Research on Poles' attitudes towards chip implants was carried out by dr Dominika Kaczorowska-Spychalska from the Centre Mixer of Smart Technologies at the Faculty of Management at the University of Lodz and dr Łukasz Sułkowski, from the Institute of Public Affairs at the Faculty of Management and Social Communication at Jagiellonian University in Kraków. It was conducted on a nationwide representative sample of 1054 internet users in the period July-August 2021 using the CAWI method (collection of information using an electronic questionnaire). A payment chip the size of a rice grain, implanted between the thumb and index finger, is already used by a number of people in Poland. There are not many of them, but – according to the authors of the research – it is clear that the interest in this solution will be increasing. This will happen thanks to the systematic extension of the chips' functionality, e.g. by functionalities related to health. Many respondents (over 55 percent) indicate the usefulness of such a solution in monitoring the state of health, storing the data concerning blood group or information on names and doses of taken medicines.
Every second person surveyed by the Lodz-Cracow team of scientists sees the role of chips in storing data from documents we use every day - identity cards, driver's licenses or passports, although three quarters of the respondents fear the loss of digital identity as a result of electronic theft of this data.
The respondents pay attention to the features and quality of the chip itself. They expect maximum miniaturization of the device, adaptation of its functions to real needs, intuitive operation, while recognizing that the process of insertion under the skin must be safe and minimally invasive. Almost 2/3 of people raised the ethical dimension of the solution – whether it is compatible with their system of values and with the applicable law.
An interview with the author of the research, dr Dominika Kaczorowska-Spychalska, head of the Centre Mixer of Smart Technologies at the Faculty of Management of the University of Lodz
From a chip under the skin to the metaverse
In some time, implanted under the skin chips will be as common as smartphones, which today we cannot live without.
Would you be willing to have a payment chip implanted in your hand today?
- I have wondered about that frequently. I'm tempted... Of course, first, I would have to check if the chip implant procedure itself is safe, what functionalities this device has, how efficiently it works... Yes, I think so, I could have such a chip under my skin.
Like 5 percent of the Poles surveyed by you who would do so without hesitation?
- I guess I would be in a different group – over 30 percent who believe that in the next ten years the chips will become so technologically perfect and gain the functionality needed so much that in this time perspective they would decide to have them implanted.
So, after all, distrust...
- I am fascinated by new technologies, but my approach towards solutions that – like chips – interfere with my body, is conservative: yes, it is an intriguing and interesting possibility, which I will watch carefully and if it meets my expectations, then maybe ... . If it turned out that the chips could collect information about my health, I would be certainly much more likely to undergo implantation.
Majority of Poles, however, reject such solutions.
- When analysing people's attitudes to technology, we observe two extreme attitudes – on the one hand, there are technology and innovation enthusiasts who say: Wow! A chip! I want to have it and use it. On the other hand, there is a much larger group of pessimists who believe that such technology is evil.
Life... After all, we know the case of the British biohacker Lepht Anonym with fifty chips, magnets and an antenna in his body, but also people who believe that vaccines are injected into their bodies with microchips in order to control them, steer them, take over their minds...
- Yes. Well, somewhere between these extremes there are potential clients of, for example, the Polish startup Walletmor, which already provides payment chips. Yes, it is really happening and we already have people in Poland, but not only in Poland, with chips in their bodies.
So let's assume that I have no doubts and now I would like to have a chip implanted. What should I do?
- All you need to do is contact the company that I have mentioned or another one that offers such a solution, order a payment chip, pay (currently around EUR 200). They will send you a package with a chip and instructions on how to insert it yourself, using the kit provided and cutting the skin between your thumb and forefinger. But this is a solution for the brave. You can also go with your chip to at least one of the recommended medical facilities. The implantation procedure takes 15 minutes.
Does it hurt?
- Not at all. It is done under local anaesthesia. It takes about a month to heal and a small scar remains. There are no rejections, and there is no risk that the chip will migrate through the body in an uncontrolled way.
