Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Paolo Ruffino]

A few questions regarding the next reading.

What do you think is "the cyborg"?

Do cyborg technologies create new ethical dilemmas?  Any examples?


Does the figure of the cyborg begin to dismantle traditional ideas we have about isolated human individuals who are entirely distinct from their surrounding environment?  (Or put another way, does it, perhaps, help to combat another aspect of the discontinuous mind with which we've all been infected?)

[star21]

I found this reading to be rather complex and quite difficult to understand. However from my understanding, 'the cyborg' can have many meanings. Gray uses the examples of the 'Terminator, a human skin over a complete robot' or 'Robocop' (p2). I view these examples to be stereotypical, what someone would define as a cyborg.

Gray explains that there are actually many cyborgs living among us within present day society. He says 'Anyone with an artificial organ, limb or supplement, anyone reprogrammed to resist disease or drugged to think/behave/feel better is technically a cyborg' (p2).

I find this point interesting and almost controversial. Does this make them less 'human' or less 'normal'?

[Dominique]

In terms of what is a "cyborg", I think the reading quite clearly states that there is no actual definition for the term but that there are several ramifications of the concept. For example, whilst reading the first few pages I immediately thought of Frankenstein, but then decided against the notion of branding him a "cyborg". He was in fact a creation, but I believe that post modern society has in reality made the term "cyborg" mainstream, as Gray argues that the "the word was coined almost 35 years ago, and was little used beyond the science fiction subculture" (p.47). In my opinion Gray argues that there is a wide range of human-machine relationships, and it has almost become a continuum post modernist movement our society adapts to. For example, medical research and the revolutionary science of bionic limbs. We as humans are, let's say, the "mild" representation of a cyborg where we strengthen our immune system through the use of machinery and medication in common situations such as industrial/office work to a minimal extent.
What I find really interesting about this reading is how we can relate it to Mcluhan's reading which hypothesizes technology being an "extension of ourselves".

The ethical dilemmas can be foreseen, but I think for now they will remain as social anxieties, until like McHugh argues, "soon it will be impossible to tell where human ends and machines behgin". I liked the example that Gray explores in this chapter about the cyborg language. This could be proposed as an ethical dilemma among others such as cultural repercussions. This controversial argument that highlights our inability to communicate as cyborgs is frightening, yet this theory was already applied the day we allowed our computers and phones to govern most mediums of our communication. The cyborg era can be related to almost any highly controversial subject such as euthanasia and weapons of mass destruction. Although the relationship between humans and machines have created a negative attitude towards the use of technology, we must also acknowledge the positive outcomes of this fixed and permanent alliance. I think what the key word here is "consciousness" and how we chose to adapt to these restricted yet absolute alterations.

[Georgina.]

I found it quite difficult to consider the idea that someone with an artifical limb or organ would by definition be considered to be a cyborg. However, I do feel that with the advances made in mechanics, science and medicine the ideas are inevitable, afterall what's the point in putting all of that knowledge into something without planning to use it to make a positive impact on human life. I'm sure there are those than would consider the idea of being referred to an unnatural and possibly a little frightening, but if you think about it I'm sure it's more the term 'cyborg' that causes this rather than the actual idea; when I first thought of 'cyborg' I immediatly thought of some robotic creature from the future (a la Terminator) until I carried on reading to think that by Gray's description, children in third world countries using the most basic prothestic limbs after a land mind accident, or your grandad with a pacemaker would both be considerd to be cyborgs. Sounds silly but thinking of it in this way made the whole thing seem a little less frightening and a little more incredible!

[maryjane]

I found the reading very interesting even though it was quite difficult to understand.

It is difficult to define what is considered to be a cyborg, however related to the reading a cyborg is a human being put together with technology. Although there are different meanings and theories of what a cyborg is, such as ' anyone with an artificial organ' to 'a human skin over a complete robot', I believe that we all are some kind of cyborg-character in our society.

With developing technology and the constant need to have it near us or on us (like being glued to your Iphone 4s :d) that the definition of "cyborg" will develop into meaning, that because technology will be so much a part of us like a pacemaker ( we cant live without it) we will soon all be considered a cyborg. Although Mcluhan says that technology is the extension of the limb it will soon not be considered as an extension, just an essential part of us. 

