Umbilical Cord. Circumcision. Neuralink.
At some point in the near future, a newborn will take its first breath, and the doctor will turn to the parents with a routine set of decisions:
Cut the umbilical cord? Of course.
Circumcise? Maybe.
Neuralink implant? Wait… what?
That moment isn’t as far off as we think. We’re entering an era where brain-machine interfaces (BMIs) won’t just be for medical recovery, they’ll be marketed as an advantage, a necessity in order to live the highest quality life possible. Researchers note that while BCIs/BMIs have historically focused on medical rehabilitation, they now “hold great promise for nonmedical purposes to unlock human neurocognitive potential.”And when society normalizes a technology like this, it quickly becomes an expectation because of the massive disadvantage for folks who are not augmented.
For example, think about the polarity between those with internet access and those without.
Those without internet access are at a clear disadvantage in a capitalistic society. At this point in history, if you do not have internet access you are living in an entirely different, sub-reality.
Even consumer-grade neurotech is already emerging – wearable headsets claiming to improve concentration and learning have begun “spilling over from the medical domain into the consumer market.” All this points to a future where AI-enabled brain interfacing is increasingly standardized in everyday life, not just in medical clinics.
I predict that cutting the cord, circumcision, and Neuralink implants (and other BMI technologies) will one day happen in the same moment – a decision stack where parents will opt-in or out to physically augmenting their child from the womb & plugging them into the cloud.
And that raises urgent, uncomfortable questions:
What happens when AI and bio-interfacing move from elective to expected?
If a baby is born connected to superintelligence, what does "childhood development" even mean anymore? How do we foster curiosity when most answers are readily available?
If only some parents can afford this, do we create an irreversible, biologically stratified class divide between the augmented & non-augmented?
And perhaps most importantly – who’s actually in charge of making these decisions?
The Road to Normalizing AI-Augmented Humans
At first, brain-machine interfaces were developed as medical tools to help those with neurological disorders regain lost functions . But that’s changing. Researchers are already discussing “enhancement BCIs” which are brain implants designed not just to restore but to augment human intelligence and memory.
Elon Musk’s Neuralink is already testing brain chips that allow paralyzed individuals to control computers with their thoughts. And Musk himself has hinted at a broader goal beyond therapy: the “symbiosis of human intelligence and artificial intelligence”.
AI-enhanced cognition is being positioned as the next great leap in human ability, much like literacy or internet access. The question is: When do these enhancements become an expectation?
And make no mistake, this is consciousness we're talking about. If AI-enhanced babies start outthinking their peers, does traditional education even make sense? If AI-wired workers outperform non-augmented ones, will companies require cognitive implants for employment? These are not abstract hypotheticals, they are systemic shifts with massive implications. And if we are not thinking about these things in advance, by the time they are at our doorstep, it will be too late to make any meaningful change or enact effective policy, equity, and compliance protocols.
If AI-wired workers outperform non-augmented ones, do corporations start forcing augmentation as a condition of employment? Do we now need to add “non-augmente” in our DEI initiatives?
The ripple effects here aren’t just about tech, they’ll reshape power, economics, culture, governance, and our species itself.
The New Class Divide: The Enhanced vs. The Left Behind
Every major technological revolution widens the gap between early adopters and those left behind. But what happens when that divide is literally built into our biology?
If Neuralink & other BMI technologies become a routine part of birth, does opting out become the equivalent of opting out of literacy? Will a child without an AI interface be at the same disadvantage as someone without internet access today? And if that’s the case, who controls access to augmentation? How do we make this technological roll-out the most “equitable”.
If we don’t think about these things in advance, we could be looking at the emergence of a two-tiered species – those who can afford to be upgraded and those who remain “biological.” And historically, when one group has a structural advantage over another, it doesn’t go well for the disadvantaged.
A recent paper on "enhancement BCIs" warns that cognitive augmentation could exponentially increase socioeconomic inequality. If brain implants and AI enhancements remain expensive, only the wealthiest will have access, and this creates a biological caste system where the rich are not just financially superior, but physically & mentally superior as well.
Historian Yuval Noah Harari has cautioned that we may soon see “the translation of social inequality into biological inequality”.
The upper class won’t just own more wealth, they’ll be physically and cognitively superior through bio-enhancements.
Those without access to these enhancements won’t just be poorer, they’ll be mentally outpaced and outperformed in ways they can never catch up to.
Military and intelligence agencies are already looking at neurotechnology for cognitive enhancement. Universities are already discussing “neural rights” to prevent brain hacking. The divide between plugged-in and unplugged humans won’t just be about intelligence—it’ll be about power.
Corporate Oligarchs Are Making Human Evolution Decisions – And That’s a Problem
The trillion-dollar companies driving this future weren’t built by the most empathetic or altruistic people.
Corporate leadership at this scale rewards a specific type of persona, one optimized for cutting costs, maximizing profits, and winning a dog-eat-dog power game. Ethical considerations are not what made most of these companies successful & these decisions are directly reflective of the leadership who makes them. Leadership is incentivized to beat the competition, and to empower shareholders, not steward collective progress. This is capitalism 101.
Yet now, we’re supposed to believe that the same people who’ve built manipulative engagement-maximizing social platforms… the same ones who push algorithms that prioritize data extraction over human well-being… will suddenly have our best interests at heart when they create policy, products, and start wiring AI directly into our brains?
To me, that seems slightly ignorant and hopefully idealistic.
