Transhumanism Technology Ethics Policy Systems

The Impacts of Human Interface Technologies

Fairness, resources, and distribution dilemmas

Posted by Christopher O’Hara on April 16, 2018

Framing the Question

Course: 0LM140 — Let’s Make Humans Better (TU/e, Philosophy & Ethics / HCI stream, 2018)

The inquiry begins with the perennial question: What is a good life? Happiness, freedom, ataraxia, and success appear as possible answers. Nietzsche’s Übermensch is invoked alongside the Epicurean ataraxia, reminding us that enhancement debates are always entangled with philosophical visions of human flourishing.

In the Hegelian sense, the dialectic of technology is that each advance brings its opposite: augmentation promises empowerment, yet simultaneously deepens inequality and alienation. Heidegger would warn that technology enframes (Gestell) our being, reducing humans to resources within systems of efficiency. Nietzsche reminds us that we do not value the commonplace but the exceptional — yet enhancement threatens to make intelligence and ability generic.

My thoughts invoked Hauskeller’s provocation:

  • “We do not deserve to be unhappy… but we also do not deserve to be happy.”
  • “The talented deserve their talent as little as the untalented deserve their lack of it.”
  • “If resources are limited, then we can only achieve equality by holding people back.”

Rawls’ Theory of Justice applies: “The natural distribution is neither just nor unjust; what is just and unjust is how institutions deal with these facts.” This highlights that fairness in augmentation is not about nature, but about social design and institutional responsibility.

This blog post extends the thesis: how do finite resources, class divisions, and augmentation converge? And how should distribution be decided — by laissez-faire markets, prescription models, or lotteries? The reflections that follow attempt to chart that terrain.

Abstract

While technology is always a driving force in the advancement of humanity (e.g., language, social structures, tools), it is not without detrimental costs to society and the environment (both explicit and implicit). The benefits and quality of life that come from the advancement of technology typically far outweigh the costs. However, if the costs could be minimized or resolved, then technology has the potential to more positively impact the standard of living for everyone. With the combination of finite resources, laissez-faire distribution, and poor recycling practices, “fairness and equality” become challenging.

This post examines aspects of human augmentation technologies through a consideration of philosophical topics with respect to current megatrends. It asks: “who should be permitted to use human interface technologies and augmented realities?” The goal is to encourage readers to consider the impacts of cyber-physical human enhancement, and guide towards responsible usage and distribution. The central claim is that human enhancement will benefit society, but should not (initially) be readily available to everyone, in order to preserve fairness in the long run.

Enhancement Now

Human enhancement will eventually take place on the biological level through various enhancement drugs, gene manipulation, and enhanced 3D-printed organs. Futurists and philosophers often focus on these controversial topics—human nature, the true self, and the meaning of life.

But a tidal wave of human-machine interaction technologies is approaching: wearables, augmented reality, and the already ubiquitous smart devices. Combined, these technologies promise efficiency, richer experiences, and even self-realization when innate attributes fall short of aspirations.

Yet enhancement devices are resource intensive and short-lived. Their reliance on precious elements leads to waste. Some philosophers argue equality has no intrinsic value and cannot be enforced. Here, I propose that a plan is both possible and necessary.

Implications of Current Dilemmas

Finite resources. The speed at which technology is released matters. Gold could run out by 2030, silver by 2029, and copper by 2044 at current consumption rates (Scientific American). PCBs in smartphones and wearables require these metals, yet crude manufacturing processes and short product lifespans render much of them unrecoverable.

Obsolete methods. Even major companies (e.g., Boeing, NASA contractors) use production processes unchanged since the 1970s. Seasonal “new versions” yield marginal gains (e.g., camera resolution bumps) while depleting the same resources. Regulations might require demonstrable performance increases before devices can enter the market, but this risks monopolistic dynamics.

Global inequity. Billions lack potable water or basic medicine, while augmentation devices can fundamentally alter opportunities—telemanipulation for remote jobs, AR for quantifiable perception. Users gain efficiency and reflection time, while non-users remain locked in labor. The divide here is not about gadgets, but about entire modes of existence.

E-Waste: Production and “Recycling”

So, what is e-waste and where does it go? Consumers responsibly return devices to distributors, yet up to 90% end up in Asia for crude salvage (UNEP). Workers—including women and children—face poisoning, cancer, and birth defects from handling hazardous materials.

Smartphones are 19% copper and 8% iron, valuable for scrap, yet the process exploits vulnerable populations. Americans alone discard $60M worth of gold and silver in phones annually.

The ethical consumer question: “Do I really need a new device this year?” If purchasing behavior contributes to sickness and death abroad, restraint becomes a moral duty. Returning to a pre-electronics world is impossible, but acknowledging irreversibility should shift society’s mindset from consumption to prevention and responsibility.

Finite Resource Limitations and Approaching Substitutions

Optimists argue that technological substitution will save us, as with past food and energy crises. But food and energy have renewable sources; elements do not. John Tierney once called recycling “garbage,” pointing out the futility of recycling paper when trees are renewable. Metals like silver or rare earth elements have no renewable analogs.

Prevention is the best treatment. Running out of key elements due to frivolous uses (e.g., viewing cat pictures) would be tragically ironic if those same elements were required for breakthrough technologies. Already, rare earth shortages threaten renewable energy (e.g., neodymium in windmills, silver in solar panels).

The lesson: do not wait for crisis. Proactive measures must mitigate losses before scarcity arrives.

Policy Considerations

Given the facts:

  • Enhancement technologies promise performance boosts.
  • Resources are finite.
  • Benefits vary by user context.

Who should have access?

Access could amplify social pressures: owners of AR or telemanipulation devices live fundamentally different lives from non-users. Irresponsible ownership (e.g., buying for status rather than need) wastes resources.

Policy could mirror driver’s licensing: requiring training, certification, or public education before augmentation devices are available. Responsibility for education—government, distributors, international bodies—remains unsettled. But without such measures, fairness is impossible.

Distribution Possibilities

The benefits of human-interface technologies are clear, but the costs are equally real. One key effect: polarization of job opportunities. Even without augmentation, employment growth is diverging into high-skill/high-wage jobs and low-skill/low-wage jobs (Autor, 2016). Human enhancement will amplify this divide, as tech familiarity increasingly defines employability.

Unlike handheld devices, augmentation and interface technologies integrate physically with users. Dependency already exists for smartphones; future devices could be irreversible components of the person. The social and psychological impacts of such integration remain unknown, but are unlikely to be trivial.

Controlled introduction. Because of finite resources and unpredictable impacts, phased deployment is advisable. One model is a prescription system, where applicants are selected based on need. Professional use (astronauts repairing ISS hardware, nuclear engineers minimizing risk) clearly carries higher stakes than entertainment use (toys, social media gadgets). Saving lives and conserving resources should be prioritized over recreational satisfaction.

Yet the line is blurred. Crane operators or forklift drivers, though less exposed to danger, could achieve order-of-magnitude safety and efficiency gains through augmentation. Such benefits justify inclusion in distribution strategies.

Risks of consumer trends. If augmentation becomes a “must-have” for the masses, consumption will spike uncontrollably. History shows many technologies are purchased and abandoned—e.g., Nintendo’s Wii Fit, with over 22 million units sold but little evidence of improving health. Laissez-faire principles would let the market decide, but when resources are finite, unrestrained consumption is reckless.

Fairness and hobbyists. Restricting access to professionals alone is dangerous. Hobbyists and tinkerers have historically driven innovation, often in overlooked ways. Giving devices to the public can:

  • Mitigate fears of new technology
  • Increase awareness of resource impacts
  • Inspire young scholars to pursue novel uses

Lottery model. For entertainment use, a lottery could determine access. Participants would apply within a defined window, with winners receiving devices under a non-transferable policy (preventing resale). Pre-requisite education would ensure recipients understood the origins of materials, production impacts, and disposal challenges.

The prescription model fits professional domains where stakes are high. The lottery model fits entertainment, preventing class-driven monopolies while still controlling distribution volume. Both approaches address fairness, responsibility, and resource management.

Possible Objections & Responses

In Mythologies of Transhumanism, Hauskeller argues that recognizing inequality does not compel us to redress it: not all undeserved inequality is inherently unfair. This may have been reasonable in times when technology had limited influence over life outcomes. But in the era of enhancement, technology reshapes opportunity itself.

Consider Stephen Hawking: without technology, his intellectual contributions would have been impossible. When access to augmentation determines whether people can pursue their aspirations, inequality becomes existential rather than incidental.

Hauskeller also suggests that ensuring equality of starting conditions merely delays the appearance of inequality. While this may hold initially, enhancement technologies can help individuals reach their “true selves,” regardless of birth conditions, class, or demographics. In this sense, augmentation has the potential to reduce entrenched inequities—but only if access is managed responsibly.

Negligence in production, usage, and recycling is already damaging the planet and human health. If left unaddressed, technology will accelerate irreversible inequality and ecological harm. The objection that inequality need not be redressed collapses when inequality directly dictates who thrives and who suffers.

Conclusion

Returning to the central question—“who should have access to these technologies?”—the answer is: everyone… eventually.

For now, with finite resources and irresponsible discarding practices, limitations on distribution are necessary. Fairness in the long run outweighs immediate gratification. Prioritizing professionals, applying prescription and lottery models, and enforcing education are strategies to balance innovation with responsibility.

Consumers must also be accountable. If one does not know where a product comes from or where it goes after disposal, can its use be called responsible? Ignorance fosters support for practices that most would reject if they understood the consequences.

Rather than wait until the “point of no return,” humanity must take proactive measures: predicting problems before they arise, mitigating harms before they compound, and treating enhancement as a transparent, ethical endeavor.

The era of transhumanism can be more than a technological leap; it can become a new enlightenment—one where fairness, empathy, and foresight guide the integration of augmentation into human life.

Works Cited

FEATURED TAGS
Logic Systems industrial Design AIOps CCS Concurrency Cybersecurity Estimation Model Checking PHM Policy Resilience Robotics