Big Brain Energy Part ll ... Are We Becoming Borg, and if so, is That Such a Bad Thing?
- Steve Truitt
- Mar 26
- 6 min read
In my last post, I explored the expanding bandwidth of the human brain and the inevitable fusion of human cognition with technology. I acknowledged that our reliance on smartphones and digital devices is not necessarily a sign of cognitive decline but rather an indication that our brains crave constant stimulation.
What really interests me is the question: “But where does this path ultimately lead?” If brain-machine integration continues its current trajectory, are we moving toward a future that resembles the Borg from Star Trek? And if so, does that mean surrendering individuality, or is there a version of collective consciousness that enhances rather than erases who we are?
Furthermore, what role do the brain’s reward systems—particularly endorphins—play in keeping us tethered to our devices, and how might that accelerate our march toward full digital integration?
THAT PHONE IS DOPE
Before I dive into the full-blown cybernetic future, it must be acknowledged what’s already happening in our daily lives. Our relationship with technology is more than just practical—it’s chemical. Every time we receive a text message, scroll social media, or see a notification pop up; our brain rewards us with a small dopamine hit.
This neurotransmitter, responsible for pleasure and motivation, keeps us coming back for more, creating a cycle of dependency.
I got my wife a new Apple Watch for her birthday and every time that little bugger ‘pings’, she jerks her head to the left like she’s Taylor Swift’s choreographer!
A 2022 study from the National Institute for health shows that constant phone use can trigger similar neural pathways as addiction. The anticipation of new information, likes, or messages activates our brain’s reward system, reinforcing behaviors that keep us glued to our screens. This explains why the simple act of my wife instantly responding to the beep of her watch feels almost instinctual—her brain (like all of ours) has learned that engagement equals reward.
But what if this isn’t a bug of modern technology, but a feature of human evolution? What if our need for digital stimulation is simply revealing a greater capacity for constant cognitive engagement—one that we’ve barely begun to explore?
LET’S GET TOGETHER
If the brain is naturally wired to seek out information and connection, then it’s not hard to imagine a future where this process is streamlined—where instead of pulling out a phone, the information we seek is accessed instantly via neural implants.
Neuralink has that ultimate goal, I believe, and a similar story plays out in my series “The MindSet Chronicles” where a mind-sharing society grapples with the pluses and minuses of sharing thoughts, feelings and wisdom across billions of brains.
The positive of such a leap? The transition from external devices to internal interfaces. It just might eliminate the friction of current technology, allowing us to interact with data, AI, and even each other in real time. I can totally see that happening – perhaps in my lifetime.
This is where the comparisons to the Borg become inevitable. The Borg, as depicted in Star Trek, are a cybernetic collective where individual thought is replaced by a hive mind. While that version of human-machine fusion could be terrifying, the reality may be far more nuanced.
A neural-linked society doesn’t necessarily mean the loss of free will; rather, it could mean enhanced cooperation, real-time empathy, and the ability to share knowledge at unprecedented speeds.
Imagine a world where:
Experts could instantly transfer knowledge to others, eliminating the need for traditional schooling.
Human emotions could be directly understood and shared, removing barriers to empathy and communication.
Problem-solving happens on a global scale, with millions of minds collaborating effortlessly.
Is that what happened in MindSet? Well... not really, but it wouldn’t much of a novel if some bad shit didn’t go down.
But I digress. If our brains are already wired for connectivity, isn’t this just the next logical step?
ARE WE READY?
While the technology to create a real-time neural network isn’t fully here yet, we are already seeing the psychological conditioning that may drive for this transition. We are more connected than ever, and our dependence on technology has shifted from convenience to necessity. For a lot of us, being offline for extended periods induces anxiety—an early sign that digital integration is becoming inseparable from daily life.
My two youngest daughters (15 and 16) have active, busy lives, but take them away from the phone for more than an hour and man! This is another aspect of I introduce in the MindSet series: the concept of NeuroDrought; a very real condition in which the loss of connection causes the user feelings of depression, loneliness and a vacancy they can’t seem to fill without the stream of information flooding their senses.
So maybe with the onset of the man/machine merger, the biggest challenge may not be technological but philosophical. Are humans ready to give up some level of individuality for the sake of collective progress? Will the benefits of instant knowledge-sharing outweigh the risks of potential manipulation and loss of personal autonomy? And will any block in service create depression-level malaise with the user?
NeuroDrought could eventually become a real thing and is already showing its early signs in those connected to the phone 24/7.
WHERE DO WE DRAW THE LINE?
The closer we move toward seamless human-machine integration, the more we are going to have to grapple with its implications. There are definitely benefits—enhanced intelligence, greater empathy, and unparalleled access to knowledge—but also pretty strong risks.
For instance, who would control the network? Could thoughts be hacked? Will individuality become obsolete?
In the MindSet series, (sorry, more shameless plugs!), our protagonist Peter Eriksson, the creator of the MindSet integration, holds dominion over the Central processor that regulates the flow of information amongst the collective. Ideally his service to his creation and its users is noble, but as unforeseen challenges arise, he is ill-equipped to... Wait... what am I doing giving away the whole thing? Buy a copy already will ya??
There are those in our society who are still dealing with accepting the digital age, so adoption of these broad ideas and fantastic leaps forward will obviously be met with some scorn. But perhaps the answer lies not in rejecting this future, but in carefully shaping it.
The goal should not be assimilation, but augmentation—where technology enhances the best aspects of humanity rather than erasing them. As AI has grown, the attempts to make it safe for humans and never turning on us have not been as visible as the advancements themselves. I mean what could go wrong?
I believe we will one day become integrated with not only technology but also the AI we’ve uncovered. But instead of becoming the Borg, we very well could become something far more interesting: a society where the mind’s full potential is finally realized, and humanity’s worst traits erased for good.
In his brilliant short story, “The Last Question,” Isaac Asimov imagines a future (written in 1956) where an intelligent machine facilitates the assimilation of man and artificial intelligence, setting of a twenty-thousand-year evolution culminating in the ultimate synergistic relationship between humanity and knowledge.
Could that be us soon? I really believe it not only could be but will. We are at the precipice of something extraordinary. Our current relationship with technology, fueled by the brain’s reward system, is already nudging us toward deeper integration. AI will undoubtedly play a part in all this too. The next step—true neural connectivity—will challenge us to redefine what it means to be human.
Will that mean becoming a hive-minded society? Or will we find a way to balance collective intelligence with individuality?
As usual, that’s up to the people who develop the programs. I mean, you make drugs and people will take them. You produce a great movie, and people will flock to it. You make a tiny computer that fits in your pocket and allows you to look up anything that ever existed while simultaneously fighting with a stranger over politics and liking a cat video... and yeah, we’ll eat that up too.
I firmly believe that a technological symbiosis is inevitable and actually really exciting. But knowing us, we’ll probably just mess it up.
What do you think... are Techno-humans inevitable? And will we just mess it up?
No, we'll kill ourselves before we advance that far
Maybe, I mean there are some good things about technology
Hell yes we'll be machines and we're going to crush it!
I think we'll advance but... we always get in our own way
Comments