Oftentimes, power doesn’t make people more ethical; it makes them more invested in maintaining their position in the status quo. If we can’t trust these companies & their leaders to regulate themselves, why would we trust them to regulate human consciousness?
A 2022 study on Silicon Valley’s decision-making culture concluded that profit maximization often overrides ethical concerns in technological development . The study found that “the thirst for profit” can restrict collaboration and distort incentives, often delaying ethical oversight until it becomes a PR necessity .
We’ve already seen what happens when trillion-dollar tech companies roll out massive, disruptive technologies without considering the long-term consequences. Social media platforms optimized for engagement led to mental health crises and political polarization. Moreover, AI-driven automation has displaced entire job sectors before lawmakers even realized what was happening.
So why would we expect anything different with AI-enhanced human cognition?
If these silicon valley leaders weren’t thinking about human well-being when they built the largest attention-harvesting, behavior-modifying algorithms in history, why would we assume they’ll suddenly prioritize ethics when designing brain implants & other human augmentation technology?
The Philosopher King Paradox
Socrates described the “Philosopher King Paradox”: In a just society, philosophers would be kings, and although not impossible, it is highly improbable, because on the road to kingship the philosopher often loses the values that made them a philosopher in the first place.
And unfortunately, that’s exactly what we see with today’s leadership across government, technology, finance, medicine, media, etc. etc.
The people best suited to responsibly guide this next era of human augmentation often are not the ones who end up in positions of power due to the difficult task of coordinating a multi-pronged strategy, politicking, and financing initiatives to successfully rise in social status, power, and influence. Folks with the philosopher value set do not tend to enjoy the game of outmaneuvering their opponents in a game of competition.
The world we are moving towards is a world of collaboration.
Generally, global leadership does not make decisions with the long-term good of humanity in mind, but rather the long-term good of their national, tribalistic, imperialist interests. And if we are looking at ourselves as a collective humanity, one could say that each limb is focusing on itself rather than the whole, as if the leg, the arm, and the chest are not all vital body components of the whole anatomy. When we start to view humanity & our relationship to each other in this way, we will make decisions that are holistically beneficial rather than singular, narrow, and blinded.
We need leaders who aren’t just optimizing for speed, power, and control, but for wisdom, ethics, and human flourishing. And right now, there’s an opportunity for that kind of leadership to rise up.
Systemic Resistance is Inevitable
It is probably smart to think about the future of power, control, and resistance…
Radical technological shifts don’t just disrupt industries, they disrupt power structures, they destroy empires. And when governmental power is threatened, it fights back. It squeezes, it censors, it places unbearable pressure on its population to prevent change.
If a fully augmented, AI-integrated leadership outperforms non-augmented humans in every measurable way, what happens when the non-augmented refuse to assimilate?
If you were in control, wouldn’t you try to regulate, restrict, or even sabotage their resistance?
History shows that when paradigm-shifting innovations emerge, those in control try to slow, regulate, control, or sabotage them.
The printing press faced pushback from religious and governmental authorities who feared its destabilizing effect on traditional power.
Mechanized looms sparked violent opposition from guilds whose skills were being replaced .
AI-driven automation has already faced lawsuits and pushback from labor unions and government regulators.
Now imagine this playing out at the level of human cognition itself.
If a new generation of AI-enhanced thinkers threatens the old elite, how do you think governments, corporations, and institutions will respond?
When existing institutions feel their dominance slipping, they don’t just adapt, they resist. This is clear and I don’t think I need to provide much evidence to prove this.
Those in power will push for regulation that benefits them, use the media to create fear narratives, and criminalize rising leaders & alternative systems that threaten their dominance. This is the dirty game of capitalism & imperialism that we are all aware of.
Corporations will soon push subscription models for brain upgrades. There will be lawsuits, ethical debates, maybe even a black market for off-grid neural implants.
And for anyone who deems this “alarmist”, you are part of the gaslighting cohort who will be the first to say “I’m sorry” if we do not plan ahead with some predictive analysis of what’s most likely to happen… and I think I am pretty spot on with this.
Intelligence will be locked behind paywalls and there may even be state-controlled neural interfaces ensuring the government has access to enhanced cognitive abilities before the general population does.
The future of AI-driven augmentation won’t be determined solely by technological capability, it will be shaped by political, economic, governance power struggles, and the constant tension between safety & innovation.
The Choice to Leave Normal Behind
We’re no longer passively evolving as a species. We’re making active choices about what comes next.
The question is: Will augmentation be about human flourishing, or just another arms race for competitive advantage?
How do we think about the collective “we” when we ask ourselves “How do WE build the world WE want to live in? How do we make sure that collective “we” includes as many people as possible, not just the insular few in Silicon Valley and other areas of power & influence around the world.
Because listen… we rise as a collective & make these decisions for ourselves, or they’ll be made for us, by people, companies and institutions that see humans as data points and revenue streams, not as individuals with autonomy and purpose.
This is about more than just Neuralink. It’s about whether we evolve on purpose, with purpose.
Values, kindness, wisdom, courage, boldness, and compassion are needed more than ever before. Philosopher Kings & Queens are needed more than ever before.
Warrior monks who are able to navigate the dimension of competition with the values of collaboration.
Cutting the umbilical cord has always symbolized the start of independent life. But if that moment soon includes plugging into an AI matrix, we need to ask…
What are we connecting to? Who is in control? What are the guardrails? And what are the implications of our actions?
I hope I’ve left you with some food for thought.
Blessings,
Rob Fajardo, CEO of Leave Normal Behind