Now, believe me, I am all for improving human-machine interfacing. One of my own pieces of "fantasy hardware" consists of a kind of heads-up display that would permit the projection of some sort of informational overlay across my field of vision, possibly via a pair of eyeglasses and...
[waves hands, sprinkles pixie dust]
...a system of sensors to detect the state of various bodily systems, in addition to providing navigational and other sorts of useful data.
The nearest imagining I've ever seen of this occurs in the science fiction novel This Alien Shore, by C.S. Friedman.
In that book, characters have internal computers called "wellseekers" that adjust their heart rate, blood pressure, and other variables so as to avoid unnecessary health-damaging effects due to stress and whatnot, in addition to providing reminders about the need to consume food or drink.
Additionally, they can put on headsets that interface with their internal "brainware" and this allows them to navigate the Outernet, which is the book's answer to our Internet, extended to interplanetary scale.
But fantasies aside, I am definitely not holding my breath waiting for "implantable cell phones", and frankly I don't see that idea as being one likely to grab much of a foothold in mainstream culture anytime soon.
I don't doubt that such a thing may become technologically feasible in the next few decades (perhaps dialing would be activated by tongue movements or something along those lines), but my guess would be that anyone who isn't a rather geeky body-modification enthusiast already would shy away from having to get surgery in order to access the latest and greatest phone technology.
Not that there's anything wrong with being a geeky body-modification enthusiast or anything, of course, it's just that that descriptor doesn't seem to apply to the majority of what would be the cell-phone market segment.
Plus, I really have to wonder what the heck people will do if their internal phone breaks or goes obsolete -- are they going to be willing to get more surgery every time they feel like upgrading? I would imagine probably not.
It's 2009 as of this writing and infection remains a risk of implanted medical devices; it's a different thing to accept such a risk when it's your life at stake than when you are simply considering doing something for aesthetic*, social, or curiosity's sake.
Honestly one thing that sometimes gets to me about certain realms of futurist discussion is the way bodies are so often reduced to the abstract, as if surgery is (or will soon be, even though there's no evidence of this) tantamount to snapping Lego blocks painlessly and easily in and out of a structure.
Heck, even relatively "trivial"-seeming operations like getting a small magnet embedded in one's finger entail certain physical realities. Journalist Quinn Norton is one of the few to have actually participated in this experiment; she writes in Wired magazine that:
The initial cut did hurt, but not unbearably. He sliced open my finger with a standard scalpel, inserted a tool to make a gap for the magnet, and tried to insert the magnet in one nonstop motion. The insertion didn't work, and he widened the cut and tried again. This time it worked, and he closed the cut with a single suture. The suture was the most painful step -- an indicator that the cold "anesthetic" had worn off. The process took less than 10 minutes. My finger was slightly swollen and sported a blue, knotted plastic thread.
Now, that doesn't sound totally horrible or anything, but there's still finger-slicing action, sutures, the whole bit. Later on Ms. Norton also ran into infection issues which led to more fun gouging from the family doctor in an attempt to remove the thing; then the implant disintegrated in her finger (though in an interesting twist, the bits of the magnet re-formed and she became able once again to pick up other magnets a few months later).
So while Norton's description of the sensation of having the implant when it was actually working as intended is seriously cool and tempting-sounding:
I would circle my finger with a strong magnet and feel the one in my finger spin. In time, bits of my laptop became familiar as tingles and buzzes. Every so often I would pass near something and get an unexpected vibration. Live phone pairs on the sides of houses sometimes startled me.
...clearly this sort of thing, let alone a vastly more complex and probably larger device, isn't about to take the mass market by storm anytime soon.
Again, I have no problem with people choosing to implant whatever the heck they want into their bodies, whether it be magnets or metal spikes or whatnot, but I would hardly figure implanted cell phones can be presumed inevitable based on current conditions and trends.
One of the reasons cell phones are becoming so ubiquitous is the very fact that the devices are getting so cheap to make, replace, and transfer. Putting surgery into the equation would almost certainly entail a totally different market model and one that would not permit the level of growth that has been observed so far.
