Lock In: Wetware, Human Rights, and Bioethics

John Scalzi’s crime novel imagines a future where man and machine can be mentally connected.  A pandemic struck the world called Hadens Syndrome, and the U.S. government heavily funded money to find cures.  Most Hadens (term for people with the syndrome) would have their brain chemistry/composition altered, putting them in a perpetual coma.  However, with the research funded by the U.S. government, scientists found a way to implant computer hardware and software that connects to the cellular neurons of Hadens’ brains.  This integration of computer software and human wetware allows their consciousness  to be transferred to a robotic body called a “threep.”  A small percentage of Hadens came out of the coma state, and with their altered brains could still download the software to their brains.  They are called Intergraters because Hadens can use their bodies as a live threep, and the market for Intergraters skyrocketed.  Also, a whole virtual reality called the Agora was developed by the government for Hadens to contact and live with each other without having to use physical bodies.  Seemingly solving this tragic disease, there arise a lot of human rights questions throughout the novel.

The backdrop for much of the novel is D.C. during a civil rights march week.  Hadens were storming D.C. because Congress was about to pass a bill to roll back much of the funding towards helpings Hadens.  The reader’s perspective is from FBI Agent Chris Shane, a famous Haden because his father was the billionaire politician that used Chris to normalize threeps in everyday life, so the reader gets a very pro-Haden perspective.  Hadens were worried about the shrinking market and advancements in threeps, as well as the potential privatization of their Agora network. However, some of the complaints of the general populous do make some logical sense.

Hadens in threeps are objectively better than regular human bodies.  Although made to mimic the strength of average humans, threeps can turn off pain sensors and keep operating semi-normally even through heavy damage (such as from bullets).  Hadens would also have private access to the internet, ability to make phone calls without others listening, can speak different languages, have person identification, etc.  These benefits greatly helped Agent Shane in his work, and it is elaborated these advantages help Hadens in a wide variety of fields such as sales, law, business, medicine, etc.  The general public then wondered why a huge portion of their taxpayer dollars were being dumped into helping an exclusive group have greater advantages then them.  They were happy when their funds drove the jump to Wetware and software interaction, but now that Hadens were no longer disadvantages they did not believe the government still needed to fund further research.  Hadens saw the budget cutbacks as threat against a disabled minority, while the general public saw the current budget as supporting an over-privileged minority.  The advantages of humans in threeps cannot be ignored; however, it does feel unsettling to retract funding to people crippled by disease.

Another issue arises with the Agora: should the government fund what is for all intents and purposes a segregated space?  Only Hadens and Intergraters can access it, and it is an exclusive space where they can converse and often form an “Us versus Them” mentality.  Such products of this is the character Cassandra Bell, who radically says research should stop into Hadens because they do not need to be “woken up” but that they should be able to live a body-less life in the Agora (more on this later).  Hadens, over the years, got used to the Agora being free, unlimited entertainment.  But does their cozy familiarity justify the continual expensive program from all Americans for a few?

There are also a lot of implications with the use of Intergraters; however, in an effort not the spoil the novel or cover all of the interesting  sci-fi aspects, I will not elaborate.  I think Scalzi would appreciate this (go read the book, it’s great).

Going back to Cassandra Bell, this scenario begs the question what it means to be human, and ti digs deep into Bioethics.  Consciousness seems to be the answer, even if it is unconsciousness.  The wetware of humans seems to be the only physical part needed to be human, although it should be noted this human portion would then be “useless” (?) without technical hardware/software working with it.  Bell’s message is also inspiring for body acceptance, especially those victim to disease and accidents.  Humans are not defined by their bodies, but then how do you define human consciousness?  Many say humans cannot properly reason until age seven or eight, some say babies and toddlers are not truly attentive or aware, which some say are needed for consciousness.  But human rights are often most applied to children, those with the least amount of evidence for consciousness.  People suffering from mental disability are still considered human, even if parts of their body and brain chemistry are lacking proper function and they need special assistance.   If we do not classify humans on their ability to live in their bodies out of external assistance, and levels of consciousness do not matter, then when does humanity begin?  If humanity does not change with the changes of human development, then when does humanity begin.  When the baby leaves the womb? Well how come, if the body does not matter to classify humanity nor level of consciousness, then why wouldn’t the baby be human inside the womb?  If the baby is human inside the womb, then at what stage in the womb does it begin to be human?  Could the essence of humanity trace back to basic DNA combination from the paternal and maternal sex cells?  After following this line of thought, I would believe so.