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.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry