Attitude of young people to cyborgization of the human body: individual and political-psychological components
Main Article Content
Abstract
Relevant for today's society is the use of robotic prostheses and cybernetic implants that correct physical defects and various functional disorders. Various companies are currently developing such technologies not only to compensate for physical defects, but to increase the innate capabilities of the human body. The topic of cyborgization causes many moral and ethical dilemmas, which is reflected in many socio-philosophical scientific works, where attention was focused on the ethical and value aspects of the problem. Public recognition and factors related to these technologies have been studied in psychological research less frequently.
The purpose of this article is to investigate young people's attitudes toward cyber technologies, including stand-alone and embedded devices, as well as some relationships between respondents' personal characteristics (political preferences, religious beliefs, and personal anxiety) that could influence their attitudes toward cyborgization. human body (both someone else's and your own). To test the hypotheses set in the study and introduce the general trends on the topic of cyborgization of the human body, the methods of correlation and frequency analysis were used.
According to the results of the study, we came to the following conclusions. First, people are generally more positive about the cyborgization of the human body on medical grounds than for the sake of human enhancement. Second, respondents are more tolerant of the robotization of another's body than of their own. Third, the attitude to cyborgization, both of one's own body and that of another's body, is not influenced by either the political orientations of the respondents or the person's personal anxiety. The general attitude to such a phenomenon as the cyborgization of the human body is influenced by the presence or absence of such a factor as the religiosity of the individual.
The practical significance of the results lies in the possible use of the obtained data to simplify both the process of adaptation of people who use cybernetic implants and the process of implementing these technologies in various fields of human activity. The originality of the research lies in the lack of research in the Ukrainian psychological and scientific space related to the study of people's attitudes to the topic of cyborgization of the human body. After all, despite the popularity of the topic in other areas of socio-humanitarian knowledge, psychological research on this topic has not become widespread. Prospects for research are to refine the author's scale of attitudes to the cyborgization of the human body.
Downloads
Article Details
References
Belan, K. (2014). Six life-changing science-based inventions of the year 2014 by big brands and challengers alike. Popsop. Online. Available at: http://goo.gl/U0zzww [10 May 2021] (in English).
Buchanan-Oliver, M., & Cruz, A. (2011). Discourses of technology consumption: Ambivalence, fear, and liminality. In R. Ahluwalia, T. L. Chartrand, & R. K. Ratner (Eds.), Advances in consumer research (Vol. 39, pp. 287-291). Duluth, MN: Association for Consumer Research (in English).
DARPA (2016). Bridging the Bio-Electronic Divide. Online. Available at: http://www.darpa.mil/newsevents/2015-01-19 [10 May 2021] (in English).
Funk, C., Kennedy B., Podrebarac Sciupac, E. (2016). Public opinion on the future use of brain implants. Pew Research Center. Online. Available at: https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2016/07/26/public-opinion-on-the-future-use-of-brain-implants/ [10 May 2021] (in English).
Gray, C. H. (1999). Human Potential, the Information Society, and Cyborgization. Research Gate. Online. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/23732699_Human_Potential_the_Information_Society_and_Cyborgization [10 May 2021] (in English).
Giger, J‐C, Gaspar, R. A (2019). Look into future risks: A psychosocial theoretical framework for investigating the intention to practice body hacking. Hum Behav & Emerg Tech, 1, 306–316. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbe2.176 (in English).
Kernel (2021). Kernel Sound ID. Online. Available at: https://www.kernel.com/ [10 May 2021] (in English).
Murata, K., Adams, A. A., Fukuta, Y., Orito, Y., Arias-Oliva, M. and Pelegrin-Borondo, J. (2017). From a science fiction to reality: cyborg ethics in Japan. SIGCAS Comput. Soc, 47 (3), 72–85. https://doi.org/10.1145/3144592.3144600 (in English).
Lovelock J. (2021). JAMES LOVELOCK: Originator of Gaia theory and inventor of the electron capture detector. Online. Available at: http://www.jameslovelock.org/ [10 May 2021] (in English).
Murata, K., Arias-Oliva, M., Pelegrín-Borondo, J. (2019). Cross-cultural study about cyborg market acceptance: Japan versus Spain. European Research on Management and Business Economics (ERMBE), 25, 3, 129-137. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iedeen.2019.07.003 (in English).
Olarte-Pascual, C., Pelegrín-Borondo, J., & Reinares-Lara, E. (2015). Implants to increase innate capacities: integrated vs. apocalyptic attitudes. Is there a new market? Universia Business Review, 48 (fourth quarter), 86–117 (in Spanish).
Park, E. (2014). Ethical issues in cyborg technology: Diversity and inclusion. NanoEthics, 8(3), 303-306. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-014-0206-x (in English).
Pelegrín-Borondo, J., Arias-Oliva, M., Murata, K., & Souto-Romero, M. (2018). Does Ethical Judgment Determine the Decision to Become a Cyborg? Journal of Business Ethics, 161(1), 5-17. doi:10.1007/s10551-018-3970-7 (in English).
Smith, A. (2014). U.S. views of technology and the future. Pew Research Center Online. Available at: https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2014/04/17/us-views-of-technology-and-the-future/ [10 May 2021] (in English).
Troyk, Ph. (2021). Wireless Floating Microelectrode Array (WFMA). The BRAIN Initiative. Online. Available at: https://www.braininitiative.org/toolmakers/resources/wireless-floating-microelectrode-array-wfma/ [10 May 2021] (in English).