Self-Quantification and Supersensing Using Embeddables

If my last post on this blog didn't solidify it clearly enough, in many ways I might be labeled a neo-Luddite. Not anti-technology, per se, but concerned enough about its social and cultural ramifications that I stay away from a lot of tech, even that which makes my life a bit easier or more fun. And it's safe to say that wearables fall pretty far from my comfortable pseudotechnological center.

Imagine my horror, then, when I hear increasing buzz about embeddable tech. Embeddables one-up wearables in that they're designed to be injected or implanted directly into a human being. Futurists imagine "post-humans" stuffed with sensors that predict heart attacks, RFID tags that trigger thermostats to adjust a room's temperature based on its inhabitant, and phone infrastructure built into our bodies so we can make calls by snapping our fingers. While embeddables are being touted as the new "next big thing," they raise important questions about our relationship with technology.

The glaring question surrounding embeddable sensors is: Why? Why would anyone want to turn their bodies into a walking data acquisition system? For decades a movement-termed the Quantified Self since around 2002-has pushed self-monitoring and self-sensing technologies with the ultimate goal of...wait for it...lifelogging. While lifelogging has typically been done with wearable computers, embeddables would seem to transcend the human-machine barrier altogether, pushing us closer to becoming fabled transhumans.

On a widespread level, embeddables seem to have the most potential in the healthcare industry for monitoring insulin or other bodily parameters. The cochlear implant, while not a sensor, has been an effective (albeit expensive) treatment for tens of thousands of deaf patients, for example. But will they ever reach the average consumer? Maybe, but not yet. While FitBit and other wearable activity monitors are becoming more and more popular, slow sales and (reportedly) high return rates have hampered Apple Watch, and Google Glass suffered a false start (to put it kindly) before being pulled from production. These warning signs are leading market analysts to question whether consumers really want-let alone need-to quantify their bodies or environments 24/7, or what they expect from wearables at all. Also, I'd think twice about embedding multiple devices emitting RF radiation under my skin. While we don't know the full effects of electromagnetic / cell phone radiation on our biological systems, I'd imagine if embeddables became a thing we'd find out pretty quickly.

Most of the current work on embeddables is done at the guerrilla level, in collaborative online forums like Biohack.me. Its members have developed implantable compasses (basically bio-GPS), implantable RFID tags, and more. Rich Lee, a hacker who suffers from deteriorating eyesight, implanted headphones near his ear and has been training himself to use them for echolocation navigation in place of his eyes. Lee is also working on erogenous zone enhancement implants for the adult industry, which not surprisingly is a front-runner for commercially marketable implants.

It's disconcerting to realize that, with a complete lack of support from professional medical staff (with a conscience), biohackers essentially perform surgery on themselves or enlist tattoo and body modification artists to do it, which has led to some pretty horrific accidents. But with the myriad ethical uses for embeddables, these hackers and amateur surgeons might just increase public acceptance in a positive way.

Image credit: Nokola / CC BY 3.0