*Yes, a lot of people these days are getting plastic surgery, but it would be quite a stretch to presume that anyone willing to use a cell phone today would also be willing to get plastic surgery.
13 comments:
Interesting post. But the thing that caught my attention most is the idea of a technology that would remind me to get food and drink.
I could really use something like that. I have an ongoing problem forgetting to drink enough. I end up remembering when I get a bad pain in a certain part of my back. That is not an ideal reminder system.
I wonder if it would work like a "needs" meter from The Sims. It could have a "food" and a "drink" meter :)
I think you made a very good point that most people are probably not going to be just chomping at the bit to have surgery for a phone, much less repeated surgeries to keep "upgrading" the phone.
Anne,
I have type one diabetes, onset at age 33, probably an auto immune reaction. I have never had surgery. There is an insulin pump available that I cannot afford. I have an aversion to surgery. Even the reliable port used with the insulin pump makes me squirm. Yet, body enhancement fascinates me. I always consider what non-invasive techniques could be used. For example, binaural sound generators for relaxation, focus... the Alpha Stim device, which I have not tried but a doctor friend likes. Ultrasound massage... and the sci-fi classics of EMF shielding fabric, your head-up-display glasses, a discreet wearable computer to go with that... to the point, I'd like to know from you and other comments, what non-invasive medical therapies, or other technologies do you know of, or imagine. I'll likely follow up with some old ideas later. Some of us know of the military "pain beam". Is a "pleasure beam" or "healing beam" possible? Last, I do not have a cell phone and I do not want one in my head.
Fleecy: Yes! Same here about the eat/drink reminders, I would be able to make excellent use of that sort of thing. When I play video games I am always really vigilant about my "health meter" because I can see it if I am getting low, whereas in real life I'm awful about remembering to eat and drink on a regular basis because I just don't have very strong "internal signals". I don't tend to feel hungry or thirsty or sick, etc., until it's long past the point when I should have done something about it, and I'm usually really uncomfortable/disoriented by then. :/
I am just lucky I now live with someone who reminds me about that sort of thing, and that I have learned more about how my brain works which has enabled me to come up with routines and identify things that I know I will eat. Anything more complicated than "microwave oatmeal packet" isn't likely to get prepared or eaten if I am by myself; I just get really inertial. (Matt finds it somewhat amusing that he sometimes finds me trying to bite or tear my way into a package of something rather than using the scissors, because the scissors happen to be three feet away in a drawer.)
But anyway, if you like sci-fi and have not read "This Alien Shore" I highly recommend it. Honestly I've read the book nearly twice through and I still don't have a strong handle on the plot, but just the descriptions of the technologies and the future societies are really interesting and worthwhile to read even if it's difficult to keep track of what is going on otherwise.
The food/drink reminder thing is actually used in the book by an autistic character, who also has "brainware" that enables him to adjust sensory input levels as he wishes. I just really adore the way the book addresses the existence of different kinds of brains (i.e., not denying difficulties or claiming they don't exist, but finding ways to help people address them that enable them to keep their basic configuration intact).
Anne wrote:
> Now, believe me, I am all for improving
> human-machine interfacing. . . But
> fantasies aside, I am definitely not
> holding my breath waiting for "implantable
> cell phones". . . I really have to wonder
> what the heck people will do if their
> internal phone breaks or goes obsolete --
> are they going to be willing to get more
> surgery every time they feel like
> upgrading? . . . It's 2009 as of this
> writing and infection remains a risk of
> implanted medical devices. . .
> Honestly one thing that sometimes gets
> to me about certain realms of futurist
> discussion is the way bodies are so often
> reduced to the abstract, as if surgery is
> (or will soon be, even though there's no
> evidence of this) tantamount to snapping
> Lego blocks painlessly and easily in and
> out of a structure. Heck, even relatively
> "trivial"-seeming operations. . .