And I can go shopping without a wallet and a card... All in all practical...
- Because practicality and convenience in the case of accepting similar solutions are the key issues. The participants of my research indicate these motives supporting the decision to get chips implanted most frequently. We also read about it in foreign literature on chips.
Is it a global trend or a human inclination?
- A trend supported by a tendency to maximize comfort. It should be comfortable and functional. And the chip, currently used for paying, unlocking automatic locks and monitoring the body's basic health parameters, is one of those technologies that provide such a sense of convenience. So it's all the easier for us to decide to make various sacrifices to sustain this state.
In the case of chips, the matter is probably more complex, because it is about interfering with the body...
- Yes, this is not a pair of augmented reality goggles that, when I get bored with, I put back on the shelf, give it to someone else or sell it. A chip is an invasive solution. It becomes a part of me, its removal requires another procedure. This already raises questions as to whether it is worth it or if to use it now, at this stage of development of this technology.
Hence the doubts of those who give themselves ten years to decide on the implementation...
- In the research, we offered the respondents a much wider range of time options to choose from. There were 3 years, 5 years, there were also 20 years or more. The perspective of the decade was most often indicated, probably assuming that the invasiveness of this technology requires such a time for our mentality to get used to it.
So we're not ready yet?
- Certainly not all of us. For example, take Sweden and the chip boom which occurred there in 2014. Several thousand people have already been chipped. We are talking about chips, which not only allowed you to make payments, but also access to various buildings, offices, gyms, etc. But this fascination has declined. The number of chipped people is increasing, but the gains are small. It seems that the number of Swedish people – enthusiasts of this technology, who trust its possibilities and who are ready to have such a chip implanted, is unfortunately running out.
So what's next?
- The next jump in interest will be related to giving the chips new functionalities – mainly in the area of personal data and medicine. For example, chips will replace documents: they will store our data, so far included in the ID card, driving license or a passport. In addition, information about the state of our health: allergies and allergens, past illnesses, diseases we suffer from, constantly taken medications, blood type. The function of monitoring our health will also be important.
Very sensitive data itself... Will people want to share it with even administrators of systems that operate the chips?
- I think that if it was about protection in the event of an accident, fainting in the street, life threat – then yes. Common sense will prevail over doubts concerning the fact that they must disclose this data. For their own good.
So a device from the wearables category, but implanted in the body?
- Exactly. After all, today we deal with wearables technology, i.e., wearables that you have mentioned – smartwatches, fitness trackers, intelligent clothing and jewellery constantly monitoring many manifestations of our activity. We also constantly share data from them with someone, e.g., providing even the most basic information about how many steps we have taken today. Let's add smart homes, cities ... The Internet of Things, big data, artificial intelligence and we have a kind of techniverse where everything connects to everything, communicates, collects data and uses it. We are already part of this space, we are a link in this great network of connections...
Sure, we are. But we still do not know with whom and for what purpose system administrators share information about us. And here is the reason for the mistrust.
- Distrust disappears in certain situations. Last year, at the Faculty of Management of the University of Lodz, together with Orange Polska, we prepared the first nationwide report on digital ethics in the context of consumer behaviour. It turned out that privacy is crucial for them. But, at the same time, if the brand offers consumers any benefit, the proverbial "icing on the cake" in exchange for this data, they forget about privacy and pass it on without any problems.
This has long functioned in the minds of internet users: they have to share data to use attractions and functionalities such as Facebook, Instagram or TikTok. And they do share it, but the data is not that sensitive. Is the common tendency to share information, e.g., about one's health, a question of this generation or two or three next ones?
