Despite the informative and interesting nature of this piece by Anna Neifer about biohackers who implant LED lights into their bodies, I couldn’t help being wholly disturbed, not just by the nonchalance of the manufacturers and surgical teams, but also by the throngs of test guinea pigs lining up to be injected themselves. The whole concept had an eeriness about it that left me very uncomfortable, though I do applaud the research being conducted, which, according to the article’s subject, could lead to biohacking technologies that could predict future heart attacks, monitor blood pressure, and altogether collect various data about different areas of the body. While this could lead to a medical revolution and help people live longer, healthier lives, it is more the philosophy and ethics of these tests that take me aback. As a society, we are almost completely hooked up to the web, via desktop computers, smartphones, Apple watches, etc.—however, for many, it seems, this doesn’t seem to be enough. Though I shouldn’t be surprised that people are interested in taking this connectivity to the next level (i.e. virtually mechanizing their own bodies), I am shocked at just how quickly people are willing to sign up for a procedure that is untested and not supported by the medical/academic community. Perhaps this seems naïve, or at least a bit lacking in independent thought. After all, “this is about passion and citizen science.” While I admire the ideas set forth of independent research and progress, it feels, at least to me, to be a precursor for potentially dangerous or harmful results in the future. Neifer mentions the importance of the chip’s covering, for, if it is damaged or otherwise fails to function, direct contact of the chip to the body could lead to great harm (though she never details what this harm would actually look like). Other than the physical risk involved, there is an inherent dehumanizing nature about this project and its potential future manifestations—a scary hybridization of Man and machine that is off-putting, to say the least.
Despite the informative and interesting nature of this piece by Anna Neifer about biohackers who implant LED lights into their bodies, I couldn’t help being wholly disturbed, not just by the nonchalance of the manufacturers and surgical teams, but also by the throngs of test guinea pigs lining up to be injected themselves. The whole concept had an eeriness about it that left me very uncomfortable, though I do applaud the research being conducted, which, according to the article’s subject, could lead to biohacking technologies that could predict future heart attacks, monitor blood pressure, and altogether collect various data about different areas of the body. While this could lead to a medical revolution and help people live longer, healthier lives, it is more the philosophy and ethics of these tests that take me aback. As a society, we are almost completely hooked up to the web, via desktop computers, smartphones, Apple watches, etc.—however, for many, it seems, this doesn’t seem to be enough. Though I shouldn’t be surprised that people are interested in taking this connectivity to the next level (i.e. virtually mechanizing their own bodies), I am shocked at just how quickly people are willing to sign up for a procedure that is untested and not supported by the medical/academic community. Perhaps this seems naïve, or at least a bit lacking in independent thought. After all, “this is about passion and citizen science.” While I admire the ideas set forth of independent research and progress, it feels, at least to me, to be a precursor for potentially dangerous or harmful results in the future. Neifer mentions the importance of the chip’s covering, for, if it is damaged or otherwise fails to function, direct contact of the chip to the body could lead to great harm (though she never details what this harm would actually look like). Other than the physical risk involved, there is an inherent dehumanizing nature about this project and its potential future manifestations—a scary hybridization of Man and machine that is off-putting, to say the least.
ReplyDelete--Nicolas Ochart