Our ability to do things with technology far exceeds our ability to understand implications. Consider the brain chip: “Intel researchers in Pittsburgh told journalists today that brain implants are harnessing human brain waves to surf the Internet, manipulate documents, and much more”.
This got me thinking about how far I would go to adopt technology. Or humanity as a whole. Do you have a limit? Is there a point at which you would say “no more”. And if you (we) did, would it matter? Would it abate development? Is transhumanism our future? Will technology always lead and humanity simply follow where it goes?
-
‹ Home
Contents
-
Categories
-
Tags
Adoption Articles Blogging Classification/Ontologies Collaboration Community Connectivism Content Content Management Copyright/IP/DRM Design Elearning Evaluation/Assessment/ROI Games/Simulations Information Architecture Innovation Instructional Design Knowledge Management Learning Learning Objects Legal LMS Media Networks Open Source Podcasting Random Thoughts Research Resources ROI Search Semantic Web SNA Social Standards Storytelling Teaching Technology Theories Tools Trends Usability Wiki Wireless/PDAs XML
-
Archives
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
- August 2005
- July 2005
- June 2005
- May 2005
- April 2005
- March 2005
- February 2005
- January 2005
- December 2004
- November 2004
- October 2004
- September 2004
- August 2004
- July 2004
- June 2004
- May 2004
- April 2004
- March 2004
- February 2004
- January 2004
- December 2003
- November 2003
- October 2003
- September 2003
- August 2003
- July 2003
- June 2003
- May 2003
- April 2003
- March 2003
- February 2003
- January 2003
- December 2002
- November 2002
- October 2002
- September 2002
- August 2002
- July 2002
- June 2002
Blogroll
-
RSS Feeds
-
Meta
2 Comments
Totally by coincidence today, I found out about deep brain stimulation – I was unaware of its existence until about two hours ago when I was watching a MJFF webinar (have just bloggedthis second), then found this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YV65LimlnGg
I don’t know if they will achieve something similar with a chip the future (or if you know of anything?). The clinicians in the webinar said that they had seen positive results but that it is an evolving technique. It will be interesting to see how the ethics evolve along with the surgery?
Once again, thanks to both you and Stephen for opening up your connectivism research to the rest of us and have opportunity to network with others, sharing ideas !
> “Will technology always lead and humanity simply follow where it goes?”
Interesting way to phrase that, as if technology were a force separate from humanity. =)
In many ways, one could consider our predilection for technology, from the taming of fire through brain implants, as one of our defining characteristics. And while the idea of a brain implant or other forms of bodily enhancement may make some (most?) people feel a bit squeemish now, once the novelty wears off and the technology becomes commonplace, this technology will become as non-controversial as in vitro fertilization or lasik eye surgery is today. (Do you remember how controversial “test tube babies” were in the 1980s? Yet for most people just 20 years later, in vitro fertilization is not controversial at all.)
The only thing that would make me hesitant about a brain chip is the cost/risk vs benefit received from the implant. Surely just the ability to load web pages and open documents faster isn’t worth the risks and costs of brain surgery (though relieving severe symptoms severe Parkinson’s for many people probably is). Another consideration is that if advances in this technology follow an exponential curve, as they do for so many other technologies, then that would be a good reason to not be an early adopter.
Another interesting technology that will likely result in some tough decisions before intracranial brain chips do is artificial eyes: Would you be willing to replace your biological eyes for artificial ones that offered far sharper vision, telephoto zoom, the ability to see in the dark, the ability to record and replay everything you see, and augmented reality overlays?
Post a Comment