> entail certain physical realities.
I saw a documentary on public TV a couple of years ago --- yes, Google seems to know about it: it was a film called "Human Body Shop" and it was shown on a PBS TV show called "Innovation":
http://www.wnet.org/pressroom/release.php?get=1094
(There's a DVD available for -- gasp! -- $150
http://www.smavideo.net/store/titledetail.cfm?MerchID=60058 )
Anyway, the movie contrasted the stories of two people getting cutting-edge medical treatment, one procedure fairly straightforward and the other really out there. The straightforward one involved an amputee getting his prosthetic leg attached via something called "osseointegration" -- having a titanium screw from the prosthesis inserted directly into the femur, a technique being pioneered by an inventor named Richard Branemark. This story had a happy ending -- the patient was satisfied with the result.
The other story, by comparison, was rather heartbreaking and hard to watch. A blind woman spent her entire life savings (on the order of $100,000) to try to regain her sight via William Dobelle's computer-operated vision system, with electrodes implanted directly on the surface of her visual cortex. The fact that she was a diabetic (the condition responsible for her losing her sight in the first place) made the surgery even riskier. After undertaking the risk and the expense, and with great expectations for this almost science-fictional technology, this patient ended up disappointed. With her savings gone and left with a dangerous hole in her head, she got none of her sight back. She was astonishingly philosophical about it (at least on camera). As I said, it was very hard to watch, though.
joel: Well you are definitely not alone in having an aversion to surgery.
I've had surgery only once (when I was fifteen, to remove a benign thyroid growth) and while I was glad after the fact that the growth was out (and that it was proven benign) I certainly do not count the experience as one of the more pleasant ones I've had. And I haven't been remotely compelled toward elective surgery for any reason (I still have all my wisdom teeth too).
Nevertheless, like you, I am totally fascinated by the idea of modification. And there are some things I think would be extremely cool. I just don't like the idea of rushing into them as if infection, pain, etc., aren't still major issues for many people, not to mention the risks still entailed by general anaesthesia.
On a side note, though, I am (finally!) working on a science fiction novel, part of which entails brain-based computers of a sort, and I've been amused to experience the feeling of just being able to pull technologies out of thin air. Granted I am trying to make them sound at least remotely plausible, but it is still far, far easier to describe something like, say, nanotechnology in a science fiction context than it is to actually invent applications of such things in the real world!
Anne,
There is something I forgot in my last post. MIT had an AI program called "Guardian Angel". The concept was to keep a personal medical history, accessible with permission by doctors, pooled from any lab result, diagnosis, treatment, medication; from any source. The database was then to be intelligent enough to look at drug interactions, family history, genetics and be ready with statistical and formulated opinions for individuals and doctors to refer to. There is a strange side story of failure due to (D)ARPA funding issues.
I found this project after discussing a similar idea with my doctor. We agreed that there is an excellent potential in an intelligent personal database that share's information anonymously for research and statistics.
Added to this, the notion of self administered blood tests, even daily (a drop of blood into a USB device...), one could consult this "digital doctor" for nutrition advice and even to tell you whether to have the microwave oatmeal or a fruit salad...
Food and more natural supplements being the least invasive treatments, the level of self care increases, and the data presented, as needed, to a doctor, organized, complete, with patient history and the constant refinement of reported empirical results...! Not bad. Not bad for a book.
There is the genomic X-prize. This level of sophistication in personal analysis has huge potential. The understanding of an individual doctor or patient is limited, but could be helped by such a guardian angel system.
The funny thing, which my doctor understood instantly, is that this would be a constant re-training tool as well. Everything should be checked by a real human doctor until, and beyond the point that the system is 'never wrong'.
What then with the advent of friendly AI? Trust.
Another non-invasive procedure has been developing since 1985- Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation. Unlike ECT, neurons are stimulated, rather than destroyed. I am looking for a way to access this treatment for neuropathic pain. It is possible that the damage that causes me pain could be healed this way. More importantly, the uses for the technique seem to range through all brain injury related problems.