- It's impossible to say exactly. I think the perspective of these ten years is the most realistic. It is also a matter of the development of a given technology and how it makes our lives easier. We used to be less than thrilled with the latest generation TV sets; a roomba vacuum cleaner, which drives and cleans itself, also did not convince me to the end, and today I get a lot of use out of it. And again we come back to the word: convenient, which is of key importance in these considerations. It will be similar with chips – today they are the size of a rice grain, but those that are the size of a mite have been already developed, they cannot be seen with the naked eye, they can be injected under the skin.
Which, however, frightens people, discouraging, for example, vaccines. They are afraid that someone will take control of them via the chips.
- I knew we would come back to this topic. But here we are already entering the space of fake news. The more sensational something is, the easier we absorb it, not being able or not wanting to verify whether the information is true. Unfortunately, such an attitude is quite important when it comes to the lack of trust towards chips, despite their apparent acceptance.
There is also a whole set of potential new threats related to crime and, for example, "forced amputation" of such a hand with a chip during a robbery...
- It's a security issue. Today, just cutting off the hand does not solve the problem. In order for the chip to work, the hand must show the parameters of a living organism, the appropriate temperature, heart rate in the vessels, etc. If you cut off your hand, the chip will be useless.
Well, yes, but then there is the issue of educating criminals – the most important thing is that they should know about it.
- Ok! (laughter). This is quite an extreme example. It is true, however, that education and shaping not only knowledge, but also digital skills, is an indispensable element and the first step towards acceptance of technologies, especially those controversial ones.
And can implanting chips, such an artificial improvement of the man, be considered by Christians as unacceptable playing the role of the Creator? The Church generally has a problem with transhumanism and has not yet addressed it unequivocally.This is a problem that can be seen very differently in different societies, religions and cultures. Imagine and try to compare common chipping campaigns decreed by governments, for example, in China and in Poland. Where would it be easier?
Of course in China.
- Exactly... As for the role of the Creator, transhumanism assumes that the use of technology is a natural element of human evolution. Since the man came up with a solution to improve themselves, maybe God suggested it to them, so that they could use it, but in a way worthy of the man.
What if the man chooses to use them in an undignified manner?
- Then even God can't help... Because technology is neither good nor bad. Only we, the people, make use of it in one way or another, give it meaning. I often use the concept of homo cyber to describe the attitude of a contemporary man who uses new technologies, but in a very rational way, adequate to his expectations and needs. A man who skillfully balances between this somewhat thoughtless fascination with technological innovations and pessimism and fear of them.
Homo cyber, i.e., a potential "client" of transhumanist visionaries?
Yes, especially in the medical aspect. For example, as part of his Neuralink project, Elon Musk talks about implanting brain chips that stimulate its work in order to counteract diseases, eliminate their effects and related ailments. But it immediately goes further, into the commercial sphere: if you can implant such chips, why not do it for fun too. For example, those chips that allow you to feel music with your brain, and not listen to it through speakers.
And see without opening my eyes?
Why not? It may turn out that thanks to technology, people will exceed the limitations of their senses, will begin to perceive the world in a completely different, new way, which today we are not even able to imagine, and will gain completely new skills. They won't start flying right away, but maybe they will play like a violin virtuoso, who knows.
Provided we use technology in an extremely responsible manner, in the spirit of humanism, to cross the fine line that separates us as sapiens from us in the cyber role.
This is very important because progress is accelerating. When we look at the Gartner Hype Cycle, the level of complexity of new technologies means that we are no longer talking only about biochips, but about the entire philosophy of digital human and the blurring of the border between the biosphere and the technosphere.
Where is the end of cyberpossibilities, what else can be changed in the man, how will the world change?It's hard to imagine. Bill Gates, having a solid scientific basis for this, announces metaverse, a digital world where everything will connect, communicate and cooperate, in which during remote meetings we will talk to holograms instead of people on monitors . Compared to this vision, the "ordinary" payment chips with which we started our conversation may soon turn out to be something as banal, natural and as basic as a smartphone that we never part with, because it is becoming more and more difficult for us to do without it.
Interview by Marcin Kowalczyk, Promotion Centre, University of Lodz