Tuesday, February 16, 2016

What's that tech you're wearing?


I’ve been thinking about wearable technology lately, and I continue to see strides in this space being made, as well as much more to come on the horizon.

The potential for wearable tech has been around for a while, with small sensors, minute power devices (or the use of body heat) and the networking options for small gadgets over short ranges, like NFC. But for a long time this technology was like a solution in search of a problem. It was not until consumer applications were developed that demand reached the tipping point where these devices became a market.

Mention “wearable technology” to some people (as I have) and they react as if it’s a creepy-spooky idea. Then rattle off all the devices that surround us, from fitness trackers, smart watches, Google glasses and so on, and you’ll see the light bulb come on. Once everyday applications become ubiquitous, the idea no longer seems outlandish and consumer demand will take over.

But so far, I think, the applications have all been consumer-friendly playthings, and not something that companies see as a driver in the workplace. That is going to change. As people interact more and more with the internet of things, as our jobs rely more and more on computers and information, and the manufacturing sector is always on the brink of the next version of the “factory of the future” it can only be certain that humans in the environment will need to be wired in as well.

Consider worker safety. Every year over two million workers die in job related accidents, an astonishing number. Much effort and expense is devoted (and should be) to reducing that number. Much (although not all) of this is mandated by regulation, but more can and should be done. “Safety is really a big issue for the enterprise,” says Shawn DuBravac, chief economist for the Consumer Technology Association. “If I’m on a construction site, I’m buying them helmets, harnesses, safety gear. Why not also buy them air sensors, infrared cameras and sensored safety vests?” The costs of these devices have come down considerably, so it makes no sense not to deploy them.

Trackers like Fitbit and many others now routinely monitor heart rate, breathing and other indicators of physical health. Why not deploy them to all workers who toil in a stressful or physical environment, so that problems can be spotted before they happen? The application of this technology in professional sports should also be a natural; think of the NFL’s current concern for the effects of head trauma on its players. How hard would it be to develop sensors in helmets that could measure the effects and alert trainers to the dangers?

I would also like to see more application of sensors that can monitor the alertness of individuals who simply must not be allowed to nod off: think of pilots, truck drivers and power plant supervisors. This technology is just in its infancy and has a long way to go. Wikipedia has an article on “DriverDrowsiness Detection” and Volvo is testing a system, although not wearable, that will monitor driver alertness by detecting “how open the driver’s eyes are, whether he or she is looking forward while the vehicle is in motion, and the position and angle of the driver’s head.”

All these have the potential for harnessing machines and computers to keep people safe and improve performance. But I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention the potential downside concerns. If companies encourage – or require – workers to wear the sensors, what is done with the data? How might it be misused? Can it be deployed secretly? Who owns the data and what are the rules about sharing it? Will a worker consider these devices invasive or a violation of their physical integrity? Can workers be fired if their numbers are not up to par?

It’s also worth speculating about what new forms wearable technology may take. Once we are used to sensors in our clothing and strapped to our bodies, the next step may be something even more invasive. A startup called Chaotic Moon Studio is pushing a concept for a fitness tracker that is essentially a technology tattoo. Wareable.com, a web site devoted to this subject describes it this way: “Tech Tats uses electroconductive ink to connect sensors pressed against the skin, which can keep an eye on body vital signs, which could include temperature or vital signs. These can be stuck anywhere on the body, making them more discreet than standard wrist-based trackers.” Can chip implants be far behind?

We have much to hope for from this technology, and much to be wary of. But there’s no doubt that we’re sure to see many more examples of wearable technology in our lives – and on our bodies – soon.

2 comments:

Ted Goldman said...

Interesting article Howard! No question that wearable technology is coming and that will be the prelude to implanted technology. The melding of humans and machines is inevitable and nothing will stop it. Like everything else, there will be both good and nefarious uses. I just hope that the pros will outnumber the cons.

Richard Donham said...

As a biologist who has thought some about the history of life, which is long, and that of humans, which is relatively short, I wonder if the distinction between biological and non-biological is being blurred. This has been a theme in evolutionary biology, however, and began when hominids picked up sticks and stones to make fire, bring down prey, and impress their mates. So, tools rewarded the brainy, not the brawny. Our brains got bigger, and a positive feedback loop meant that brainy humans were able to find and develop new tools which led to new potentials which expanded our definition of human, and resulted in our continuing success as a species.

One thing that humans do, to excess and in novel ways, is consume. Consumption has allowed us to live everywhere, in great numbers (at the expense of most other life, especially charismatic species). Just when things look dire, as they did for the Zero Population Growth movement of 50 years ago, we find ways to utilize new sources of energy and matter and new vistas seem to open.

But, that may be short term...on the order of thousands of years, not millions. Humans ultimate resource limitations are perhaps space and time....there are too many of us, and we live too long. So, our ultimate competitors are other humans, who want the same things. And we are living within social contexts that are being strained to the limit as we struggle with the fact that there are 7 billion of us and counting. Norms of behavior and belief that were developed to cope with strains within bands of hunter-gatherers were replaced by mystical religious constructs that bound us to others whom we had never met. That was augmented by nation/states with codified civility.

Now, those structures seem mostly inadequate to the challenge of modern life: we are being bruised by other humans we don't know, will never meet, but who, potentially, may have devastating powers, on ourselves, personally. Nations with different, competing self-interests. And, it is all a consequence of our ancestors coming down out of the trees, standing upright, walking on two legs, developing a big brain, and using that brain to adopt/adapt tools for our collective good.

We as a species have been around for perhaps 200,000 years and compared to the history of almost all other living things, we are a trivial evolutionary experiment. But, we are an enormously consequential experiment, and one whose story is proceeding at breakneck speed. Whether we can continue is, I believe, and open question. Humans hope so, but I doubt that whales and lions do. Bacteria will do just fine, in any case, because they adopted an alternate strategy: live short and local.