Look it up if you can. Anyone. I want to hear opinions.
Thanks,
Joel
Some people might react with puzzlement to the statement: "we're all cyborgs". When most people encounter the term cyborg, they probably imagine something like a Terminator like being, or some such, or even a robot maybe. A cyborg isn't a robot, though. The most simple definition of a cyborg is a human-machine hybrid. The term cyborg (short for cybernetic organism) wasn't invented by Norbert Wiener, though it is very much of product of, and very much implied by, his thinking. The term was coined in 1960, by two scientists pondering the adaptability of man to space travel:
"What are some of the devices necessary for creating self-regulating man-machine systems? The self-regulation needs to function without the benefit of consciousness, in order to cooperate with the body's own autonomous homeostatic controls. For the artificially extended homeostatic control system fuctioning unconsciously, one of us (Manfred Clynes) has coined the term Cyborg."
-Manfred Clynes and Nathan S. Kline, "Cyborgs in Space", 1960
A man with a wooden leg is a cyborg. So is a man with an iron lung. More loosely, a steam shovel operator or an airline pilot is a cyborg. As I type this page I am a cybernetic organism, just as you are when you take pen in hand to sign a check.
> A man with a wooden leg is a cyborg.
> So is a man with an iron lung.
Nobody, in the days when polio was a scourge, got around **with** an iron lung. If you couldn't breathe on your own, you were stuck **in** one. In a ward crammed full of them. It was a truly hideous experience, which I'm glad I didn't know the full truth of back in the 50s when I was a kid and parents were afraid to let their children go to the public swimming pool in the summer (I remember getting Salk shots for a couple of years in elementary school before they switched to the sugar cubes in the early 60s).
Speaking of disease epidemics, there's an interesting (if sad) article in the latest _New Yorker_ about mass extinctions (most biologists these days agree we're seeing a sixth big one since they started to be counted, a human-fueled one that began about 50,000 years ago when people started getting around the planet). Just in the past two years, there have been two crises that biologists have been trying to explain -- one is a crash in frog and toad populations around the world, and the other is a crash in bat populations. Both, it turns out, have been caused by fungus infections (not the same fungus, of course). The amphibians are getting a fatal skin infection of something called the chytrid fungus, and the bats are suffering from what has been called "white nose" disease -- a fungus that grows in the cold and attacks the bats while they're hibernating. If it doesn't kill them outright, it wakes them up in the dead of winter (when they should be torpid) and they freeze or starve to death. The bat deaths are really bad news, which we might start seeing the effects of in unpleasant ways -- bat populations eat **tons** of insects every night in the warm months, and if they're not around to keep the bugs in check, we might see truly alarming numbers of things like mosquitoes. One of the largest bat hibernacula in the U.S. (where generations of bats have been wintering since the end of the last ice age) adjoins a cavern which is a popular tourist attraction. Go figure.
The article also points out that convincing evidence for relatively rapid mass extinctions has only emerged since the late 70s -- Darwin didn't believe in "catastrophism", and generations of biologists over the century following _Origin of Species_ believed that apparent transitions in the fossil record reflected gaps in the information, not actual abrupt events. Until geologist Walter Alvarez, noticing a thin layer of clay in some Italian limestone containing quite different foraminifera (microscopic sea critter) fossils before and after, decided to try to figure out how long that clay took to be deposited, and his physicist dad suggested using iridium as a clock (rare on earth, more common in asteroids, it accumulates on earth's surface over time from the constant rain of micrometeorite dust). The iridium in the Italian clay was way higher than it should have been, and so was the iridium in samples of the clay layer deposited at the same time (end of the Cretaceous, around the time the dinosaurs went extinct, as it happened) all around the world. And that led to the asteroid-impact hypothesis of the dinosaur extinction, which was very negatively received when it was first put forth in 1980, but was corroborated by additional evidence (shocked mineral crystals, microscopic spherical globules of molten ejecta, and the discovery of the Chixulub crater) over the next decade and was widely accepted by the early 90s. Not all extinctions have been heaven-sent, though -- it turns out that the biggest one of all, at the end of the Permian (the one that put an end to the trilobites), was more likely to have been a volcanic event, which pumped lots of CO2 into the atmosphere (now there's an idea).
