This week it was reported that soldiers could potentially, in the near future, have their minds plugged directly into weapons systems, and have their learning boosted by neural stimulation. The Royal Society’s [UK Academy of Sciences] Brain Waves project on new directions in neuro-science gives us much to reflect on and worry about. It follows the news last week that scientists are developing a “mind-reading” technique to capture thoughts.
Research in all this is in its infancy, but though new understandings of how the brain works generate new treatments for disease and brain damage, they also expose us to many new dangers. The challenge is always to use judgement, and, if necessary force, to maximize good and minimize evil. However, we should be clear that there is no precautionary approach; therapy delayed is rescue denied. As in all other areas of human activity, choice is not an option, but a destiny. How should we choose?
The Royal Society report spoke of brain-machine interfaces (BMIs) to connect people’s brains directly to machinery. These interfaces are already being used to control artificial limbs for amputees, but they would also be efficient in improving speed and accuracy in delivering weapons systems.
Rod Flower, chair of the report’s working group, rightly asks: “If you are controlling a drone and you shoot the wrong target or bomb a wedding party, who is responsible for that action? Is it you or the BMI?”
While this is a nice puzzle, the alternative without BMIs might be a greater likelihood that the wrong target will be chosen or hit. If we ban military BMIs, who is responsible for that?
The bigger question, though, is how to reduce the incidence of events where people suffer and others need to be called to account. Think of smart drugs that improve thought. Modafinil, a drug that keeps pilots alert, can indeed aid military pilots — but it also protects civilian passengers. The same drug also enhances other cognitive functioning, including exam performance.
We humans need to be smarter in order to combat a monstrous regiment of dangers that include climate change, meteorite strikes, diseases such as AIDS and Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, and an over-precautionary approach to innovation that could increase, rather than reduce, our vulnerability to these and other dangers. The dilemma is: Whither caution? The ability to choose between caution and adventure assumes we can predict accurately — something we humans have been lamentably bad at.
In future, we are also likely to face an ethical dilemma over memory manipulation. This is now a distinct possibility because drugs are available that can wipe, or certainly dampen, our recollection of events. Why should we tamper with our access to history? Well, one good reason is that memories can be traumatic. The victim of, for example, a brutal rape, might well wish to wipe the memory. However, what if so doing removes the capacity to identify the perpetrator, and leaves him free to ruin others’ lives?
The neurotransmitter serotonin and the molecule oxytocin are hailed as agents that, by increasing reluctance to cause suffering on the one hand and trust on the other, can bring about an improvement in morals. Adjusting the levels of these chemicals in the body will effect changes that bypass decision-making and make certain behavior, for all practical purposes, automatic. Why should we worry about bypassing morally defective decisionmaking? One reason is it takes away our freedom.
Without the ability to reason about our decisions to act on the basis of judgement — rather than prompted by impulse or chemical, or biological or technological stimulus — we not only lack liberty, the ability to choose. We lack the ability to choose wisely and well, to choose the best, “all things considered.”
If we can read minds, we might be able to literally see what someone has done and whether they did it on purpose. This would make solving crimes in principle simple and reliable. The problem here will be whether the science can reliably distinguish thoughts that describe fantasies or imaginings rather than real dirty deeds done.
The idea that neuroscience might enable thoughts to be read and intentions revealed is perhaps the most threatening of all to civil liberties. If we know someone intends to commit a murder or a robbery, why not monitor their thoughts and act pre-emptively? Apart from the obvious difference in quality between a wish or intention and an actual attempt, the reason might be that most of us form intentions that we abandon and wishes we never fulfill.
The price of liberty may be eternal vigilance, but we need science, not least because it is our most obvious source of the sort of innovation that saves lives and produces welfare. Our vigilance must be as much to ensure we do not stifle science as it is to be sure science remains our servant not our master.
John Harris is a member of the Royal Society Brain Waves project and professor of bioethics at the University of Manchester.
Could Asia be on the verge of a new wave of nuclear proliferation? A look back at the early history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which recently celebrated its 75th anniversary, illuminates some reasons for concern in the Indo-Pacific today. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin recently described NATO as “the most powerful and successful alliance in history,” but the organization’s early years were not without challenges. At its inception, the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty marked a sea change in American strategic thinking. The United States had been intent on withdrawing from Europe in the years following
My wife and I spent the week in the interior of Taiwan where Shuyuan spent her childhood. In that town there is a street that functions as an open farmer’s market. Walk along that street, as Shuyuan did yesterday, and it is next to impossible to come home empty-handed. Some mangoes that looked vaguely like others we had seen around here ended up on our table. Shuyuan told how she had bought them from a little old farmer woman from the countryside who said the mangoes were from a very old tree she had on her property. The big surprise
The issue of China’s overcapacity has drawn greater global attention recently, with US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen urging Beijing to address its excess production in key industries during her visit to China last week. Meanwhile in Brussels, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week said that Europe must have a tough talk with China on its perceived overcapacity and unfair trade practices. The remarks by Yellen and Von der Leyen come as China’s economy is undergoing a painful transition. Beijing is trying to steer the world’s second-largest economy out of a COVID-19 slump, the property crisis and
Former president Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) trip to China provides a pertinent reminder of why Taiwanese protested so vociferously against attempts to force through the cross-strait service trade agreement in 2014 and why, since Ma’s presidential election win in 2012, they have not voted in another Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) candidate. While the nation narrowly avoided tragedy — the treaty would have put Taiwan on the path toward the demobilization of its democracy, which Courtney Donovan Smith wrote about in the Taipei Times in “With the Sunflower movement Taiwan dodged a bullet” — Ma’s political swansong in China, which included fawning dithyrambs