that augmentation realizes its full potential while minimizing hazards, we need generally accepted standards. Augmentation enthusiasts are already pushing the boundaries of what is feasible .

Nearly two thirds of people in leading Western European countries would consider augmenting the human body with technology to improve their lives, mostly to improve health, according to this research. The survey indicated that most individuals wanted any human enhancement to benefit humanity, despite fears that technology would be detrimental for society and vulnerable to exploitation by hackers. According to the study, people are inclined to support current human enhancement, such as pacemakers, but they also support hypothetical augmentation in the near future, but we'll need a few pioneers and some success stories with human enhancement. People will be more encouraged to vote with their feet after it has been demonstrated to work.

The survey also showed most people felt that only the rich would be able to get access to human augmentation technology. Human enhancement technologies will also raise critical questions about what it means to be human as they open enormous new possibilities.

Conflicts of Interests

The author declares no conflict of interest.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

References

1. Ford M. The rise of the robots: Technology and the threat of mass unemployment. Int J HRD Pract Polic Resea. 2015;1:111-112.

   [Google Scholar]

2. Oudshoorn N. Sustaining cyborgs: Sensing and tuning agencies of pacemakers and implantable cardioverter defibrillators. Soc Stud Sci. 2015;45(1):56-76.

   [Crossref] [Google Scholar]

3. Blum VL. Objects of love: I Want a Famous Face and the illusions of star culture. Configurations. 2007;15(1):33-53.

   [Crossref] [Google Scholar]

4. Popescu A. This $425 DIY Implant Will Make You a Cyborg: Cyborg Nest manufactures DIY kits meant to bring transhumanism to the masses. Bloomberg. 2017;16.

   [Google Scholar]

5. Hardey M. Consuming professions: user-review websites and health services. J Consum Cult. 2010;10(1):129-149.

   [Crossref] [Google Scholar]

6. Young G, Escobar MA, Pipe SW, Cooper DL. Safety and efficacy of recombinant activated coagulation factor VII in congenital hemophilia with inhibitors in the home treatment setting: A review of clinical studies and registries. Am J Hematol. 2017;92(9):940-945.

   [Crossref] [Google Scholar]

7. Kapitzke C. Information technology as cultural capital: Shifting the boundaries of power. Educ  Inf Technol. 2000;5:49-62.

   [Crossref] [Google Scholar]

8. Tamminen S, Holmgren E. The anthropology of wearables: The self, the social, and the autobiographical. Proc Ethnogr  Praxis Ind  Conf. 2016;1:154-174.

   [Crossref] [Google Scholar]

9. Foucault M. Governmentality.” Translated by Rosi Braidotti. Revised by Colin Gordon. The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality. 1991:87-104.

   [Google Scholar]

10. Annas GJ, Andrews LB, Isasi RM. Protecting the endangered human: toward an international treaty prohibiting cloning and inheritable alterations. Am J Law Med. 2002;28(2-3):151-178.

    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]

11. Giubilini A, Sanyal S. Challenging human enhancement. The ethics of human enhancement: Understanding the debate. 2016:1-24.

    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]

12. Glannon W. Enhancing Evolution: The Ethical Case for Making Better People, by John Harris. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics. 2008;17(4):473-476.

    [Google Scholar]

13. Persson I, Savulescu J. The perils of cognitive enhancement and the urgent imperative to enhance the moral character of humanity. J Appl Philos. 2008;25(3):162-177.

    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]

14. Whittaker A. International surrogacy as disruptive industry in Southeast Asia. Rutgers University Press. 2018.

    [Google Scholar]