May 20, 2021
According to this paper in the International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, human augmentation describes “a field of research that aims to enhance human abilities through medicine or technology”.
Discussions about human augmentation and its place in our evolving world are fraught with contention. But while people tend to approach the subject with dystopian caution, human augmentation is more familiar than you might think. How many of us wear glasses to help our eyesight, for example, or hearing aids to help our hearing? Psychologist Simon Baron-Cohen argues that the relentless pursuit of ‘better’ inherent in invention may be a defining feature of our humanity.
Hannes Sjöblad, co-founder DSruptive, a human augmentation design agency
As we navigate the fourth industrial revolution and make progress towards the fifth, we’re seeing the relationship between human and technology become more seamlessly integrated. The consequences of these developments are profound: reframing our privacy and security concerns; redefining our ideas of ‘(dis-)ability’; challenging our understanding of responsibility and liability; and exposing significant potential for inequality.
While the spirit of relentless ‘biohacking’, the insights of academic research and the muscle of investment capital continue to influence our world, how can the third sector deal with the consequences? How can charities find ways to engage with these developments, to support progress and promote the health of society?
One advantage of externally-visible augmentations is the way they reshape our notions of difference, particularly how we see ‘ability’. In the design community, we’ve seen a collective attitude-shift away from ‘normalising’ aesthetics. Augmentations have become “less about making other people more comfortable and more about utility for the wearer".
Though the discussion is still framed by ‘ability’, emerging human augmentation tech with equivalent or superior functionality to human parts has fostered admiration and envy from people outside the ‘disabled’ community. At Kaspersky’s NEXT 2021 debate, bionic model Tilly Lockey, and bionic pop artist Viktoria Modesta noted the positive impact on confidence and mental wellbeing they experienced because of their prosthesis.
Dr. Bertolt Meyer, Professor at Chemnitz University of Technology
‘Biohacking’ is described by Forbes as “do-it-yourself biology aimed at improving performance, health, and wellbeing through strategic interventions.” While many biohacking services will be available only to a privileged elite, biohacking theory and practices are spreading online, making it more accessible and socially acceptable.
With nutritional health evolving across psychiatry, and in its intersection with genomics, there’s potential for driving wide-scale collective wellbeing. Especially where it can be combined with increasingly-affordable genetic analysis. Dietitian and genomic medical clinician Andrea Chernus says, “Genomic testing can help to explain why situations exist for a patient, such as which style of eating might suit them best... We may be able to see gene variants that increase one’s risk for breast cancer due to the genes involved in oestrogen metabolism, for example”. Heart disease, diabetes, obesity, and mental health have all been linked to genetic expressions, and all have dietary prevention strategies.
We’re witnessing the start of a bold new chapter in bio-digital convergence. One that pushes it beyond the artistic innovation of Imogen Heap’s MiMu gloves, or the experimentation of Zoltan Istvan, who ran for president as head of the Transhumanist Party and has an implant embedded in his hand to unlock his front door.
Now Neuralink, Elon Musk’s computer-to-brain interface firm is developing a fully-implanted, wireless, brain-machine interface with the goal of enabling people with paralysis to directly use their neural activity to operate computers.” (as Pager the macaque demonstrates here).
Leading technological futurist Cathy Hackl also recently used Neurosity's Notion BCI developer kit to control her iPad with her mind, and Dr Bertolt Meyer’s prosthetic hand can communicate signals that a synthesiser can understand, allowing him to “create music with thoughts”.
As venture capitalists accelerate innovation in everything from mind-machine technology to applied psychedelics, we’re likely to see growing cultural awareness, debate and (potentially) acceptance of these topics. With the advances in technology we’re witnessing, the distinction between mind and machine is beginning to dissolve in a very real way.
Cathy Hackl
If technological innovation renders ‘disability’ (as defined by the absence of ‘standardised’ human capability) less physically evident, but it remains in other ways, how can you create and communicate a continued need and case for support?
Supporters will need trusted arbiters to help navigate this new landscape. Could becoming an authority in this space present ripe innovation territory? How can you re-assign resources to sharpen your view on the ethics of human augmentation, and the discussion of need vs. want?
Where you lack internal expertise, can you partner with others keen to provide intelligence and capability to social initiatives? How can you leverage your lived experience insights and work together to design new tools or strategies, and reach a wider audience?
What if you took the lead in creating groundbreaking, user-centric augmentation that ultimately, and boldly, sought to innovate your current purpose out of existence? What would become your new driving forces?