Slashdot Mirror
Bioethicist Jonathan Moreno Talks Jacked-In Soldiers And Military Neuroscience
pigrabbitbear writes "Who's driving a lot of neuro research? The military. Much of it is health related, like figuring out how to make prosthetics work more seamlessly and helping diagnose brain injuries. But the military's involvement highlights the basic ethical quandary of neurological development: When our brains pretty much define who we are, what happens when you start adding tech in there? And what happens when you take it away? Jonathan Moreno is quite possibly the top bioethicist in the country, and along with Michael Tennison, recently penned a fascinating essay on the role and ethics of using neuroscience for national security. He also recently updated his book Mind Wars, a seminal look into the military's work with the brain. In this interview he discusses brain implants, drones, and what will happen when military tech hits the civilian world."
Caffeine affects our brain in a non-trivial way. If we're hungry, we behave differently. So food affects our brain in a non-trivial way. How is ingesting caffeine and food different than adding hardware to our brain?
Oh, I don't know... watch:
Soldiers
Surrogates
Star Trek: First Contact (imo best modern ST film)
Ghost in the Shell
and any other sci-fi flick
Previewing comments are for sissies!
What sort of selection process is used to determine who is the 'top' bioethicist? Anyone at all can consider the ethical implications of brain implants.
This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
While telekinesis doesn't exist in the real world, I wonder if an implant or headband could transmit core emotional responses to the rest of your platoon via wireless link. That is to say, you wouldn't be able to transmit exact words but rather basic core primitive thoughts and emotions. If one of your members are in danger or senses a major problem, everyone could be aware of the situation simultaneously without a single word spoken on the battlefield.
Life is not for the lazy.
As it is now, the greatest tool(weapon) we have lies between our ears, more powerful than the fastest jets and the biggest bombs, and anything that improves it to perform certain tasks better is an option. So genetic manipulation, chips in brains, anything. Because if you don't, then someone else will and then you lose.
I'm guessing most of this is done in secrecy to prevent public outcries.
Lo and behold, for I am a sig!
It's not so much "ways of killing people" as it is "ways of making sure no one else can wantonly kill or subjugate you".
How about just ending all wars? Then we won't need prosthesis for soldiers. Plus you can give me back some of my tax money spent on war welfare.
Now you're talking real changes in human brain development and activity. Like at lobotomy levels. Unfortunately, conflict seems to be pretty hard wired into the human brain.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Because psychosis is a common side effect with hip replacements these days.
It's a game mechanic, and a pretty bad one at that, to try and prevent players from getting every cybernetic enhancement available. Not a comment on reality.
I got this brain implant from the government and I feel fine. In fact, I feel better than fine. When I watch sitcoms, sports, and reality shows--it's bliss.
Elizabeth Moon, author of an extensive corpus of Science Fiction, opines for the BBC: "If I were empress of the Universe I would insist on every individual having a unique ID permanently attached -- a barcode if you will; an implanted chip to provide an easy, fast inexpensive way to identify individuals. It would be imprinted on everyone at birth. Point the scanner at someone and there it is. ... In war soldiers could easily differentiate legitimate targets in a population from non combatants... Anonymity would be impossible as would mistaken identity making it easier to place responsibility accurately, not only in war but also in non-combat situations far from the war."
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20120522-barcode-everyone-at-birth
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
From now on, if you want to start a war on a developed country, you should do it on a Tuesday. That's the day the soldiers are down for their Windows Updates.
Weird. You must read the same tech news site that I do!
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/05/23/0156226/sci-fi-writer-elizabeth-moon-believes-everyone-should-be-chipped
Also, in case someone hadn't read that story yet, and is outraged at Elizabeth Moon's comment, they were asked for controversial sound bytes. She just happened to give one that was publicized, and criticized.
http://e-moon60.livejournal.com/442811.html
The idea was that, at some point and after enough mods, you become distanced from your own humanness and humanity itself; at what point do you become a cyborg and no longer human?
A single functional implant makes you a cyborg as long as that implant has some synthetic electrical component.
And knowing one's SSN allows you to divine their guilt or innocence, or whether their a combatant or civilian.
Ceci n'est pas un sig.
Your humanity is greater than just he lump of meat that we're residing in. If I was able to make an AI that reacted the same way as I would, wouldn't that have the same humanity as me? I would say yes, and that's got no meaty bits. Let's say my heart fails and I get a stainless steel / titanium impeller implanted. Would that make me a heartless robot? Look for the "your excuse is invalid" kid -- he's got metal legs and a smile that would melt stone.
Now, I'm already part titanium so this may be the metal bits talking, but what your body does and is capable of does not reflect on what your mind and persona are and are capable of.
"Humans: Self-forged, picking up where the Gods left off."
---
ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
Building an EMP rifle is trivial technology. Hardening against EMP is not as easy - if you build a shield, you just use a bigger pulse that over comes the shield. A friend of mine who was in the army for many years said "Look, between a Map and a GPS? I'll take the map. Shoot a map with a bullet - whaddya got? A map with a hole in it. Shoot a GPS and waddya got? Useless Junk." It all scales from there. The "high / robotic / tech" battlefield is just some circle jerk fantasy by beltway bandits looking for a way to strip mine more money out of the Treasury Dept.
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
She's pretty stupid if she thinks sane people on the battlefield will want to have a "I'm here, shoot me" tag.
If you can ID a person from far away without their cooperation you can usually detect that person from even further away.
Whereas if you have to be next to someone to ID him, either/both of you are dead/neutralized already if he is an enemy.
I would imagine that the military would have a means of turning it off, while civilians could not.
So if you see someone in civvies who's chip isn't working, he probably ain't a civilian.
Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
Yes, but. Do you know what the QUEERS are doing to the SOIL?!?
-