The next generation of the ‘Internet of Bodies’ could meld tech and human bodies together
What is the definition of the "Internet of Bodies" (IOB) as described by Andrea M. Matwyshyn?
The "Internet of Bodies" (IOB) is a term coined by academic and author Andrea M. Matwyshyn in 2016. She defines it as "a network of human bodies whose integrity and functionality rely at least in part on the Internet and related technologies1." This concept involves the close integration of technological devices with the human body, potentially bringing significant advancements, particularly in healthcare. However, it also raises privacy and ethical concerns. Matwyshyn categorizes IOB devices into three generations based on their level of integration: external (e.g., smartwatches), internal (e.g., pacemakers with digital implants), and the third generation that completely merge with the body while maintaining a real-time connection to an external machine and the internet.
How does the IOB integrate with the human body according to the classifications provided by Matwyshyn?
According to Matwyshyn's classifications, the Internet of Bodies (IOB) integrates with the human body in three main ways:
-
External Integration: The first category involves devices that are worn on the body, such as smartwatches, rings, or smart glasses3. These devices are typically used to track physical activity, heart rate, and other health metrics.
-
Internal Integration: The second category includes devices that are ingested or implanted in the body. Examples of such devices include pacemakers with digital implants, smart prosthetics that are hardwired into a patient's nerves and muscles, and digital pills that transmit medical data after being swallowed.
-
Melded Integration: The third category involves devices that completely merge with the body while maintaining a real-time connection to an external machine and the internet3. An example of this is Elon Musk's Neuralink, which is developing a brain-computer interface (BCI) called "the Link." This coin-sized chip is implanted under the skull and can read a person's brain signals, allowing them to control an external machine.
Each of these categories represents a different level of integration between technology and the human body, with the melded integration being the most intimate and potentially transformative3. However, as Matwyshyn points out, this integration raises significant privacy and ethical concerns.
How might the integration of IOB technologies challenge traditional notions of human autonomy and self-governance?
The integration of Internet of Bodies (IOB) technologies has the potential to challenge traditional notions of human autonomy and self-governance in various ways. One of the main concerns is the increasing dependence on these devices for bodily functions and well-being. As IOB devices become more integrated with our bodies, they may influence our decision-making processes, raising questions about who ultimately has control over our bodies and choices.
Moreover, the vast amounts of biometric and behavioral data generated by these devices can be used to monitor, analyze, and even modify human bodies and behavior. This data is often stored and processed by external machines and algorithms, which could potentially be used to exert control or influence over individuals. As a result, the line between human autonomy and the influence of technology becomes blurred.
Another challenge to human autonomy arises from the use of algorithms and artificial intelligence in IOB devices. These technologies can make decisions on our behalf, potentially limiting our ability to make independent choices. Additionally, the use of data analytics and algorithmic decision-making can lead to biases and discriminatory practices, further eroding the principles of autonomy and self-governance.
Furthermore, the integration of IOB technologies raises concerns about privacy and data security. The sensitive nature of the data collected by these devices, combined with the potential for that data to be accessed or exploited by malicious actors, could have significant implications for individual autonomy and control over personal information.
In summary, the integration of IOB technologies challenges traditional notions of human autonomy and self-governance by increasing our reliance on technology for bodily functions, generating vast amounts of personal data, using algorithms to make decisions on our behalf, and raising concerns about privacy and data security. The ongoing development and adoption of IOB technologies will require a careful balance between the potential benefits and the need to protect individual autonomy and self-governance.