[dietcokeaddict91]

This text is extremely controversial as mentioned by a few members in this discussion the term "cyborg" may be deemed as being quite offensive. As stated in the text it is hard to say who is and who isn't a cyborg. In the paper it states that cyborg technologies are restorative, normalizing, re-configuring and enhancing. If someone is ill and needs to take a medicine to restore them to their better and healthier self, and the medicine has been created and developed with machinery does this mean they are a cyborg? It's quite an exaggerated idea, although in some respects I can see where the point is coming from.

[Dominique]

To add to what I previously already mentioned, I'd like to consider the use of power knowledge. Does this distort the idea and definition of a cyborg?
For instance, unless the audience is aware that the person is question has had some form of modification or drug induced in their bodies, there is no way of branding someone a "cyborg" unless it is visually made obvious. So basically, my point being, we can to a certain extent chose to represent ourselves as "cyborgs" or active consumers of the technological age, but it isn't necessarily a negative or direct practise. This could possibly lead to a cyborg sub culture in the future that embraces their body that has been enhanced with technological elements? As mentioned in the reading, imagination plays a huge role in cyborg theory but I think we can depict certain social anxieties relating to the theme, maybe the most important one being a monarchy of a superior race? In a way this raises the question of a discontinuous mind, and how we'd chose to acknowledge and appreciate a newly formed generation of cyborgs.

[dietcokeaddict91]

Dominique, I understand your point, but that is the same with anything. A person may know they are branded as something, maybe a vegetarian, or gay, or religious, just because the audience does not know they are these things, it does not stop them from being these things.

I agree with your point about the subculture, if the branding of cyborg became more popular there may be prejudice against these people or against people who are not cyborg. With the world becoming more and more advanced technologically, this is an issue that could occur.

[Paolo Ruffino]

Talking about prejudices and cyborgs, it might be seen as a related topic the ongoing debate over Paralympics games. You might remember the case of runner Oscar Pistoriushttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscar_Pistorius. The "fastest man with no legs" has been at the centre of a controversy for quite a long time. Many argue that his disability should be taken into account and the man should not be allowed in the same competitions with "normal" people. Others see this as a form of discrimination. Then there are usually the two following questions: "does he have an advantage over his competitors, thanks to his prosthesis?" and "if we accept Pistorius as 'normal', then what is the boundary to decide what sorts of body improvements, possibly including drugs, are allowed?". You can see here what Dawkins has called the 'discontinuous mind' in action in this debate. There is also a relevant ethical issue, indeed. Generally the Paralympics games are at the same time a form of inclusion but also of discrimination. Paralympics games accept the 'diverse' but in a sort of sub-category, of quasi-humans.

[Molly Ko]

Everyone has been discussing about prejudices and discrimination about cyborg, so does that mean that we could hardly have cyborg ethics?

[rihanna123]

With the idea of 'Cyborgs' I believe humans are most definitely defined as completely separate beings- however within human nature- along with great advances in science we will always search for more- possibly greater versions of ourselves. Not necessarily in the mind but possibly in the body. An example taken from the reading was the case of the grandmother who received a pacemaker- it is believed that although she herself did not become a machine- life was only given through this machine. Once she died- the heart was still beating because of the pacemaker. The idea that a machine can still allow the human to function is quite a controversial point here. This raises many ethical issues. In turn the idea of separating the soul from the body? The idea that we are more than versions of our former selves. I found the seminar really interesting because we all had very different ideas- when I think of Cyborg's I tend to think of the Terminator- mainstream Hollywood has played upon the idea of Cyborg's and made them fitting into film and television- playing upon fiction. However they actually exist around us all the time!  Medical advances for those who have suffered- those who need prosthesis, is surely helping them feel more human- allowing people like Oscar Pistorius to lead more normal lives, but what is normal? I believe that as long as the mind isn't altered then we can never really be defined as 'Cyborg's'
I recently watched a programme about a Sperm donor set in the U.S. what was fascinating was the way technology managed to play God- A man had fathered 6 different children- thanks to the technology available- he referred to himself as 'a soul catcher' In many ways the way human's can interfere with the unnatural, with technology itself. The idea of designer babies- once more down to advances in technology. If this is the future, then it could be possible in that sense- that a few are created not necessarily in the most natural way, but to become an actual 'cyborg' seems quite unrealistic- unless I am getting confused with the term!

