I'm not a very paranoid person. I believe the strange pair of albinos that paw at my window each night while moaning are lonely, not scary. Which is why when I heard of Derek Jacobs I didn't think much of it. Really, who cares if somebody wants to be injected with a microchip so hospitals can scan it and pull up medical records faster?
The FDA is currently considering the matter in which Derek and his parents will be implanted with chips that make them a little more cyborg. In response to this news, religious zealots and hippies have gathered together to denounce the coming of the robotic age.
I haven't seen something blown so out of proportion since that midget porn playing on Cinemax last month. Nobody has any problem with the use of these chips being used for their current purpose, they are complaining about what it could lead to. If we listen to reasoning that skis down this slippery slope of paranoia, nothing would ever progress.
Sure, these chips could lead to more invasive chips that detect or even modify our behavior, but that's not a reason to rail against the current chip. In that respect, computers would also lead to these invasive chips, or the syringes that we use to inject them, or the thumbs we use to manipulate the syringes.
The problem with this argument is that it assumes doing something reasonable is going to lead to doing unreasonable things. I'm more afraid that unreasonable things (not using lifesaving technology) will lead to more unreasonable things (discontinuing 79 cent chicken nugget Sundays, boo).
Science has always been met with skepticism in its breakthroughs. When cellular-biology was in its infancy people felt that the study of cells would lead to dangerous chemical weapons. Theories of cyanide bombs and mustard gas...came true.
Alright, so science brings about some bad mojo, but the lives saved through cellular breakthroughs clearly outweigh the dangers from chemical weapons.
I think this new breakthrough deserves a little bit of faith. If I were allergic to penicillin, I'd sure rather have a chip in me than have to wear one of those medic alert bracelets. And insofar as we can all agree that nobody wants a chip in them that allows the government to modify our behavior, I'm betting that nobody is going to get that chip injected in them.
Just because we embrace this step forward doesn't mean we have to embrace all the plans of its parent company, Applied Digital Solutions. As accepting a guy as I am, I'd like to change pace for a moment and say this company is scary. According to the March 3 issue of Time magazine, the company "wants to add sensors that will read your vital signs -- pulse, temperature, blood sugar and so on -- and a satellite receiver that can track where you are."
Just kind of slipped that last one in didn't they? Dr. Richard Seelig, the company's medical-applications director, also slipped in that he thought all airline pilots ought to be tracked with chips so we can make sure it is them and not terrorists in the cockpit.
Now we can be afraid. See how easy it is to tell when something is worthy of paranoia and when it is not? Using chips on a voluntary basis to access critical medical records, using chips to regulate blood pressure and forcing chips on a particular profession so that we can know where they are at all times are two very different things. Sing it with me now, "One of these things is not like the other, one of these things just doesn't belong."
Just because we use the chip in one circumstance doesn't commit us to all other possible uses of it. It's okay to track down Derek Jacobs and put bolts, nuts and oil-cans in his school locker to make him feel like a robot outcast, but let him make his choice. Let reasoned decisions stand on their own and unreasonable corporations fall on their asses.
Josh Deahl is a political science and philosophy senior. Reach him at joshua.deahl@asu.edu.
