Only 12% answered that they would object to working alongside a person who made such a change, and this because they feel that the change gives them an unfair advantage. However, almost two out of five (39%) expressed concern that a society in which people add a technological component to their bodies could become unequal
Almost half (46%) of adults in Europe believe that people should be free to improve their bodies with the help of technology - such as using an organ or ion supplement, inserting a chip into the body, etc. However, many still fear the long-term social effects of such technological physical enhancement - according to a large study commissioned by the cyber company Kaspersky among about 6,500 18+ year olds from seven European countries at the beginning of this month.
Improving the body with the help of technology (Human Augmentation) can be manifested for medical reasons - for example, a person who needs the use of an organ in June after amputation - or a person's own choice to add a technological component to his body - for example, inserting a radio chip (RFID) into the body.
According to the study, almost half of Europeans (49%) are "excited" or "optimistic" about a future society that includes people who have improved themselves through technology (50% of men but only 40% of women). Only 12% answered that they would object to working alongside a person who made such a change, and this because they feel that the change gives them an unfair advantage. However, almost two out of five (39%) expressed concern that a society in which people add a technological component to their bodies could become unequal.
The study shows that more than half (51%) of Europeans say they have met a person who has made a technological change to their body. Almost half (45%) answered that they would have no problem dating someone who had undergone such an improvement and 5.5 percent claimed that they had already dated a person who had undergone a technological improvement. More than a third claim that they have "always accepted" socially people who have undergone technological improvement in their bodies and 17% say that today they accept this phenomenon more naturally than a decade ago.
If a family member were required to implant technology in their body for health reasons, 38% of the respondents would be comfortable if it was a bionic arm or leg (and Britain is the most inclusive country in this respect). Regarding voluntary technological enhancement, about half of the graduates in Portugal (56%) and Spain (51%) said that people have the right to choose to make technological improvements to their bodies. In the UK only 36%. About three out of ten (29.5%) said they would support a family member if he chose to take such a step.
Only 16.5% of Europeans see the choice to implant technology in the body as "strange" (8 percent in Portugal and 30% in Great Britain) and almost a quarter see such a move as "brave". A little more than a quarter (27%) believe that people who have implanted technology in their bodies should be represented in public and government bodies. 41% oppose it.
The findings of the research were revealed at the online event Kaspersky Next 2021 in which an open discussion was held on the subject. The event was attended by the Academy's experts, the pop star Victoria Modesta, who made her prosthetic leg part of an entire artistic concept, and the blogger Tilly Lockey, who uses a bionic arm. The discussion raised questions such as whether there is a need for regulation in the field, a security standard to protect against cyber attacks and whether "enhanced" people should inform others about their condition.
"We found that there is broad support for physical enhancement with the help of technology but there are still inherent concerns about the implications of the issue for society," said Marco Prause, director of Kaspersky's global research and analysis team. "Governments, leaders, industry executives and people who implemented technological improvements in organizations should come together and formulate a policy on the subject to ensure that this fascinating trend develops in an orderly and safe manner for everyone."
Hans Spiens Sjövald, CEO and co-founder of the DSruptive Subdermals company, which helps people improve their bodies with the help of technology, added: "We should not think that this technology is a solution intended only for the privileged few. It should be cheap and accessible to everyone, because everyone should have the opportunity to enjoy the benefits inherent in it."
More of the topic in Hayadan:
4 תגובות
It's a waste of time and discussion, these technologies will be put to use if and when they mature because there is no equality in the world - and it is known that old people (not to mention sick people) lose certain abilities - is it fair to let an Alzheimer's patient suffer from forgetfulness if he can be implanted with a memory chip? And the old man suffering from sight loss? - and therefore there is no reason not to use, for example, an intraocular lens and thermal imaging, a much better facial recognition and hearing ability, not to mention added processing capacity for the brain, just as pacemakers and similar devices are used. On the other hand, it should be remembered that those who choose such technologies may be harmed not only by ordinary viruses but also by computer damage...
Regarding prostheses, most of them may prefer the source that we can later create from their own body the same non-functioning organ,
But with regard to the brain there, the story can be different, although it is worth mentioning that there are apparently still many years until there will be devices that broadly interface with the brain. Until then, the field in which it will enter will be medical, but later
It is also possible to ask where it will stop at all? When a neuron works at 200 hertz against a transistor that works at millions and billions of hertz, won't this push us to push out the biological material against transistors that are made of other materials as a result of competitive pressures even if we assume that it will also push out part of what makes us unique as people? It can also change our balance and damage our mobility and independence, for example we will have to constantly charge the same components as a mobile? What if heat dissipation of those components will it push people to live more in air-conditioned areas like some mainframe?
This issue is also similar to genetic change, where the social pressures for change will be enormous
A parent who brings a child into this world without an upgrade might set him up for some kind of misery?
To think of an average person sitting in a class with a company whose intellectual average is much higher than Einstein
He has no chance of integrating into such a world except by calling them services, and it is also not certain because there will be robots in the future that will do most of the simple jobs, as said here by one of the commenters, this can certainly allow for "equality"
But the question is whether these tools will be used as public domain? Another question that arises will the parents have the right to determine whether their child will be upgraded or not?
I just wanted to inform Mr. Marcus Praus that there is no way that a committee(!) will meet(!) and formulate(!) a policy on the subject to ensure(!) that "this fascinating trend will develop in an orderly and safe manner for everyone". And even if the Europeans do something like that, some other nation will already overtake them in the round.
I also wanted to point out to all those people who would object to working with another enhanced person that they would always have the alternative of flipping burgers at McDonald's, where enhanced people probably wouldn't be needed. Until this option will no longer be available to them, of course, because it will also be replaced by a robot.
There is and never has been equality between humans, and precisely genetic engineering will allow "equality"