Definitely some interesting comments here - I will try to respond to the ones I haven't yet responded to in more depth soon (like this coming weekend), work has been rather exhausting.
jimf:
I would definitely be interested in seeing the "Human Body Shop" documentary but yipe, I certainly am not paying $120 for a DVD! Perhaps at some point it will end up on Youtube or some variant thereof.
Re. osseointegration (titanium screw/bone interface) -- I have actually heard of that before and to me that sort of thing strikes me as based on pretty sound mechanical principles. I can see the titanium acting as a means to extend the vector of the remaining bone so that the result is a better weight/force distribution than you'd get with a prosthetic that the stump just sort of "rests" in. With osseointegration it seems like as long as things like infection potential are well managed, good outcomes are likely to ensue. There's a kind of straightforwardness to the idea.
Re. computer-operated vision system (and how it didn't work for the woman in the documentary): now that sort of thing seems like an area where there's heaps of potential for complications and a lot more work to be done. Trying to set up a workable electronic vision system and install it in someone's head sounds at least several orders of magnitude more difficult than putting a titanium screw into someone's leg.
Also the fact that she was diabetic is worth noting, because another thing I have noticed is that when a lot of people talk about upcoming Amazing Advances in Medical Technology, they seem to gloss over the fact that many people in the world have "pre-existing conditions" and hence the technologies everyone is so excited about won't work for said people until they can be made to take those conditions into account. That is one reason I have backed way off on discussing "futuristic" technologies -- there's a whole lot of interesting stuff going on today, which may well lead to pretty awesome stuff IN the future, but what about the people alive now who don't happen to be under 40 and in robust health? They matter too.
Putting this here in a comment because it seems somewhat relevant to the conversation, I came across this article on 'contraband' cell phone use in prisons this morning. And that got me thinking that if there were ever a population that would likely be very likely to undergo potentially risky (and possibly even "underground") surgery to get phones implanted in their heads, it might very well be prisoners.
(Now there's an interesting sci-fi story idea, too...)
I really love this particular branch of technology, the Human-Machine Interaction (HMI) stuffs. There's already been some fascination work done on the topic, both in Sci-Fi literature (Accelerando, I think, has the clearest picture of the future of technology and demonstrates a lot of HMI - you can find that book/series on the internet, and I highly recommend reading it). There is also a link here:
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/15.04/esp_pr.html?
to a wired article about non-surgical HMI gear (with some really exciting implications - like can you 'train' a system to do something for you and you only have to train your own interface?)
For stuff that's about to come out or right on the cutting edge, you're right to look to the idea of Augmented Reality (AR) glasses that have a screen on them. I found these about or less than a week ago on Slashdot, and am intrigued (especially because they allow for your own glasses):
http://www.vuzix.com/iwear/products_wrap920av.html
One interesting aspect of the future that I think is ignored is the idea of genetic engineering. What happens when we can take a virus that *grows* those magnets naturally in our fingertips? Or, similarly, grows something else - like a new leg (for the first guy in Human Body Shop) or the aforementioned metal spikes coming from one's skull? Or growing quantum computers/wireless antennae/shark-electro-sensor-thingies that are attached to our brains? I think there's a lot of material that should be added to the cybernetics conversation regarding genetics, rather than just assuming that we're going to be lego-built with electronics.
KPG
regarding magnetic particles. There is some thought that the effects of low frequency magnetic fields may be due to microscopic ferromagnetic particles inside cells. These get rotated by the magnetic field and would stir up a cell if they were inside.
Magnetic particles like this are not uncommon in the environment. Virtually all Fe3O4 particles can act like this.
Post a Comment