{"id":258067,"date":"2024-04-01T12:00:17","date_gmt":"2024-04-01T11:00:17","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/?p=258067"},"modified":"2024-03-26T06:58:48","modified_gmt":"2024-03-26T06:58:48","slug":"weaponizing-reality-the-dawn-of-neurowarfare","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/2024\/04\/weaponizing-reality-the-dawn-of-neurowarfare\/","title":{"rendered":"Weaponizing Reality: The Dawn of Neurowarfare"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Exploring the race to apply emerging neurotechnologies, such as brain-computer interfaces (BCIs), in times of both war and peace, expanding conflicts into a new domain \u2014 the brain \u2014 while perhaps forever changing humans\u2019 relationship with machines. <\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

21 Mar 2024 <\/em>– Billionaire Elon Musk\u2019s brain-computer interface (BCI) company Neuralink<\/a> made headlines earlier this year for inserting<\/a> its first brain implant into a human being. Musk says such implants<\/a>, which are described as \u201cfully implantable, cosmetically invisible, and designed to let you control a computer or mobile device anywhere you go,\u201d are slated<\/a> to eventually offer \u201cfull-bandwidth data streaming<\/a>\u201d to the brain.<\/p>\n

\n

Brain-computer interfaces (BCIs)<\/a> are quite the human achievement: as described by the University of Calgary<\/a>, \u201cA brain computer interface (BCI) is a system that determines functional intent \u2013 the desire to change, move, control, or interact with something in your environment \u2013 directly from your brain activity. In other words, BCIs allow you to control an application or a device using only your mind<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n

Developers and advocates of BCIs and adjacent technologies emphasize that they can help people regain abilities lost due to aging, ailments, accidents or injuries, thus improving quality of life. A brain implant created by Swiss-based \u00c9cole Polytechnique F\u00e9d\u00e9rale in Lausanne (EPFL), for example, has allowed a paralyzed man to walk again just by thinking<\/a>. Others go further: Neuralink\u2019s goal is to help people \u201csurpass able-bodied human performance<\/a>.\u201d<\/p>\n

Yet, great ethical concerns arise with such advancements, and the tech is already being used for questionable purposes. To better plan logistics and boost productivity, for example, some Chinese employers have started using \u201cemotional surveillance technology<\/a>\u201d to monitor workers\u2019 brainwaves which, \u201ccombined with artificial intelligence algorithms, [can] spot incidents of workplace rage, anxiety, or sadness.\u201d The example showcases how personal the technology can become as it is normalized in daily life.<\/p>\n

But the ethical ramifications of BCIs and other emerging neurotechnologies don\u2019t stop at the consumer market or the workplace. Governments and militaries are already discussing \u2014 and experimenting on \u2014 the roles they could play in wartime. Indeed, many are describing the human body and brain as war\u2019s next domain<\/a>, with a 2020 NATO-backed paper<\/a> on \u201ccognitive warfare\u201d describing the phenomenon\u2019s objective as \u201cmak[ing] everyone a weapon\u2026The brain will be the battlefield of the 21st century.\u201d<\/p>\n

On this new \u201cbattlefield,\u201d an era of neuroweapons<\/em>, which can broadly be defined as technologies and systems that could either enhance or damage a warfighter or target\u2019s cognitive and\/or physical abilities, or otherwise attack people or critical societal infrastructure, has begun.<\/p>\n

In this exploration of the race to apply the latest neurotechnologies to war and beyond, I investigated how the neuroweapons of tomorrow, including BCIs that may allow for brain-to-brain or brain-to-machine communication, have the capacity to expand conflicts into a new domain \u2014 the brain \u2014 while also bringing a new dimension to both hard- and soft-power struggles of the future.<\/p>\n

In response to ongoing neurotechnology developments, some allege \u201cneurorights\u201d will protect peoples\u2019 minds from possible privacy infringements and myriad ethical issues that new neurotechnologies may pose in the years to come. However, neurorights advocates\u2019 close proximity to the very organizations advancing these neurotechnologies deserves scrutiny and potentially suggests that the \u201cneurorights\u201d movement is poised instead to normalize advanced neurotechnologies\u2019 presence in daily life, perhaps forever changing humans\u2019 relationship with machines.<\/p>\n

The Military\u2013Intelligence Complex\u2019s Decades-Long Pursuit of Neurowarfare\u00a0<\/strong><\/h2>\n

Indeed, neuroscience\u2019s very origins lie in war. As Dr. Wallace Mendelson explains<\/a> in Psychology Today<\/em>, \u201cJust as American neurology was born in the Civil War, the roots of neuroscience are embedded in World War II.\u201d He explains<\/a> that while the bond between war and neuroscience has contributed to meaningful advances for the human condition, like the improved understanding of ailments like post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), it has left some worried about neuroscience\u2019s possible military applications.<\/p>\n

Controversial yet well-known government attempts to learn more about the brain include Project Bluebird\/Artichoke<\/a>, a 1950s era project that worked to determine whether people could be involuntarily made to carry out assassinations through hypnosis<\/a>, as well as the especially infamous MK Ultra<\/a>, where human mind control experiments<\/a> were carried out in a variety of institutions in the 1950s and 60s. These projects\u2019 respective conclusions, however, did not signal an end to the US government\u2019s interest in invasive mind studies and technologies. Rather, governments internationally have been interested in the brain sciences ever since, investing heavily in neuroscience and neurotech research.<\/p>\n

Initiatives and research explored in this article, like the BRAIN Initiative and the United States Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency\u2019s (DARPA) Next-Generation Nonsurgical Neurotechnology (N\u00b3)<\/a>, are often portrayed as altruistic strides towards improving brain health, helping people recover lost physical or mental abilities, and otherwise improving quality of life. Unfortunately, a deeper look reveals a prioritization of military might.<\/p>\n

Enhance\u2026<\/strong><\/h2>\n

The military is intensely interested in emerging neurotechnologies. The Pentagon\u2019s research arm DARPA directly or indirectly funds about half<\/a> of invasive neural interface technology companies in the US. In fact, as Niko McCarthy and Milan Cvitkovic highlight<\/a> in their 2023 writeup of DARPA\u2019s neurotechnology efforts<\/a> that DARPA has initiated at least 40 neurotechnology-related programs over the past 24 years. From the Interface<\/em> describes<\/a> the current state of affairs as DARPA funding \u201ceffectively driving the BCI research agenda.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n

Source \u2013 US Army Recruiting Command<\/em><\/p>\n

As we shall see, such projects, many of which focus on somehow enhancing the capabilities of the recipient or wearer of a given piece of technology\/augmentation, are making activities like telepathy, mind-control and mind-reading \u2014 once the stuff of science fiction \u2014 at least plausible, if not tomorrow\u2019s reality.<\/p>\n

As McCarthy and Cvitkovic explain on their S<\/a>ubstack, for example, the 1999 DARPA-funded Fundamental Research at the [BIO: INFO: MICRO] Interface program led to significant \u201cfirsts\u201d in brain-computer interfaces research, including allowing monkeys to learn to control a Brain Machine Interface (BMI) to reach and grab objects<\/a> without moving their arms. In another project from the program, monkeys learned<\/a> how to \u201cposition cursors on a computer screen without the animals emitting any behavior,\u201d where signals extrapolated from the monkey\u2019s movement \u201cgoals\u201d were \u201cread\u201d and decoded to move the mouse.<\/p>\n

McCarthy and Cvitkovic also highlight that, in more recent years, DARPA-funded scientists have also \u201ccreated the world\u2019s most dexterous bionic arm<\/a> with bidirectional controls,\u201d have used brain-computer interfaces to accelerate<\/a> memory formation and recalling, and have even \u201ctransferred a \u2018memory\u2019 (a specific neural-firing pattern) from one rat to another,\u201d where the rat receiving the \u201cmemory\u201d almost instantaneously learned<\/a> to perform a task that typically took weeks of training to learn.<\/p>\n

Scientist Miguel Nicolelis discusses an experiment where a monkey uses its thoughts to control a monkey avatar and a robot arm. Filmed at <\/em>TEDMED 2012:<\/em><\/a><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n