The Future of Prosthetics
In the early months of 2019 a group of Edinburgh Napier students from product and graphic design (part of a larger pool of product, graphic and interior design) departments collaborated on a project to think up the prosthetics of the future. The brief was to design a prosthetic that may be available in the year 2070 and produce a short film about it. Initially the group brainstormed some blue sky concepts of what the prosthetics of the future could look like and what they could do. The discussion that followed brought up many questions including such questions as whether a prosthetic can be used for people who would be considered fully able? Could a prosthetic perhaps enhance what is already existing? Much as binoculars allow humans to see farther, could the humans of 2070 have chips implanted in their skin which allow you to levitate objects in your hands or hair on your head which photosynthesises to give you energy? In the discussion it was also realised that glasses would technically fall under the definition of prosthetics as they represent an artificial body part in the form of the lens of the eyeball. The differences between prosthetics and bionics was also talked about. Some thought that a prosthetic becomes a bionic once a battery, electricity and circuits are added but a strong difference was not immediately apparent. Between the group it was decided that a bionic was a specific form of prosthetic involving electromechanics. So a bionic is a prosthetic but a prosthetic is not necessarily a bionic.
Human prosthetic technology is perhaps at a tipping point where the technology exists that lets the prosthetics not just replace missing limbs with arms that work as well as normal arms but instead all together make an improvement on body parts that are otherwise perfectly functional and fully able. Is it possible that we are at the beginning of a trend of body altering? To an extent some people already do this. On the more tame end of the scale there are people having breast implants but on the other end of the scale there are some people who are “hacking” their bodies to have more senses and somes are even trying to alter their own DNA. (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-46442519)
The first evidence of prosthetics can be seen in ancient egypt with prosthetic toes made of wood.
(http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20151030-the-geniuses-who-invented-prosthetic-limbs) The development of prosthetics since as been very gradual. That was until more recent wars such as the American Civil War, World War I and World War II. The high number of casualties combined with a more complete understanding of the human body as well as advancements in technology stemming from the industrial revolution meant that there have been an explosion in prosthetic advancements in the past couple of hundred years. Many of the prosthetics of these times were merely used to mimic certain functions of a human hand and did not come close to the wide range of abilities of a human hand. But this is not to say that they have not been effective solutions. There are many examples of modular prosthetics that allow people to attach different tools to their limbs be it a spoon for eating or a leg specifically designed for running. An example of a particularly effective prosthetic is the split hook artificial hand (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ii7ByNe5SiM). Although being invented in 1912 the split hook is still used today by many people as it allows them to pick up objects while applying varying pressure and manipulate them.
The issue raised by the group in their video was about issues around privacy and responsibility with future prosthetics. The concept was a device which could be used to control another’s limbs from a great distance much like a computer engineer taking remote control of someone’s computer in order to fix it, an engineer could fix a piece of machinery from a different country, or a specialist doctor could perform surgery on someone on the other side of the world without having to leave their living room. Rather than being a prosthetic for the disabled, the prosthetic could be used for both the disabled and fully abled. So an individual can control a robotic/bionic arm or a fleshy human one. There is also a possibility that the technology could have some military applications having humanoid machines fighting for them. The video that was produced considered an ethical dilemma where an individual died during a fairly standard operation which was using this remote surgery. It aimed to draw attention to the serious implications of such a device and ask the question of whether we really want to go down that path as a species. What if someone’s own natural arm was hacked to kill someone? How could you prove it was hacked? This being said there are probably many positive outcomes of such a technology. If such a technology could be harnessed to create a connection between two minds, could this revolutionise education. Much like Neo from the Matrix learning his fighting skills by having the skills installed on his mind (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vMO3XmNXe4) educational institutions or parents could “airdrop” knowledge to children. The technology could also save lives by allowing politicians to see issues from a different perspective and potentially preventing wars. Such an creation could be as significant as our population’s transition to the digital world today. Obviously it is impossible to know whether it would have a positive or negative net impact on humanity or even whether such a technology will ever be possible. The thought of having your mind hacked and having your memory wiped from a distant location is discomforting to say the least. And how would an individual filter what others can see in their mind? The logistics of such a technology would definitely have to be carefully examined. The issues concerning privacy might be the downfall of such a technology and may prevent such a thing from ever being adopted. Even getting your computer hacked can destroy someone’s livelihood and in certain circumstances their life, but having a direct link to someone’s mind and body through a remote channel could have vastly more grave implications. How could a detective tell the difference between a murder and a suicide?
Today we can see the first stages of linking mind and prosthetics at the Applied Physics Laboratory in Laurel, Maryland, they have developed innovative prosthetics that can be controlled by the mind remotely and while attached to a human.
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0srXvOQlu0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_brnKz_2tI)
There are also many similar examples of humans controlling drones with their minds.
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8LuImMOZOo0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLjxMjBlB9k)
Even if this technology were to make our lives better there will likely still be a vast amount of people who will reject it. Despite being promised to be safer than driving yourself, autonomous (self driving) cars still have many people wary about ever using one. It is for a similar reason that many people nervous flyers but would happily drive a car even though the risks of dying/ getting injured are massively higher (https://www.missourilawyers.com/blog/fatal-car-accident-odds/).
There is certainly a lot of ethical issues and controversy surrounding these issues but it is also nearly impossible to predict where technology will take humanity. Such a future many never exist, but equally it may. And if it does, as we do today with self driving cars, we will have to ask ourselves the questions of whether we would ever want such a technology and if so what sort of measures we could take to keep it from harming humanity. This is just one example of a potential future technology and no doubt there will be many technologies that require a lot of thought and debate around the ethics, the pros and the cons.
