Neurotechnology expansion reveals systemic inequities in disability access and corporate control of human cognition
Original framing: “Brain-computer interface trials are taking off” — MIT Technology Review
Future scenarios for BCIs must account for the risk of a neurotechnological divide, where access is restricted to elites, exacerbating global inequities in healthcare. Without democratic governance, BCIs could become tools of surveillance, with corporations or governments monitoring users' thoughts and emotions for profit or control. Conversely, if developed with equity at their core, BCIs could democratize communication for millions, but this would require radical shifts in funding, regulation, and design philosophy.
The uncritical framing of BCIs as a triumph of innovation obscures a web of systemic issues: the entanglement of neurotechnology with military-industrial complexes, the erasure of Indigenous and Global South epistemologies, and the commodification of disability under the guise of empowerment.
Historically, such 'breakthroughs' have often served power structures—whether through the Tuskegee experiments or the DARPA origins of BCIs—while marginalizing the very communities they claim to help. A systemic solution requires dismantling the venture-capital-driven model of neurotechnology and replacing it with community-led, publicly funded, and democratically governed alternatives. For instance, Māori co-design principles could guide the development of BCIs that prioritize communal well-being over individual functionality, while universal healthcare systems could ensure that these technologies are accessible to all, not just the wealthy. The trickster’s insight—that BCIs are not a revolution but a repackaging of old power dynamics—challenges us to ask: who truly benefits from these 'advances,' and at what cost to human diversity and autonomy?