[zippy]

While there are many advantages of the 'cyborg' concept (such as artificial limbs and immunisations as mentioned in the text) it's important to consider just how far this could go. McLuhan wrote about how media is becoming an extension of our bodies, and through analysing the text and the show and tell, it's clear to see that while McLuhan was talking of things such as the wheel and clothing, his idea has progressed and now applies to today's technology and how reliant we are on it. We know that technology is continually developing further and further and we're becoming more and more reliant on it - could this be a problem for the 'cyborg'? Are we going to start relying too heavily on the things that make us a 'cyborg' and lose more and more of our human identity?

[Sian]

We understand of the discontinuous mind that we consider ourselves, humans, of higher value than other species and categorise value according to the strength of the human connection to other categories, a cow more so than a plant for example. Considering the 'cyborg' concept and reference to pacemakers, prosthesis and behaviour, performance or hormone altering medication consider that people undergo these procedures and take this medication in order to more accurately fit into this elite category that we define as 'human' and normal'.

People with behavioural or developmental disorders may take medication in order to carry out 'normal' lives as active members of society, much like those with physical disabilities and survivors of accidents or violence who undergo surgery to achieve or regain a complete, fully functioning human body. It seems however the discontinuous mind is not that easily persuaded and further categories within categories emerge, in this case 'cyborgs' which although poorly defined provides a label for those deemed to be not quite human, be it less or more so.

Although, as psychology tells us, categories are something we can not get away from or function without the problems arising from the concept of 'cyborgs' seems to depend on any threat these technological interventions may pose to our superior species. As Paolo mentioned in case of the Paralympics and Oscar Pistorius, the games "accept the 'diverse' but in a sort of sub-category, of quasi-humans" and it is argued by some that Oscar has an 'unfair advantage' - without his prothesis Oscar Pistorius would not be able to walk or run - arguably a basic human function. Interestingly performance enhancing drugs are largely if not totally condemned, as these drugs are seen to enhance all that is 'normal' - perhaps beyond human. Is it this factor that renders this cheating and unfair? Maybe such further labelling takes place in the discontinuous mind because attempting to join the elite is acceptable but trying to out-do is not?

Depending on which application of 'cyborg' we focus on (technological or medical) in my opinion alters the weighting of the concept, where talking technologically the term seems milder and less potentially offensive. I think Zippy's comment about human identity is interesting and how or if technology can result in loss of this. Perhaps communicative technology makes 'cyborgs' of us all - as we use this forum to discuss this topic and the frequency with which we engage with or act through technology day to day. Perhaps while technology in this sense allows us to adapt, evolve, become more efficient and more inventive, in a way that we deem necessary, natural and acceptable, physical alterations be it 'normalising' or 'enhancing'  risks creating another 'us' and 'them' where we, the unmodified humans, unprecedentedly become the inferior 'them'.

[popcorn]

  I do not believe that the Haraway’s definition of a cyborg of the union of the machinic and the organic is sufficient for a definition of a cyborg. More than one type of cyborg does exist. I would define one as the accomplishment of machinery and electricity being able to function at a human level where that of another material is more powerful than that of the human body.

[popcorn]

Some of the greatest ethical dilemas are created through cyborgs. Morally the concept in itself is interfering with notions of true humanity therefore nearly all would be religious. It challenges how far we can create something as powerful as ourselves. it blurs our boundaries between man made and either supernatural or natural depening on where you satnd philosophically and morally. Gray raises how 'the integration of machinery into cultures, lives and bodies has become pronounced' page 4, We ultimately could be increasing its value and importance of technology in human lives so that it is able to ocntrol and interfere with them even if it is for their good.