The next generation of “Internet of Bodies” (IOB) could bring technological devices and the human body closer together than ever before.
Scholar and author Andrea M. Matwyshyn coined the term in 2016, describing it as “a network of human bodies whose integrity and functionality depend at least in part on the Internet and related technologies such as artificial intelligence.”
The global connected medical device market alone will be worth approximately US$66 billion by 2024, and is expected to reach more than US$132 billion by 2029. That’s according to market research firm Mordor Intelligence.
Matwyshyn identified three categories of IOBs based on the level of integration of the device.
The first category is external. First-generation technologies such as smart watches or rings have become mainstream ways of tracking steps or heart rate. Smart glasses, which can be used as cameras, headphones, or displays, are another example of early IOB devices.
The second generation is internal. These are devices that you ingest or implant. Think pacemakers with digital implants, smart prosthetics hardwired into a patient’s nerves and muscles, or even digital pills that transmit medical data when swallowed.
Finally, there is the third generation. These devices fully integrate with the body while maintaining an instant connection to external machines and the Internet.
One of the most prominent companies in the field is Elon Musk’s Neuralink, which is developing a brain-computer interface (BCI) called “the Link.” A coin-sized chip is implanted under the skull and can read signals from a person’s brain and allow them to control external machines.
While IOB supporters are excited about the advances it could bring, especially in health care, many, including Matwyshyn in the original paper, have concerns about privacy and ethical issues.
“As bits and bodies merge, as human flesh becomes permanently intertwined with hardware, software, and algorithms, IOB will test our norms and values as a society,” she wrote.
“In particular, it will challenge notions of human autonomy and autonomy.”
About The Author
